riecheriy

Medical pot group sues Obama administration over California crackdown

2011-10-27T22:17:00.000-07:00

A medical marijuana advocacy group sued the Obama administration Thursday, saying its policy "to subvert local and state medical marijuana laws in California" is unconstitutional.

Americans for Safe Access accused the U.S. Justice Department of deploying aggressive SWAT-style raids, prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers, and threatening local officials for implement state medical pot laws.

The group, a nonprofit based in Oakland, California, that says it's the country's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization, cited U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag of the northern district of California in its federal lawsuit filed in San Francisco.

"Under the Tenth Amendment, the government may not commandeer the law-making function of the state or its subdivisions or indirectly through the selective enforcement of its drug laws," the lawsuit said. "It is this misuse of the government's commerce clause powers, designed to deprive the state of its sovereign ability to chart a separate course, that forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim."

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors in California announced a series of actions targeting what they characterized as the "large, for-profit marijuana industry" that has developed since the state legalized medical marijuana for select patients 15 years ago.

Four U.S. attorneys -- Benjamin Wagner, Andre Birotte Jr., Laura Duffy and Melinda Haag -- detailed in a joint press release and later a press conference in Sacramento some steps that have been taken in conjunction with federal law enforcement and local officials in California.

They include letters of warning to landlords and lien holders of places in which marijuana is being sold illegally, "civil forfeiture lawsuits against properties involved in drug trafficking activity" and numerous criminal cases. The latter refers to arrests in recent weeks related to cases filed in federal courts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Fresno, all part of an effort that Wagner claimed has resulted in the seizure of hundreds of pounds of marijuana, tens of thousands of plants and hundreds of thousands in cash.

Thursday's lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and was filed on behalf of its 20,000 members in California, the medical marijuana advocacy group said.

"This case is aimed at restoring California's sovereign and constitutional right to establish its own public health laws based on this country's federalist principles," the association's chief counsel, Joe Elford, said in a statement.

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215 to exempt doctors and seriously ill patients from marijuana laws and allow them to grow and use it in treatment. The bill didn't legalize marijuana for all, but it did lead to the emergence of hundreds of dispensaries where people -- legally only those with medical conditions and a doctor's authorization -- could get the drug.

In explaining the federal crackdown earlier this month, Wagner, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, said authorities "are not focused on backyard grows with small amounts of marijuana by seriously ill people. We are targeting commercial operations, which profit from growing and distributing ... and often use the trappings of state law for cover, but in fact are abusing state law."

Haag, U.S. attorney for California's northern district, claimed that "profiteers ... motivated not by compassion, but by money" had "hijacked" the intent of voters to help those suffering from debilitating conditions. And Birotte, from California's central district, said a chief problem lies in operations that make money not by selling marijuana to the sick, but to relatively healthy people.

Source http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/27/us/california-medical-marijuana/

How Obama, Tea Party are alike

2011-08-02T01:16:00.001-07:00

The two most spectacular political phenomena of recent years are Barack Obama and the Tea Party movement. Yet each managed the fight over raising the national debt limit in ways that left their reputations tarnished. Who came out worse in the eyes of the voters remains to be seen.

President Obama, whose political instincts seemed unerring in 2008, appeared to miss the significance of the 2010 election upheaval and started the year as if nothing had changed by pushing for ever more spending. When the debt ceiling issue first came up, he called for a “clean” extension of the limit, meaning no spending restraint.

He came around to spending cuts only when it became apparent that the Tea Party crowd in the House, elected by voter outrage over Obama’s and the Democrats’ spendthrift habits, was serious about changing the Washington culture of spend, raise the debt limit and spend some more. House Speaker John Boehner succinctly summed up that culture in a televised address to the taxpayers: “We spend more, you pay more.”

Boehner tried to engage Obama in negotiations for a “grand bargain” to cut $4 trillion over a decade. But they broke down over Obama’s upping the ante with more tax-increase demands. Boehner went back to Congress to negotiate a deal, leaving the president of the United States on the sidelines.

Obama attempted to recoup by playing what had been his strong suite, oratory in speeches and press conferences. He tried to position himself as the adult in the room. But his words didn’t put him above the fray. He denounced Republicans in a way that came across as peevish, counter to his grand campaign promise to rise above petty partisanship. He continued to hold out for a tax hike even after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had abandoned it in the Democrats’ response to Boehner’s debt ceiling legislation. Leading from behind had finally caught up with Obama.

For their part, the Tea Party House members overplayed their hand, playing into the hands of their critics who want to paint them as unfit to govern. They had achieved a major accomplishment, forcing Washington to confront its fiscally profligate ways and start doing some about them. But they couldn’t accept victory and pushed for more to the point of nearly torpedoing Boehner’s leadership. Enough of them finally signed on to his plan after it was amended to include a meaningless vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

A number of Tea Party members balked at the $2.4 trillion compromise reached this weekend. But in the final vote, Boehner got strong enough Republican support to rebut claims that the Tea Party risked endangering GOP governing credentials.

How did the two most successful political forces of the decade end up like this? Perhaps it goes to traits Obama and the Tea Party members share. Both came to Washington with little experience. Obama had been a community organizer and academic who spent a few years in the Legislature where he voted “present” a lot. He then vaulted to the U.S. Senate only to immediately begin running for president. He campaigned on charisma, “hope” and little in the way of a record.

