Nation’s Mayors Support Gay Marriage But Complain About Unemployment

DC, Washington, United States (AHN) – The U.S. Conference of Mayors wrapped up its winter meeting Friday in Washington, D.C., with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stepping into controversies on same sex marriage and education.

Emanuel joined about 80 other mayors from across the nation in endorsing laws to give legal recognition to same sex marriage, along with the tax breaks and other benefits spouses can share.

The mayors signed on to a statement that said, “Our cities derive great strength from their diversity and gay and lesbian families are a crucial part. Studies have shown what we know through our hands-on experience that cities that celebrate and cultivate diversity are the places where creativity and ideas thrive.”

Emanuel supported the Illinois Legislature’s effort last year to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

He said New York did “a good thing” last June when state lawmakers legalized gay marriage.

In separate comments Friday, Emanuel discussed his plan to turn Chicago’s community colleges into training institutions for the city’s employers.

Currently, Chicago’s City Colleges have a graduation rate of about 7 percent and job prospects for graduates that are “not as high,” Emanuel said.

His plan calls for each of the city’s seven community colleges to operate with specialties, such as health care, transportation, hospitality and manufacturing.

In addition, employers would be brought in to develop curricula that would train the students to become their employees.

“I want it to have economic value” to attend college, Emanuel said at the downtown Washington hotel where about 250 mayors were meeting.

Turning colleges into job training institutions is controversial among some academics, who say a well-rounded education requires liberal arts courses that include literature, history and the arts.

Nevertheless, job creation and recovery from the economic disaster of the Great Recession were dominant themes throughout the meeting this week.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a report that said the nation’s metropolitan areas will struggle for five more years to regain jobs lost during the recession that started in September 2008.

“The recovery is very uneven across U.S. regions, with the southeastern and southwestern metro [areas that] were the most affected by the housing bubble looking ahead to years of recovery,” the report says.

U.S. nonfarm payrolls will grow about 1.3 percent this year, which is unlikely to reduce the unemployment rate below 8 percent, according to a report by IHS Global Insight.

The report predicts the nation will regain nearly half the jobs lost during the Great Recession by the end of 2012.

The mayors used the economic report to try to prod Congress to approve legislation that would create more jobs.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, president of the Conference of Mayors, said “Congress has jumped ship” in its obligation to stimulate the economy and employment.

However, Villaraigosa acknowledged cities will have a hard time squeezing money out of Congress at a time the federal government is trying to reduce its deficit by cutting spending.

View full post on All Stories

Court gives Postal Service second chance to raise rates

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The U.S. Postal Service might still have a chance to raise its rates by more than 5 percent after a federal court ruling this week.

The Postal Service tried to raise its rates earlier this year but the plan was rejected by the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the agency.

The U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled this week that the Postal Regulatory Commission must better explain why it rejected the proposed rate increase before it can block a rate increase for the nation’s mail.

“While we continue to evaluate the court’s opinion and ruling to understand the full implications and options it presents to the Postal Service, we have renewed confidence that we are entitled to a rate increase under the exigency provision,” the Postal Service said in a statement.

The dispute is further evidence of the Postal Service’s failing fortunes as electronic mail and the nation’s staggering economy take a deep bite out of its finances.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 says the Postal Service can raise postage fees no more than the rise in the Consumer Price Index. The index represents an average price for typical consumer products, such as gasoline and some food items.

However, the federal law grants an exception for “either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.”

Attorneys for the Postal Service argued that the recession that began in December 2007 created the “extraordinary” circumstances that would justify raising postage rates above the consumer price index.

The recession resulted in lower mail volume, which hurt the Postal Service’s revenue.

Before the Postal Service can raise its rates, it must apply for permission to the Postal Regulatory Commission. The commission is an agency whose leaders are appointed by the president.

The Postal Regulatory Commission denied the Postal Service’s request to raise rates above the consumer price index. The commission said the Postal Service failed to prove its drop in revenue was “due to” the recession. The “due to” proof is required by federal law.

Other factors that traditionally have hurt Postal Service revenue include e-mail and competition with private mail carriers, such as UPS and FedEx.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Postal Regulatory Commission relied on “ambiguous” language in the federal law.

“It incorrectly concluded the plain meaning of that ['due to'] phrase requires the proposed rate adjustments to be ‘tailored to offset the specific effects of the claimed exigency,’” the court’s ruling said.

The court concluded that the Postal Regulatory Commission must better explain why the Postal Service’s request to raise rates by 5.6 percent is unjustified before the postage increase can be blocked.

