NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label executive order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive order. Show all posts

07 April 2017

In One Executive Order, Trump Revoked Years of Workplace Protections for Women 6APR17

 :

BOHICA LADIES! THIS is no surprise, the drumpf/trump-pence administration has a neanderthal mentality about women and their place in all aspects of American society. Fotze ivanka drumpf/trump is a greedy, conniving hure and I am sure she will be called out for what she is and what her real agenda is in Berlin. From +Mother Jones.....

In One Executive Order, Trump Revoked Years of Workplace Protections for Women

He pulled parental leave and sexual harassment protections the week before Equal Pay Day.





President Trump and his daughter Ivanka meet with female small business owners at the White House last month 
In 2014, President Barack Obama signed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order. It required companies with federal contracts to heed 14 different labor and civil rights laws, including ones aimed at protecting parental leave, weeding out discrimination against women and minorities, and ensuring equal pay for women and fair processes surrounding workplace sexual harassment allegations.
Last week, Trump revoked this order, leaving workers at thousands of companies much more vulnerable to a host of abuses from their employers—and undoing protections meant to create more equitable workplaces for women.
"We have an executive order that essentially forces women to pay to keep companies in business that discriminate against them—with their own tax dollars," Noreen Farrell, the director of Equal Rights Advocates, told NBC. "It's an outrage."
One provision of the now-revoked order required paycheck transparency by companies holding federal contracts, in which they had to provide all employees with detailed statements of their hours and compensation—a measure that's particularly important for protecting workers against wage theft. A second provision that was jettisoned banned the use of forced arbitration clauses by federal contractors in handling sexual harassment or discrimination claims in their workplaces. These types of clauses—which require allegations to be settled privately outside of court in usually secret proceedings—are a way for companies to preemptively keep sexual harassment allegations out of the public eye.
Trump's order also revokes the requirement that companies seeking federal contracts disclose three year's worth of violations of the Equal Employment Opportunity executive order, first signed in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson and since amended to include protections surrounding gender. The order now states that companies with federal contracts "will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin."
Nor will companies bidding on federal contracts be required to reveal their last three year's worth of violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires that many companies provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave to new parents.
The day before President Trump signed this order, it was reported that his daughter Ivanka—who has regularly spoken about her father's plans to improve protections for working moms, and who is currently pushing a child care tax credit as part of the administration's upcoming tax reform initiative—would represent the United States at an upcoming women's empowerment summit in Berlin. Here is her tweet:


03 June 2016

Demand a 2016 Election Day Holiday!

democracyday
VOTER turnout in America is pathetic and is something we should be ashamed of. Most countries hold their elections on the weekend so more people can vote. We should do the same. Until then, we can ask President Obama to declare Tuesday, 8 NOV 16 a one time federal holiday. Click here to sign the petition and here to sign on as a sponsor of +Senator Bernie Sanders bill to make election day Democracy Day, a national holiday. Thank you Bernie!!!!!

President Obama,
I urge you to use your authority to make the November 8th, 2016, Election Day a one-time federal holiday.
As you know, our democracy is in crisis. Fewer than 40% of Americans voted in our last midterm election, and our overall turnout rarely breaks 60%. That puts us at 120th out of 169 countries for average voter turnout. This is unacceptable for a country founded on the bold idea of a democracy for and by the people.
Instead of taking actions to make voting more accessible, some in positions of power are implementing more and more voter suppression tactics, most of which resulted from the Supreme Court’s gutting of the historic Voting Rights Act. Since this decision, nearly every state has introduced bills to make voting harder, and many states have done just that through discriminatory voter photo ID bills or drastic cuts to early voting days, same day registration, and other suppressive measures.
This is all on top of our problematic voting infrastructure that leaves poor communities and communities of color stuck in prohibitively long lines at polls during every national election.
I am not willing to stand by and let this be the America I live in.
That is why I am calling on you to restore democracy and make the 2016 Election Day a one-time federal holiday – and thereby give all states and businesses permission to follow your lead.
This will be a concrete step toward increasing access to voting by giving busy families more time to vote while decreasing lines at the peak times before and after work. And this executive action will help shine a well-needed spotlight on poor turnout and voting access in this country. It would be a step in the right direction toward making the polling place more – not less – accessible.
I urge you to lead on this issue and help us take this important step toward reclaiming the democracy we deserve.
Prioritize democracy above all else for just one day.
Thank you,
Brave New Films
Common Cause
Courage Campaign
Daily Kos
Left Action
People Demanding Action
People For the American Way
Presente.org
RootsAction.org
The Nation
Watchdog.net
Why Tuesday?

09 November 2015

Signature needed: Executive order to make Election Day a federal holiday 8NOV15


TOO many people don't vote, a very sad commentary on the state of our democracy. If making election day a federal holiday boost voter turnout for all political parties I'm all for it. We have nothing to loose by giving this a try, and if Pres Obama declares, by executive order, election day, 8 NOV 16, a federal holiday the results might motivate congress to make each national election day a federal holiday. Click the link to sign, and share this with others. From +Daily Kos and +Brave New Films  .....
PLEASE sign the petition by Daily Kos and allies urging that President Obama make Election Day 2016 a federal holiday. Click here to sign.

Our democracy is in crisis, with voter turnout at an abysmal low. And with the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act in 2013, things are only getting worse.

But there is one simple thing President Obama can do: He can sign an executive order to make Election Day 2016 a federal holiday, like it already is in so many other countries.

Sign the petition by Daily Kos and other allies in demanding that we make Election Day a federal holiday.

