P.P. Cartoon

Big Labor defends Planned Parenthood, calls attacks 'extremist,' 'politically motivated'

Two of the country’s biggest and most powerful labor unions have come to the defense of Planned Parenthood, amid a series of recently released videos in which leaders of the group are seen bargaining for the sale price of fetal tissues and organs, according to Watchdog.org.
“We stand united with our allies at Planned Parenthood, champions of quality healthcare and a cornerstone of vital services to millions of Americans for decades,” Mary Kay Henry, Service Employees International Union president, said in a statement this week.
Henry made the statement after the release of at least two videos and after the Republican-controlled Congress began to take action to stop federal funding for the group, which provides abortions and other women’s medical services.
The for-profit sale of aborted body parts by Planned Parenthood for research is illegal. The group has apologies for the statements made in the videos but says the discussions were about the cost of covering expenses and that there has been no wrongdoing.
"Efforts in Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood by anti-women, anti-choice extremists must be stopped,” Henry also said in the statement.
The union coalition AFL-CIO is also backing Planned Parenthood, which receives about $500,000 annually from the federal government.
Union President Richard Trumka called the stealthy recorded videos “doctored” and said efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are “politically motivated and wrong.”
The membership ranks of the AFL-CIO’s two largest affiliates -- American Federation of Teachers and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- include government workers. And many of AFT’s members are nurses.
None of the union groups contacted by Watchdog.org responded to a request to comment.
AFL-CIO, AFSCME and SEIU helped pass ObamaCare through Congress early in President Obama’s first term and continue to work together.
AFSCME, for example, paid Planned Parenthood’s political action wing $400,000 in 2014, $20,000 in 2013 and $20,000 in 2011. And the payments were reported to the Labor Department as a “political program support” expenses, according to Watchdog.org.

Billionaires bankrolling 2016 campaign to unprecedented degree

Billionaires are bankrolling the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign to an unprecedented degree, with at least 40 of the wealthiest Americans plowing $60 million into super PACs aligned with the top tier of candidates.
The torrent of super PAC money is revolutionizing presidential politics in the wake of a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals into these outside groups.
Super PACs backing 17 presidential candidates raised more than $250 million in the first six months of this year, roughly doubling the $125 million raised by the candidates for their campaigns, disclosure reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission show
The proliferation of the committees also is transforming how presidential campaigns will be run. Some candidates are exporting to outside groups some core components of their operations, including voter-turnout programs and television advertising. Since federal law prohibits coordination with super PACs, the candidates won’t have direct control over some essential tasks, pushing the 2016 race into uncharted territory.
The broad engagement by wealthy donors also helps explain why the GOP field, in particular, keeps expanding. Almost every one of the primary candidates has a billionaire at his back, which means the life of their candidacies is now divorced from their ability to directly raise money from voters.
Renaissance Technologies executive Robert Mercer is the biggest donor in the presidential race so far: he wrote an $11 million check to a group backing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Diane Hendricks, the billionaire head of a roofing supply company, gave $5 million to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s super PAC, while auto dealer Norman Braman gave $5 million to a group supporting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Two super PACs supporting former Texas Gov. Rick Perry raked in more than $11 million from just two Texas billionaires. The super PAC backing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie counts about a dozen billionaires among its supporters. And a group aligned with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton received $7.5 million from at least eight billionaires, including financier Donald Sussman, investor George Soros and Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl.
The committee backing Jeb Bush was the most aggressive in adapting to the less regulated political environment. Half of the 40 billionaires identified by The Wall Street Journal donated a combined $17.4 million to Right to Rise USA while it was on the way to raising an unprecedented $103 million. That super PAC far surpassed its rivals in a crowded GOP field as well as Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