The court dispute follows by days a dismal quarterly report from the Postal Service that showed it lost $2.2 billion in the second quarter of fiscal 2011. The Postal Service lost $1.6 billion in the same quarter of last year. Mail volume fell another 3 percent in the second quarter of this year.

Bad business is forcing the Postal Service to look harder at touch choices, such as ending Saturday mail service and asking Congress for a financial bailout that could reach $90 billion, according to policy analysts.

However, Postal Service officials have made a strong case for themselves in recent congressional hearings.

The estimated 170 billion pieces of mail they handle each year come from companies and individuals worth about $10 trillion. Many of the companies rely heavily on the Postal Service to continue operating.

The Postal Service also employs 520,000 workers on no taxpayer subsidies. The Postal Service is the nation’s second largest employer, surpassed only by Wal-Mart.

View full post on All Stories

Supreme Court considers if illegal immigrants qualify for in-state tuition rates

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce as soon as next week whether it will hear an appeal involving California’s controversial law that grants illegal immigrants in-state tuition at public universities.

The immigrants say they could not afford college if they paid the higher out-of-state tuition rates.

Opponents of the law say taxpayers should not have to subsidize lawbreakers like illegal immigrants.

The controversy extends beyond California to 10 other states that grant reduced tuition to illegal immigrants. Out-of-state tuition can be triple in-state rates.

Courts took up the case of Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California in 2005 when students who paid out-of-state tuition sued the Board of Regents.

They accused the university of violating a 1996 federal law that prohibits public institutions from giving benefits to illegal immigrants.

The University of California’s attorneys argued the state law, AB540, was narrowly written to avoid conflicts with the federal law.

Illegal immigrants can get in-state tuition only if they attend a California high school for three years and graduate.

The same benefit is granted to any graduates of the state’s high schools, thereby eliminating legal U.S. residency as the issue in getting in-state college tuition, attorneys for the University of California argued.

The trial court agreed with the university and dismissed the lawsuit.

However, the California Court of Appeal for the Third District reversed the trial court, saying the state law is preempted by federal law. In other words, illegal immigrants cannot receive in-state tuition.

On appeal in November, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.

Now, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s turn to decide the dispute, this time with a likelihood of influencing debate in Congress over how to reform immigration laws.

The Supreme Court justices this week discussed whether to grant the case a hearing or let the California Supreme Court decision stand.

Just before the California Supreme Court accepted the case, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wrote a letter to the state’s highest court saying the dispute reaches “into the heart of the national debate about illegal immigration.”

Utah, along with New York and Texas, is among the states that allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition.

Other states, such as Arizona, are strongly opposed to granting any benefits to illegal immigrants.

They have been joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law group, which filed an amicus brief that supports cutting off in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

If the state law granting in-state tuition is upheld, “overburdened state taxpayers, who are suffering under California’s devastated economy, will be forced to continue subsidizing the college education of adult illegal immigrants,” the Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement.

The foundation says in-state tuition gives the equivalent of a taxpayer-subsidized scholarship worth between $43,884 to $80,872 at a four year college.

However, LatinoJustice, a civil rights organization that filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a statement that the lawsuit against AB540 “threatens to erect an insurmountable barrier for high-achieving high school graduates from pursuing higher education in hopes of bettering themselves and benefiting their communities as a whole.”

View full post on All Stories

California farmers complain to Congress about environmental regulations

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – A congressional committee heard impassioned testimony Tuesday from farmers in California who are trying to hang on to their livelihoods while dealing with Environmental Protection Agency rules they describe as an economic burden.

The hearing was part of an “effort to identify and resolve regulatory impediments to job creation,” a committee staff member told All Headline News.

The Republican chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa of California, called some federal regulations “problematic” as the nation struggles with high unemployment.

“We know that the private sector is going to have to lead this nation’s economic recovery effort and it’s important for us to hear what is holding back efforts to create new jobs,” Issa said.

The nation’s unemployment rate stands at 8.8 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

The hearing Tuesday is one of series of hearings the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is conducting with leaders of several industries on the impact of federal regulations.

The hearing in Salinas came during a rough week for the EPA.

On Monday, 170 members of Congress accused the agency of acting without congressional authority in expanding Clean Water Act regulations.