Keep fighting,
Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos

Demand a 2016 Election Day Holiday! • BRAVE NEW FILMS 

 


13 February 2014

Chain email claims Barack Obama has signed 1,000 executive orders to grab power from Congress 6FEB14

AGAIN, ignorance, prejudice, and racism are the reasons some people believe and pass on e mails like this. Here is the truth about the number of executive orders Pres Obama has issued, the record of presidents since Pres Franklin Roosevelt and the facts about executive orders. From PolitiFact.....
 
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Chain email

Says President Barack Obama has issued upwards of 1,000 executive orders, more than any modern president.

Chain email on Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 in a chain email forwarded by readers

Chain email claims Barack Obama has signed 1,000 executive orders to grab power from Congress

In his State of the Union address last month, President Barack Obama said he doesn’t intend to wait if Congress doesn’t move forward on his priorities in 2014.
"I'm eager to work with all of you," Obama said Jan. 28. "But America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
That means using his executive office — "I've got a pen and I've got a phone," he has taken to saying lately — to accomplish his agenda, if necessary.
Republicans have lashed out in response, insisting Obama is overstepping his authority. Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa, even threatened to sue the president.
We also saw an old chain email resurface claiming that Obama has already issued more executive orders than any of his predecessors. It first gained attention in the fall of 2012.
"This president is determined to take control away from the House and Senate," the email says, while providing a tally of presidential executive orders from Teddy Roosevelt to Obama. The email claims Obama issued 923 executive orders in his first 3.5 years and "More than 1000+ and counting executive orders in six years."
It goes on to list a handful of examples of Obama’s alleged work. (Read the chain email in its entirety.)
As we dug into its claims, we found that pretty much everything about this email is wrong. And most of it was already debunked more than a year ago by our good friends at FactCheck.org.
But several readers sent it to us again, and since the issue of executive authority has become newsworthy of late, we thought this deserved an update.
By the numbers
The tradition of executive orders dates back to our first president, George Washington, though it was used sparingly through the first 100 years of the union.
Executive orders are official actions taken by the president directing the federal government and bureaucracies. They carry the power of law, but can be revoked or amended by future administrations and are limited in scope. For example, Obama cannot use executive orders to raise the minimum wage for the entire country, but he can (and plans to) raise the minimum wage for workers hired under new federal contracts to $10.10 an hour.
The process picked up under Ulysses S. Grant, who issued 217 executive orders, nearly 140 more than his predecessor Andrew Johnson, who himself almost doubled Abraham Lincoln, the previous record holder.
After Grant, it became commonplace for presidents to issue more than 100 executive orders. In fact, four presidents have eclipsed 1,000 executive orders: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Notice Obama is absent from that list.)
Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,522 executive orders during his 12-plus years in office.
But according to the chain email, FDR used his pen infrequently and issued a paltry 11 executive orders -- another inaccuracy.
Here’s the incorrect tallies of presidential executive orders in the chain email versus the actual numbers, provided by the University of California Santa Barbara The American Presidency Project.
President
Executive orders according
to chain email (false)
Actual number of
executive orders

Franklin Roosevelt
11
3,522
Harry Truman
7
907
Dwight Eisenhower
2
484
John F. Kennedy
4
214
Lyndon Johnson
4
325
Richard Nixon
1
346
Gerald Ford
3
169
Jimmy Carter
3
320
Ronald Reagan
5
381
George H.W. Bush
3
166
Bill Clinton
15
364
George W. Bush
62
291
Barack Obama
1000+
168*
*As of Jan. 20, 2014
It’s obvious the chain email is way off. Not only is Obama far from the most prolific user of executive orders, at this point he’s not even on pace to surpass President George W. Bush’s total. In fact, unless he picks up speed, Obama will likely sign fewer executive orders than any two-term president since the start of the 20th century.
Judging the acts
That’s not the only part where the chain email invokes an alternate reality. It also lists 14 executive orders Obama signed that allegedly usurp traditional executive powers, including things like seizing control of the media, railroads, waterways and correctional institutions. The email invited us to "Feel free to verify the ‘executive orders’ at will."
When we looked up the specific executive order numbers that the chain email mentioned, we found that they were all signed by other presidents. Also, those order numbers matched up with executive orders on either entirely different topics or orders that were much more limited in scope. Here's the rundown:

Executive order number
What the chain email
claims it does

What it actually does
Who actually signed it
No. 10990
Allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
Created the Federal Safety Council in the Department of Labor to improve workplace safety for federal workers and civilian contractors
Kennedy
No. 10995
Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
Assigned telecommunications management functions
Kennedy
No. 10997
Allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of the Interior
Kennedy
No. 10998
Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Agriculture
Kennedy
No. 11000
Allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Labor
Kennedy
No. 11001
Allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Kennedy
No. 11002
Designates the registration of all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Postmaster General
Kennedy
No. 11003
Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
Assigning emergency preparedness functions to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency
Kennedy
No. 11004
Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
Assigned certain emergency preparedness functions to the Housing and Home Finance Administrator
Kennedy
No. 11005
Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Interstate Commerce Commission
Kennedy
No. 11049
Assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
Directs Secretary of Commerce to help president decide which public works projects to fund through Public Works Acceleration Act
Kennedy
No. 11051
Specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
Prescribed responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Planning in the Executive Office of the President
Kennedy
No. 11310
Grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Assigned emergency preparedness functions to the Attorney General

 
Johnson
No. 11921
Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. Financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
Adjusted emergency preparedness assignments to organizational and functional changes in Federal departments and agencies
Ford