Texas Attorney General indicted for felony securities fraud, prosecutor says

A grand jury has indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on felony securities fraud charges that accuse the Republican of misleading investors before he became the state’s top law enforcement officer, a special prosecutor said on Saturday.
Kent Schaffer, a Houston defense attorney appointed by a judge to the case, told The New York Times that a Texas grand jury indicted Paxton on two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser charge of not registering.
Paxton also allegedly encouraged investment in McKinney-based tech startup company Severgy Inc., which is now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Associated Press reported Paxton’s involvement with the company – and that a federal investigation was under way – last month.
Paxton was also fined last year for not disclosing to Texas securities regulators that he was getting commissions for soliciting investors.
Joe Kendall, Paxton’s lawyer, said in a statement on Saturday night saying the judge overseeing the case “has specifically instructed both parties to refrain from public comment on this matter and we are honoring the judge’s instructions.”
That came after Schaffer and his co-special prosecutor in the case, Brian Wice, issued a statement that only hinted at the indictment. The defense attorneys said they were dedicated to ensuring that anyone accused of a crime is guaranteed a presumption of innocence and a fair trial.
"Because our statutory mandate as special prosecutors is not to convict, but to see that justice is done, our commitment to these bedrock principles remains inviolate," they said.
Paxton’s aides have said the investigation in Collin County was politically motivated. That allegation has been rebuffed by Schaffer and Wice, the lead attorney in former Republic U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay’s successful appeal of his money laundering conviction.
Schaffer told The Times that the allegations regarding Servergy are first-degree securities fraud. He said Paxton is accused of encouraging investors in 2011 to put more than $600,000 into Servergy, while not telling them he was making a commission on their investment and misrepresenting himself as an investor. He said Paxton is expected to turn himself on Monday, the same day the new indictment is expected to be unsealed.
Conviction of a first-degree felony in Texas carries a punishment ranging from five years to life in prison.
Paxton is also accused to failing to register as a solicitor while taking commissions for referring law clients to a financial investor. That charge, a third-degree felony, could bring two to 10 years in prison if convicted.
Paxton accepted a $1,000 fine from the Texas State Securities board last year. At the time, the state board declined to pursue criminal charges. But the matter was revived after a complaint by the left-leaning watchdog group Texans for Public Justice, and a judge ultimately appointed the two special prosecutors.
"It is time for Paxton to face the consequences. This is yet another example of the corrupt culture that fester with one-party, unchecked Republican power," Texas Democratic Party Executive Director Manny Garcia said.
The cloud of a criminal investigation has shadowed Paxton while he emerged as a national Republican figure during his first six months as Texas' attorney general.
A tea party star in Texas, Paxton recently advised county clerks they could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the unions nationwide.

Obama set to announce steeper emissions cuts from US power plants

President Barack Obama will impose steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.
The Obama administration is expected to finalize the rule at a White House event on Monday, a year after proposing unprecedented carbon dioxide limits. Obama, in a video posted on Facebook, said the limits were backed up by decades of data and facts showing that without tough action, the world will face more extreme weather and escalating health problems like asthma.
"Climate change is not a problem for another generation," Obama said. "Not anymore."
Initially, Obama had mandated a 30 percent nationwide cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The final version, which follows extensive consultations with environmental groups and the energy industry, will require a 32 percent cut instead, according to White House officials.
Opponents said they would sue the government immediately. The also planned to ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out.
The steeper version also gives states an additional two years to comply, officials said, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. The new deadline is set for 2022. States will also have until 2018 instead of 2017 to submit their plans for how they intend to meet their targets.
The focus on renewables marks a significant shift from the earlier proposal that sought to accelerate the ongoing shift from coal-fired power to natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix the same as it is now.
The stricter limits included the final plan were certain to incense energy industry advocates who had already balked at the more lenient limits in the proposed plan. However, the Obama administration said its tweaks would cut energy costs and address concerns about power grid reliability.
The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.
In the works for years, the power plant rule forms the cornerstone of Obama's plan to curb U.S. emissions and keep global temperatures from climbing, and its success is pivotal to the legacy Obama hopes to leave on climate change. Never before has the U.S. sought to restrict carbon dioxide from existing power plants.
By clamping down on power plant emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he's seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005. Other major polluting nations have also stepped up including China, which pledged to halt its growth in emissions by 2030 despite an economy that's still growing.
Power plants account for at least one-third of all emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming in the U.S. Obama’s rule assigns customized targets for each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet their targets.
More than a dozen states have already made plans to fight the rule, even before it was revealed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has urged some Republican governors to refuse to comply, setting up a confrontation with the EPA, which by law can force its own plan on states that fail to submit implementation plans.
Yet in those states, power companies and local utilities have started preparing to meet those targets. New, more efficient plants are replacing older ones have already pushed emissions down nearly 13 percent since 2005.
In Congress, lawmakers have sought to use legislation to stop Obama's regulation, and McConnell has tried previously to use an obscure, rarely successful maneuver under the Congressional Review Act to allow Congress to vote it down.
The more serious threat to Obama's rule will likely come in the courts. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents energy companies, said 20 to 30 states were poised to join with industry in suing over the rule.
The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court ruled against 15 states and a coal company that tried to block the power plant rule before it was finalized. The Supreme Court has also affirmed Obama's authority to regulate pollution crossing state lines and to use the decades-old Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases — the legal underpinning for the power plant rule.
But the high court in June ruled against his mercury emissions limits, arguing the EPA failed to properly account for costs. Federal courts have also forced Obama to redo other clean air standards that industry groups complained were too onerous.
With the end of Obama's presidency drawing nearer, his climate efforts have become increasingly entangled in the next presidential election. The power plant rule won't go into effect until long after Obama leaves office, putting its implementation in the hands of his successor. Among other Republican critics, 2016 candidate and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has said he would drastically scale down the EPA if elected and shift most of its duties to state regulators.