“In difficult economic times throughout our country, it is critical that we do not unilaterally make decisions that will disenfranchise farmers and American workers while we are making efforts necessary to protect clean water,” Rep. Tim Holden (D-Pa.) said in a letter to the EPA signed by the congressmen.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a case in which attorneys for six states argued a federal court should have authority to order utilities to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, rather than leaving the regulation to the EPA.

During the hearing in Salinas, Calif., representatives of agricultural groups described farmers as becoming desperate during the economic recession of the past three years.

“American farmers are at crossroads,” said Tom Nassif, president of the Western Growers Association, in his testimony. “With a regulatory environment that is stifling job creation and economic opportunity, the majority of us must rely on off-farm income to support our families, an increasing number of us are moving our production off-shore, and some of us are simply shutting down our operations.”

Often, farmers and other industries have rules imposed on them “without the benefit of the best available science and experience, without public review of data and modeling and without serious stakeholder engagement,” Nassif said. “The resulting regulatory requirements are often inflexible and impractical.”

The hearing in Salinas follows a recent Oversight and Government Reform Committee report that found federal regulations fall harder on small businesses than large corporations.

The report said “small firms bear a regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee whereas large firms with more than 500 employees incur a cost of $7,755 per employee to comply with federal regulations.”

Even large industries are struggling under tough EPA regulations, the report said.

Utilities face 35 deadlines on emissions control between 2009 and 2017. Two utilities were forced to shut down after being unable to meet EPA regulatory standards.

Financial industry regulations are expected to reduce the industry’s economic growth by 4 percent, the report said.

“Uncertainty of future regulation chills capital formation and can leave U.S. businesses with less investment capital if the money is diverted to foreign markets,” the report said.

James Bogart, president of the Grower-Shippers Association of Central California, said the EPA often seeks to protect the environment without fully considering the economic consequences.

“It is vitally important from a public policy perspective to have EPA thoroughly explain the costs, as well as any potential benefits, of their proposed regulatory actions, before they take them,” Bogart said.

View full post on All Stories

International criticism rises over uncontrolled U.S. debt

Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Concern and criticism are rising from abroad as difficulties of the U.S. government in controlling its debt threaten international markets.

So far this week, the Russian prime minister accused U.S. economic planners of “hooliganism” and the chief economist for the International Monetary Fund criticized Congress for lacking a “credible” plan for escaping more than $14 trillion in debt.

On Tuesday, China urged the U.S. government to take “responsible” steps to control its debt. China owns more U.S. debt than any other country.

On Monday, the credit rating service Standard & Poors downgraded the U.S. government’s credit from stable to negative.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats are fighting over whether to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling refers to the highest amount of debt the U.S. government can assume under the law.

At the current rate, the U.S. government will reach its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on May 16, according to the U.S. Treasury.

Republican leaders said again Thursday they will agree to raise the debt ceiling only if they get guarantees of drastic spending cuts for the federal budget.

Democrats are reluctant to make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which they say are vital to many households.

The unresolved dispute prompted International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard to tell the French magazine Le Monde, “There are reasons to be worried.”

“The United States lacks a credible plan, for the medium term, to reduce its budget deficit,” Blanchard said in the magazine interview.

“The ideological gap is huge between Democrats and Republicans on how to deal with the problem,” Blanchard said.

An International Monetary Fund report last week said U.S. debt could reach 100 percent of its gross domestic product by 2015 without drastic budget cutbacks.

Even harsher criticism came from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who said during his annual address to parliament that “everything is not so good for our friends in the States.”

The U.S. economy is teetering as a result of a huge trade imbalance between imports and exports and growing annual budget deficits, he said.

Russia does not “have the luxury for such hooliganism,” Putin said.

He also accused the United States of flooding international markets with cash that lacks value because of the high debt.

The Treasury Department is buying back $600 billion in government securities in an effort to pump up the value of the dollar.

Mexican economists say the U.S. government’s inability to control its debt will result in increased cash flow into Mexico, an appreciation in the value of the peso, volatility in its stock market and higher unemployment.

Mexico’s economic trends are closely tied to the U.S. economy.

Gabriel Perez del Peral, an American University economist, said an increased value for the peso would slow Mexico’s exports.

“The change in perspective for U.S. debt will generate a greater appreciation of currencies for emerging markets and will complicate unemployment,” Perez told the Mexican news media.

He urged the Bank of Mexico to adopt cautious policies to protect the value of the country’s currency.

“The peso’s appreciation will generate greater unemployment and the economy will overheat, which will increase commodity prices,” Perez said.

View full post on All Stories