As you can see by the table, none of these executive orders were signed by Obama. The first executive order Obama ever signed was No. 13489, far later than even the most recent executive order listed in the email (they count up).
Many of the executive orders listed above deal with the Defense Protection Act passed by Congress in 1950 and reauthorized repeatedly since then. According to the Congressional Research Service, the act says "authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense."
Obama has signed subsequent executive orders similar to the ones issued by Kennedy, Johnson and Ford that deal with emergency preparation, but they don’t create a state of martial law, like the email implies. The Congressional Research Service even said in 2000 that the Defense Protection Act "has nothing whatever to deal with martial law."
Our ruling
The chain email said Obama has issued more than 1,000 executive orders. That’s not even close. As of Jan. 20, 2014, he was at 168. The email also infers that Obama has far surpassed his predecessors in using his executive powers. That, too, is way off. FDR signed off on more than 3,500 executive orders, and, in fact, Obama is on pace to issue fewer executive orders than any two-term president since 1900.
As for the 14 executive orders highlighted in the email? Obama didn’t issue any of them. They came from Kennedy, Johnson and Ford. Almost all of them have been revoked.
Overall, the statements in this email seem to be completely made up. So we rate its claims Pants on Fire!
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 3:00 p.m.
Subjects: Government regulation, History
Sources:
Chain email forwarded by readers, Feb. 2, 2014
FactCheck.org, "Obama’s Executive Orders," Sept. 25, 2012
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Orders: Washington-Obama," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The Washington Post, "Full Transcript: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address," Jan. 28, 2014
The Washington Post, "5 Things to Know about Executive Orders," Jan. 29, 2014
National Journal, "Michele Bachmann Wants to Sue Obama Over His State of the Union Speech," Jan. 28, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 10900," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
Federation of American Scientists, "Executive Order 10955," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 10997," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 10998," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11000," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11001," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11002," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11003," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11004," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11005," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11049," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, "Executive Order 11051," accessed Feb. 5, 2014
National Archives, Executive Orders Disposition Tables: Lyndon Johnson -1966, accessed Feb. 5, 2014
National Archives, Executive Orders Disposition Tables: Gerald Ford -1976, accessed Feb. 5, 2014
National Archives, Executive Orders Disposition Tables: John F. Kennedy - 1962, accessed Feb. 5, 2014
National Archives, Executive Orders Disposition Tables: Jimmy Carter - 1978, accessed Feb. 5, 2014
Written by: Steve Contorno
Researched by: Steve Contorno
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Conservative website says Barack Obama signed law to require health professionals to share private data that would lead to gun confiscation 6FEB14

ONLY someone extremely stupid, blinded by racism and prejudice, would believe this post from mr conservative. From PolitiFact.......
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Mr. Conservative

"According to (Barack) Obama’s newest unconstitutionally enacted law, health care professionals are now required to violate HIPAA privacy laws and submit medical data to the government," which is "then used as justification for gun confiscation."

Mr. Conservative on Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 in a blog post

Conservative website says Barack Obama signed law to require health professionals to share private data that would lead to gun confiscation

Three of the biggest hot buttons in politics these days are health care, privacy and guns. Put all three of them together and you get an explosive claim.
A reader recently asked us to look into a blog post at the website Mr. Conservative, with the provocative headline, "Obama Quietly Uses Executive Orders For Two New Gun Control Laws."
"Just a few weeks ago," the post said, President Barack Obama "quietly used executive action — one of his new favorite pastimes — that has got gun owners’ feathers in a ruffle. According to Obama’s newest unconstitutionally enacted law, health care professionals are now required to violate HIPAA privacy laws and submit medical data to the government. The illegally obtained data is then used as justification for gun confiscation by the federal government."
Mr. Conservative’s claims don’t have to do with Obama’s health care law. Obamacare explicitly bars the collection of information about "the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition" or the maintenance of "records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Rather, at issue is a proposed rule that would clarify some currently murky interpretations of privacy restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which set limits on who can share and receive private health information about individuals.
The provision cited in the blog post is designed to make clear that state authorities are allowed to share certain information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to screen potential gun purchasers.
Under existing federal law, several factors can prevent someone from buying a gun. Most of these have to do with law-enforcement issues, such as a prior felony conviction or a record of domestic abuse. Another one -- the one that’s important for this discussion because it intersects with the health care system -- is involuntary commitment to a mental institution.
The instant background check system is supposed to streamline the process of gun purchasing by quickly weeding out those who cannot legally buy a gun. But such a system is only as good as the databases it’s linked to. If someone is ineligible to purchase a gun but their information didn’t get into the right database, then the background check won’t stop the purchase.
Several analyses have shown that these databases are far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, privacy is a key reason cited by states that haven’t provided data about involuntary commitments.
The federal government’s argument is that these states are being needlessly cautious. The government says the kind of data being sought for background checks isn’t subject to HIPAA’s privacy restrictions. The HHS proposal would explicitly clarify that point.
Let’s take a look at the claim phrase by phrase.
It’s an "unconstitutionally enacted law." Like the old-timey drink known as an egg cream -- which includes neither egg nor cream -- this provision isn’t a law, it isn’t enacted yet and it’s not unconstitutional.
A law is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the president; that doesn’t describe this provision. Nor is it an "executive order," the term used in the headline. Executive orders are directives written and personally signed by the president.
Instead, it’s an administrative regulation. Specifically, it’s a notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. In other words, it’s a policy proposal emerging from a federal agency, with a specified public comment period before the agency decides whether to enact it -- or scrap it.
So while it’s fair to say the Obama administration is behind it, it would be incorrect to say it’s already "enacted." It’s currently in the comment phase, and it may not ever be enacted.
As for "unconstitutional," the Supreme Court, for one, doesn’t consider the regulatory process to be problematic constitutionally. "Some people do question the constitutionality of the administrative state, but as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it's been settled law for almost 100 years that Congress can delegate rulemaking authority to federal agencies," said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor.
"Health care professionals are now required to violate HIPAA privacy laws to submit medical data to the government"
The information reportable to NICS doesn’t concern physicians’ medical records about diagnoses of mental illness, prescriptions, or treatment recommendations. Rather, the relevant information for gun-buying purposes -- and thus for providing data to NICS -- are decisions by "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."
As HHS put it when it released the proposed rule, "Seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm, and nothing in this proposed rule changes that. Furthermore, nothing in this proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules."
Importantly, HHS added that "the proposed modifications would merely permit, and not require, covered entities to report to the NICS." That directly conflicts with the blog post’s claim.
So, let’s recap:
"Health care professionals" is misleading -- it’s courts, boards and commissions, not doctors, who would be submitting to NICS. "Are now" is wrong because, as we noted, this is a proposal and is not in force yet. "Required" is wrong because state entities would be able to submit to NICS, but would not be required to do so. "To violate HIPAA privacy laws" is at best misleading because HIPAA already didn’t block the transfer of this kind of data; the proposed rule simply makes that point extra clear. And "to submit medical data to the government" is misleading because only involuntary commitment data is sought by NICS, not detailed treatment records.
It’s "justification for gun confiscation"
The idea that Obama wants to take away Americans’ guns is a durable one among his critics. But it’s unclear the extent to which the HHS proposal would make this scenario more likely.
On the surface, all NICS does is prevent ineligible people from newly purchasing a gun. It says nothing about taking away the guns they already own. But if someone is unable to purchase a gun, it also means they’re unable to own a gun. The question is how aggressively this is enforced.
Critics of the proposal say that increasing the flow of mental-health information to NICS could promote rise in confiscation. If enacted, the proposal "would make it clear that the ATF and other federal agencies could troll this database for persons with Alzheimer's, PTSD, ADHD, etc.," said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, a group that has been critical of the HHS proposal.
In the group’s official comments to HHS on the proposal, it cited a letter from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that says that 140,000 veterans have been added to the NICS list over the years. Coburn and Gun Owners of America say too many of these veterans are being caught up in the dragnet.
In addition, California in 2013 passed a law that allocated $24 million to enforce the confiscation of firearms from people who are not allowed to own them, using a variety of databases; about 30 percent of these people were mentally ill.
While NICS only accepts into its database the official determinations of mental incompetency, Hammond warned that there’s no universal standard for incompetency determinations. They may be "made with little more than a psychiatric diagnosis and perhaps a star-chamber proceeding, in which a supposedly incompetent person is deemed competent to have waived all of his or her rights," Hammond said. "This would mean that the names of persons who had received little due process" might find their information newly added to NICS, leaving them open to confiscation.
But even if these are legitimate concerns, others don’t see the HIPAA proposal as a harbinger of massive gun confiscations. Mark Heyrman, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, called any kind of large-scale gun confiscation effort based on the HHS action "implausible."
Jay Corzine, a sociologist who studies gun policy at the University of Central Florida, agreed, saying the proposal strikes a "reasonable" balance.
Federal law "proscribes possession of a firearm by persons in these groups and could conceivably lead to seizure of firearms owned prior to their change in status," he said. "This currently occurs in selected situations -- domestic violence cases in some states for example. Not very many people would be impacted, however, and the idea that this is the opening move in a planned campaign for large-scale gun confiscation is far-fetched at best."
Our ruling
The post we’re checking said that, "according to (Barack) Obama’s newest unconstitutionally enacted law, health care professionals are now required to violate HIPAA privacy laws and submit medical data to the government," which is "then used as justification for gun confiscation."
The elements of this claim range from misleading to flat-out wrong. The one area of reasonable concern is that some jurisdictions may lack full due process for declaring someone mentally incompetent, potentially putting some people at risk of seeing their guns confiscated. But this depends on how proactively the authorities enforce gun laws. Experts say widespread gun confiscation is implausible.
The rule isn’t a law, it isn’t enacted and it isn’t unconstitutional according to Supreme Court jurisprudence. It isn’t a requirement, and it doesn’t involve routine diagnostic data compiled by "health care professionals" such as doctors. We rate the claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 12:04 p.m.
Subjects: Guns, Health Care, Privacy
Sources:
Mr. Conservative, "Obama Quietly Uses Executive Orders For Two New Gun Control Laws," Jan. 29, 2014
Federal Register, "HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department," Apr. 23, 2013
Regulations.gov, "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System," accessed Feb. 4, 2014
Congressional Research Service, "Submission of Mental Health Records to NICS and the HIPAA Privacy Rule," April 15, 2013
Department of Health and Human Services, "Obama administration takes additional steps to strengthen the federal background check system," Jan. 3, 2014
Text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Reuters, "Privacy fears grow as Obama weighs expanded gun-buyer database," July 9, 2013
Tom Coburn, letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Oct. 16, 2007
Gun Owners of America, "GOA Submits Comments Opposing Backdoor Gun Control Efforts by HHS," June 3, 2013
Huffington Post, "California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure," April 19, 2013
Email interview with Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee University law professor, Feb. 3, 2014
Email interview with Kermit Roosevelt, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Feb. 3, 2014
Email interview with Ron Honberg, national director of policy and legal affairs at NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Feb 3, 2014
Email interview with Patrick Corrigan, professor of psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Feb. 5, 2014
Email interview with Stephen G. Fischer Jr., FBI spokesman, Feb. 5, 2014
Email interview with Jay Corzine, sociologist at the University of Central Florida, Feb. 5, 2014
Email interview with Mark Heyrman, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Feb. 5, 2014
Email interview with Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, Feb. 5, 2014
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/06/mr-conservative/conservative-website-says-barack-obama-signed-law-/

29 January 2014

Wonkbook: A policy 101 for the 2014 State of the Union 29JAN14

WONKBOOK'S roundup of analysis of Pres Obama's State of the Union Speech, from the Washington Post.....
The Washington Post Wednesday, January 29, 2014
WONKBOOK: Your morning policy news primer
Welcome to Wonkbook, Wonkblog's morning policy news primer by Evan Soltas. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. To read more by the Wonkblog team, click here.
Wonkbook's Number of the Day: 6,786. That's how many words were in President Barack Obama's State of the Union address last night, at least in the version as prepared for delivery.
Wonkbook's Graph of the Day: The language of the State of the Union speeches.
Wonkbook's Top 5 Stories: (1) a summary of last night's State of the Union speech; with special attention to (2) the role of executive actions; (3) policies to address inequality; (4) meanwhile, a look and the economy; and (5) why Congress is surprisingly functional.
1. Top story: A starting-point summary of last night's State of the Union
What Obama said in the 2014 State of the Union. "President Obama sought Tuesday to restore public confidence and trust in his presidency after a dispiriting year, pledging to use his White House authority with new force to advance an agenda that Congress has largely failed to support. In his fifth prime-time State of the Union address, Obama returned to a familiar problem--Washington's bitter and stalemated politics, the complaint that drove his insurgent campaign for president in 2008. But now, after five weary years in office, it was clear he saw it differently. Instead of pledging to fix the mess, the president was now promising to find ways around it, and change policies on his own authority." David Nakamura and David A. Fahrenthold in The Washington Post.
Transcript: Full text of Obama's 2014 State of the Union address. The Washington Post.
Watch: The full video. The New York Times.
Transcript: The Republican response, by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, to the State of the Union address. The Washington Post.
Watch: The full video. PBS NewsHour.
Liveblogs: Read the continuous coverage provided by The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
The facts: Glenn Kessler checks the speech line-by-line. The Washington Post.
The profile of Sergeant Remsburg, the veteran featured in last night's speech, that you should read. "In more than four years in office, Mr. Obama has met privately with nearly 1,000 men and women injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet his repeated encounters with Sergeant Remsburg stand out for bringing a president face to face with the resilience of the wounded and the brutal costs of the wars...Aides could not name any other wounded service member whom Mr. Obama has met three times, nor any other who first stood before the commander in chief in battle-ready prime." Jackie Calmes in The New York Times.
Looking back: Obama's 2013 State of the Union proposals: What flopped and what succeeded. Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post.
Multiple GOP responses to State of the Union: Are they a sign of party division? "When it comes to rebutting President Obama's national address Tuesday night, Republicans have four different approaches from four different corners of the party's ideological wings. This four-vs.-one approach, to some, is the result of the expanding media universe that allows many different views to be heard, reaching so many different voters. Yet others see the various responses as a sign of a divided Republican Party that cannot unite around the single idea or a single voice to respond to Obama's State of the Union address." Paul Kane and Robert Costa in The Washington Post.
How Obama dealt with Obamacare in the address. "Obama focused instead on the benefits of the law that already have taken effect, and their potential to protect Americans from crippling medical expenses. He likened the health care law to proposals he made on subjects including raising the minimum wage, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and boosting retirement savings...Obama also highlighted the contributions of Democratic Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear." Jeffrey Young in The Huffington Post.
@sarahkliff: What's different about this SOTU: Obama can actually talk about people gaining from the insurance expansion. Not true up til now.
How the State of the Union could make a difference on immigration reform. "With those recent developments in mind, House Democrats told reporters Tuesday that they anticipate Obama will be "respectful" of the GOP's apparent thawing in his State of the Union. They don't believe he'll challenge Republicans on the issue, make too explicit demands or announce any executive orders that would indicate he plans to circumvent Congress on immigration policy." Dylan Scott in Talking Points Memo.
@jimgeraghty: Cold night for all the diehard State of the Union fans tailgating in the U.S. Capitol parking lot.
Gun control was almost gone. "A year after making a call for his broad gun control agenda the emotional big finish, Obama devoted just two sentences to preventing gun violence...The gun control movement has focused its attention away from Washington, to the state and local level where progress can be easier to come by." Reid J. Epstein in Politico.
History: When the State of the Union was controversial. "A little more than 100 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson had Washington, D.C., "agape" at his decision to deliver the State of the Union address in-person to Congress. It was the first time in more than a century that a president had the gall to do such a thing. Since the early 1800s, the address was delivered in writing." Aaron Blake in The Washington Post.
History chart: The language of the State of the Union speeches. Kennedy Elliott in The Washington Post.
THE WASHINGTON POST: Opportunities to work together. "[What ideas] have at least a chance at passage: updating patent law, authority to pursue tariff-slashing trade deals in Asia and Europe and Mr. Obama's welcome pitch for housing finance reform all should win some GOP backing. The president proposed expanding the earned-income tax credit to include childless workers, which would improve work incentives and lift many single men and women out of poverty. This idea also has the virtue, politically, of taking what was originally a GOP program and reshaping it in a way that's at least not inconsistent with recent anti-poverty proposals from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). If Republicans are serious about their avowed concern for poverty and inequality, they'll take the president up on this proposal. Immigration reform is another area where both parties should be able to find common ground." The Washington Post Editorial Board.
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The state of our union is diminished. "Obama's speech on Tuesday night acknowledged the obvious: Congress has become a dead end for most of the big, muscular uses of government to redress income inequality and improve the economy for all, because of implacable Republican opposition. As a result, the remainder of Mr. Obama's presidency will be largely devoted to a series of smaller actions that the White House can perform on its own...But he left out an executive ban on discrimination by contractors against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. That would have made a strong statement about fairness in spending taxpayer money." The New York Times Editorial Board.
@ObsoleteDogma: Did I miss the part where Obama called for a Progressive Kristallnacht?
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Pitch number six. "The State of the Union address in the sixth year of any Presidency is rarely compelling. The White House tries to portray a renewed sense of vigor and perhaps a fresh proposal or two, while the public has begun to tune the familiar man out...The puzzle of the speech is that he far spent less time on the issues that might get done--immigration and tax reform, freer trade--than he did on the liberal priorities that are unlikely to pass." The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
FAVREAU: How Obama prepares for the State of the Union. "I have worked on five State of the Union addresses, and they never get easier. The President starts thinking about this speech in late November, and each year, he would begin with a few bold pronouncements: "This will not be a laundry list!" and "This one will be shorter than all the rest!" By the weekend before, we'd be cutting furiously, fending off additions from the rest of the administration (and the President!) in a desperate attempt to keep this monster under an hour. Obama himself would clock consecutive 2 a.m. nights editing and revising. And if anyone's looked at the White House Instagram feed lately, you'll notice that Director of Speechwriting Cody Keenan hasn't had time to shave a single hair from his face since late in 2013." Jon Favreau in The Daily Beast.
@TPCarney: Citizenship means letting Obama read all your emails.
COHN: Who are you calling a lame duck? "[T]here may yet be opportunities. In the speech, Obama mentioned the need to reauthorize spending on highway and water infrastructure--both easy vehicles for infrastructure spending...[Incremental action from Obama] can showcase and reward the most successful programs--many of them already in operation, in conservative states like Georgia and Oklahoma. And those examples can build support for greater initiatives, even if it will take a future president to sign them into law." Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.
CHAIT: What Obama is really trying to do in the State of the Union address. "Those low approval ratings provide the impetus for Obama's splashy new message. Everything about Obama's messaging -- the image of vigorous unilateral action, the laser focus on jobs, the small but popular policy initiatives attached to it -- serve the goal of patching up the president's standing and framing the Washington story in the most favorable terms possible. The State of the Union address is not an effort to fundamentally reorient the administration's strategy. It's a campaign to mend the political damage from the botched Obamacare launch." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.
@Goldfarb: The call to expand the EITC may be the most important and creative idea in the SOTU speech
KLEIN: The ground has shifted beneath Obama. "Obama distilled his vision into a series of small-bore ideas he's mostly presented before on ending tax loopholes, creating manufacturing hubs, increasing the minimum wage, and improving job training, among others. Though he urged Congress to act on these priorities (along with immigration, climate change, unemployment insurance, and universal preschool), he did so without much expectation that anything would pass through a Congress in which Republicans control the House of Representatives. He couldn't even muster up much passion to deliver his ritual indignant scoldings of GOP intransigence. Instead, he has resigned himself to bypassing Congress and taking limited executive actions where he can." Philip A. Klein in The Washington Examiner.
BARRO: Four ideas Obama should have pushed in the State of the Union. "Marijuana: Obama could have used the State of the Union to announce that he was directing the Drug Enforcement Administration not to interfere with the legal marijuana trade in Colorado and Washington, and to call on Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana...Intellectual property: Obama could have laid down a marker: That the purpose of intellectual property law is not to reward and enrich inventors but to elevate standards of living. That principle would be a basis for a much broader rollback of IP protections." Josh Barro in Business Insider.
BERNSTEIN: First impressions. "The challenge for the President was to avoid ticking through a list ideas that had no chance of going anywhere. I think he largely avoided that...[T]he President cannot and should not let Congress block his every move and good for the administration for trying to find other ways to help working families overcome opportunity barriers in our increasingly unequal economy." Jared Bernstein on his blog.
In memoriam interlude: Pete Seeger, "Where have all the flowers gone?"
Top opinion
EMANUEL: Obamacare vs. the Republican alternative. "The largest difference is in cost control. Currently, employer-sponsored health insurance is tax free; the Republican plan would make employees pay income tax on at least 35 percent of what their company pays for their plan. The idea is to make patients pay more for their coverage, giving them an incentive to choose cheaper health insurance plans with more deductibles and co-payments, which, in turn, would encourage them to shop around for cheaper tests and treatments and forgo unnecessary ones." Ezekiel Emanuel in The New York Times.
ORSZAG: Why isn't comparative effectiveness research getting done? "[O]nly 37 percent of the institute's research funding has gone to comparing two or more treatments (including usual care or the option of doing nothing), according to a new report by Neera Tanden, Ezekiel Emanuel, Topher Spiro, Emily Oshima Lee and Thomas Huelskoetter of the Center for American Progress...[T]he Institute of Medicine has already identified the top 25 topics that should be assessed. Unfortunately, out of the 284 studies the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute has funded to date, only 34 (or 12 percent) address these priority topics." Peter Orszag in Bloomberg.
PORTER: Why we need a New Deal to tackle long-term unemployment. "Thirty-nine states used $1.3 billion from the fiscal stimulus package passed in 2009 to create more than 260,000 jobs by subsidizing private employers. A subsequent evaluation of the program found that two-thirds of these jobs would not have existed without the subsidy. Many of those jobs went to people who were difficult to employ, including workers who had been jobless for a long time, people on welfare and workers with criminal records. Yet after the program ended in September 2010, 37 percent of the formerly subsidized workers kept their jobs." Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.
SUNSTEIN: Why economic mobility is stuck in neutral. "hey find that certain factors are highly correlated with increased mobility. Areas with low percentages of single parents show higher mobility. There are also strong correlations between upward mobility and high-quality K-12 school systems. Higher mobility is highly correlated with indices of "social capital."...Levels of mobility are unusually low in regions with larger African-American populations. But whites show similarly low levels of mobility in such areas. The researchers suggest a possible explanation: Areas with large African-American populations are highly segregated, and segregation might have adverse effects on mobility for both groups." Cass R. Sunstein in Bloomberg.
EDSALL: How should economics respond to Piketty? "There are a number of key arguments in Piketty's book. One is that the six-decade period of growing equality in western nations - starting roughly with the onset of World War I and extending into the early 1970s - was unique and highly unlikely to be repeated. That period, Piketty suggests, represented an exception to the more deeply rooted pattern of growing inequality." Thomas B. Edsall in The New York Times.
DAVIDSON: Building a Harley faster. "Harley's York factory represents an alternative to the common narrative of American manufacturing. In recent decades, countless sleepy Northern manufacturers suddenly awoke to global competition. They often responded by breaking their unions, by moving to a Southern right-to-work state or out of the country altogether, and by employing robots on the assembly line. This strategy has been repeated so many times that even as overall manufacturing output has grown by nearly 25 percent, manufacturing jobs have fallen by 30 percent since 2000." Adam Davidson in The New York Times.
SWAGEL: Challenges for the Yellen Fed. "If a strong enough economy can bring people off the sidelines and back into the labor force, then there is more slack in the labor market than implied by the recent decline in the unemployment rate. In this case, the Fed could maintain easy monetary conditions in an attempt to drive up wages and the participation rate...If inflation picks up, however, this would signal that the labor market has reached a new normal in which wage and inflation pressures arise with lower participation and higher unemployment than in the past." Philip Swagel in The New York Times.
Labor interlude: This college football team is trying to form a union.

2. The executive-action strategy
Obama prepared to avoid Congress, go it alone on carrying out modest initiatives. "For the first time since taking office, Obama spoke to Congress on Tuesday evening from a clear position of confrontation. The areas he identified for possible cooperation with a divided Congress have shrunk, leaving an agenda filled out by a growing number of modest initiatives that he intends to carry out alone...The tone and approach reflect the White House's conclusion that Obama spent too much time last year in conflict with recalcitrant lawmakers, rather than using the unilateral powers in his grasp...But the strategy risks further antagonizing Congress and resting part of his legacy on executive actions that do not have the permanence, or breadth, of major legislation." Scott Wilson in The Washington Post.
Key explainer: Here are 7 things Obama just said he'd do without Congress. Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.
The Republican critique of Obama's executive-action push. ""He's governing by edict," said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). Republicans concede Mr. Obama has the authority to do things like raise the minimum wage for employees at federal contractors. But Mr. McCain argues such moves poison the well of bipartisanship: "He has the authority, but it's the spirit of the Constitution that he is violating."" Janet Hook in The Wall Street Journal.
Obama ordered a raise in the minimum wage for government contract workers. "President Obama will announce in the State of the Union address Tuesday that he will use his executive power to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for workers on new government contracts, fulfilling a top demand by liberal lawmakers and groups, according to a White House document...A survey by the National Employment Law Project of contractors who manufacture military uniforms, provide food and janitorial services, and truck goods found that 75 percent of them earn less than $10 per hour. One in five was dependent on Medicaid for health care, and 14 percent used food stamps. Obama's action will only slowly trickle out into workers' paychecks, beginning in 2015 and at the start of new contracts." Zachary A. Goldfarb in The Washington Post.
How can he do that? "President Obama would issue an executive order giving preference in awarding federal contracts to companies that pay their workers at least $10.10 per hour. The rules would only affect new contracts signed in 2015 or later (and not companies on existing contracts)...By some estimates, around 200,000 people -- though this would only happen gradually, over time, as new federal contracts get awarded. That's about 10 percent of the federal contracting workforce." Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.
Boehner didn't like Obama's decision. ""I suspect the president has the authority to raise the minimum wage for those dealing with federal contracts. But let's understand something: This affects not one current contract, it only affects future contracts with the federal government. And so I think the question is, how many people, Mr. President, will this executive action actually help? I suspect the answer is somewhere close to zero."" Ed O'Keefe in The Washington Post.

Obama also ordered the creation of a new middle-class savings tool. "The administration didn't provide many details about the new accounts, which President Barack Obama announced in his State of the Union address. The accounts would be called "myRAs," and be structured like a Roth Individual Retirement Account. Like savings bonds, the investment would be backed by the federal government. The White House plans to create the accounts through an executive action, meaning it wouldn't need congressional approval. The Treasury Department is expected to encourage employers to offer the investment vehicles to employees who would be automatically enrolled unless they specifically elected not to participate." Damian Paletta and Anne Tergesen in The Wall Street Journal.
We also got an executive action on education. "Obama talked about one such initiative on Thursday night. It's called "ConnectED"--a program to vastly increase the broadband access for public schools. The initiative is possible because funding comes from a small fee on cell phone bills, one that the FCC can set without congressional authorization. It's not much money to the typical consumer--the figure I've seen suggests it'd be no more than $12 per person over the course of three years. But that money can make a huge difference to the schools." Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.
The limits of executive authority. "[W]ith some notable exceptions, only so much can be delivered through the president's pen if he is not using it to sign legislation. He cannot raise the minimum wage for most workers, overhaul the Social Security system, grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, reorder spending and taxes, or even make necessary fixes to the health care law...At the same time, anyone who succeeds him can use the stroke of a pen to undo Mr. Obama's actions just as Mr. Obama did to some Bush-era policies one day after his inauguration in 2009." Carl Hulse in The New York Times.
Another drawback on executive actions. "Because executive orders are intended first and foremost to direct the conduct of the executive branch, they must be sensitive to diverse opinions and interests within the executive branch. Typically, the interagency consultation needed to produce executive orders is neither quick nor simple." William A. Galston in The Wall Street Journal.
Geniuses interlude: Watch Bill Gates lose a chess match in 79 seconds.

3. Inequality in focus
Inequality was one of the core themes of the State of the Union. "President Barack Obama pledged to address deepening inequality in the US, with a volley of directives covering everything from higher wages for low-paid federal workers to new government-backed retirement accounts...The minimum wage move dovetails with the primary theme of the speech and Mr Obama's second term - his campaign to reduce growing inequality in the US, although the speech focused more on creating "opportunity" than on the gap between the rich and poor. After four years of economic growth "corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled."" Richard McGregor in The Financial Times.
Obama won't talk about the biggest thing he's done to fix inequality: Raise taxes. ""Changing tax rates is likely to have small effects on supply of labor and capital and on output," the Congressional Research Service reported earlier this month. Wealth managers dealingLydia DePillis in The Washington Post.
Obama also proposed widening eligibility for the EITC. "The way EITC works now is that it offers a substantial economic boost to a population largely composed of working single moms and some married couples with kids, but very little for people who don't have kids at home. As this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities details, changing that to make EITC benefits more broadly available would do a lot to boost incomes in a way that encourages and rewards work and employment. They also think it might boost marriage rates, by boosting the incomes of male low-wage workers and making marriage and family formation more feasible." Matthew Yglesias in Slate.
Meanwhile, Americans feel they are slipping out of the middle class. "If you actually take a close look at the numbers, it turns out that of the people who identified as middle class in 2008, nearly a third of them now identify as lower middle or lower class...Class self-identification is deeply tied up with culture, not just income, and this decline means that a lot of people--about one in six Americans--now think of themselves as not just suffering an income drop, but suffering an income drop they consider permanent. Permanent enough that they now live in a different neighborhood, associate with different friends, and apparently consider themselves part of a different culture than they did just six years ago." Kevin Drum in Mother Jones.
Internet interlude: An award show for GIFs.
4. Meanwhile, mixed economic data
Durable goods orders tumble 4.3 percent, suggesting business caution. "Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had a median forecast that durable-goods orders would rise by 1.5% in December. The decline, the biggest since July, was driven by a sharp drop in demand for civilian aircraft. Excluding the volatile transportation sector, durable-goods orders fell 1.6%--itself the biggest decline since March." Josh Mitchell in The Wall Street Journal.
U.S. home prices rise in November. "The home price index covering 10 major U.S. cities increased 13.8% in the year ended in November, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home price report. The 20-city price index increased 13.7%, close to the 13.8% advance expected by economists. The two indexes indicate home prices are back to levels seen in mid-2004." Kathleen Madigan in The Wall Street Journal.
Global markets are freaking out. Here's what the Fed should say. "The worldwide rout is unlikely to deter the Fed from continuing to reduce the amount of money it is pumping into the U.S. economy by $10 billion to $65 billion a month as officials convene in Washington Tuesday and Wednesday. The central bank wants to move deliberately, minutes of its last meeting show, out of "concern about the potential for an unintended tightening of financial conditions." That covers both the United States and the rest of the world." Ylan Q. Mui in The Washington Post.
Out of bounds interlude: "I'll break you in half. Like a boy."
5. Congress is working. Wait, what?
Republicans surrender on debt ceiling imminent. "House Republicans are getting ready to surrender: There will be no serious fight over the debt limit. The most senior figures in the House Republican Conference are privately acknowledging that they will almost certainly have to pass what's called a clean debt ceiling increase in the next few months, abandoning the central fight that has defined their three-year majority...The reason for the shift in dynamics in this fight is clear. Congress has raised the debt limit twice in a row without drastic policy concessions." Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan in Politico.
Graph: The $956 billion farm bill, in one graph. Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.
House poised to vote on farm bill. "The House cleared the way for a Wednesday showdown vote on the new farm bill agreement, even as Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to dedicate a portion of the savings to help pay for extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. The 222-194 vote Tuesday made for a sharp contrast with the broad support now enjoyed by the farm bill itself. And after two years of struggle, the Agriculture Committee leadership is increasingly confident that the giant measure will now prevail--almost exactly six months after it was upended by the same chamber last June." David Rogers in Politico.
Reading material interlude: The best sentences Wonkblog read today.
Wonkblog Roundup
Did Sen. Coburn lose his cancer doctor because of Obamacare? Sarah Kliff.
Here are 7 policies Obama just said he'd pursue without Congress. Brad Plumer.
The $956 billion farm bill, in one graph. Brad Plumer.
Obama won't talk about the biggest thing he's done to fix inequality: Raise taxes. Lydia DePillis.
Global markets are freaking out. Here's what the Fed should say. Ylan Q. Mui.
Obama is boosting the minimum wage for federal contractors. Here's how. Brad Plumer.
Et Cetera
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail us.
Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.