Most of the Tea Party victors in 2010 also had little in the way of government and political experience. It showed in their no-compromise, ideological purity, rejecting, as some still do, all compromise, the very basis of American government.

Republicans would do well to remember this as they choose a candidate to face Obama next year. Politicians like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry are experienced governors. That means they’ve made mistakes, but it also means they’ve learned from those mistakes. That’s what prepares a politician for the awesome job in the White House.

That job, of course, is on the line next year. More bruising battles are to come in Washington over spending and taxes before the voters render their judgment in this epic contest over the size, shape and direction of government.

Source http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/6820995-417/how-obama-tea-party-are-alike.html

Energy Experts Question Parts of Obama Energy Speech

2011-03-30T22:11:00.000-07:00

Political opponents were quick to criticize President Obama's speech on energy, delivered Wednesday at Georgetown University, but energy experts say much will depend on how the ideas expressed in the speech are implemented through laws and regulations.

In his energy speech, President Obama called for sweeping changes in U.S. policies that would reduce oil dependence by a third by the year 2025, put more emphasis on cleaner fuels like natural gas and renewables, and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to global warming. Some Republican senators from the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico coastal region were quick to accuse the president of not offering anything new. Many of them argue for opening more areas to drilling and reducing regulatory delays that they say impede oil exploration.

President Obama said he has not forgotten the devastation caused by last year's oil spill in the Gulf, and that new projects need to be examined carefully and carried out under new regulations that are designed to make them safer. "What we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility," he said.

Energy experts see some promise as well as a few problems with what the president said.

Eric Smith, who is associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute at Tulane University in New Orleans, said the moratorium on new drilling imposed after last year's accident, as well as new regulations, have slowed energy development, in spite of what the president says.

"He points to the things like an increase in permits for shallow-water drilling without making the point that shallow-water drilling does not produce oil, it produces gas. Deep-water drilling produces oil. He points to seven permits being issued. In fact there were six permits issued and these were only for wells that had been started before the impact of the moratorium," he said.

In his speech, President Obama scolded the oil and gas industry for not producing more from areas where they already hold leases. "Right now the industry hold tens of millions of acres of leases where they are not producing a single drop. They are just sitting on supplies of American energy that are ready to be tapped," Obama said.

But Eric Smith says this rhetoric misleads the public about the complexities of the oil and gas industry and the time it takes to develop a lease. "The average time from signing a lease to actually discovering oil is about five years, and then it is another five years to design all the equipment to actually produce it. So to sit there and say that the oil companies are purposely not drilling wells on land that they are paying for and that they know there is oil there is disingenuous," Smith said.

But Smith is pleased by what the president had to say about natural gas. Mr. Obama said the United States now has a 100-year supply of gas thanks, in large part, to fracking, a process through which shale deep under ground is fractured with high-pressure water and chemicals so that it will release gas. Some environmental groups say the process could contaminate water supplies, and the president said those concerns must be addressed. But Eric Smith says the president is right to move forward in spite of those concerns.

"I think he is on the right track when he talks about natural gas, we have a lot of natural gas, and I frankly think the complaints about fracking are overblown. To me, what they should be focusing on is what happens to that water that is used for fracking after it has done its job and is removed from the well bore," Smith said.

The Tulane University professor also sees promise in the Obama administration's continuing commitment to nuclear power, in spite of the accident in Japan that has caused public support for nuclear energy to plummet in recent weeks. Eric Smith says regulations aimed at addressing environmental concerns have delayed the building of new plants, and that the United States also must approve plants for reprocessing fuel as the French do, rather than storing used fuel all over the country in storage facilities.

"The French can reprocess their fuel, reduce the amount of waste they have to deal with, and produce a lower overall cost for electricity than we can because they reprocess the fuel. We persist in storing it in the very sort of tanks that you saw cause problems in Japan," Smith said.

In the end, Smith says, the success of President Obama's energy vision will depend on what Congress approves and how the goals are implemented.

Source http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Energy-Experts-Question-Parts-of-Obama-Energy-Speech-118957214.html

U.S. to review drug supply after Japan reactor breach

2011-03-15T20:58:00.001-07:00

The Obama administration will study distribution policies for a drug to protect against the effects of radiation as part of a review of the implications of Japan's ongoing nuclear disaster, a government spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

The new review would reopen a debate sought by safety activists who have called for a greater stockpile of potassium iodide near U.S. nuclear plants.

Debate over the supply has become politically charged, even as U.S. consumers cleaned out some retailers of their stocks of the medicine in recent days with an eye on Japan's struggles to contain the damage at its Fukushima nuclear plant.

Currently 22 U.S. states have stockpiled or requested the tablets known by their chemical name "KI," to be taken by residents within 10 miles of power plants in an emergency.

Nuclear regulators and nuclear industry groups have resisted calls for stockpiles for people in a wider radius, saying planning is better focused on evacuation measures.

In a statement sent late on Tuesday, Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the government will study "every aspect" of the disaster unfolding in Japan following Friday's massive 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, and the government's response to it.

"Policy options relating to KI distribution will be among the issues studied," she wrote.

Salcido did not immediately provide more details. The drug is intended to protect against thyroid cancer by stopping the sensitive gland from absorbing some forms of radiation.

U.S. policy was set by a 2002 law that called for distribution of KI to residents up to 20 miles away from reactors. In 2008, the Bush administration waived that requirement, saying evacuation would be a much better option.

JAPAN RECASTS DEBATE

Now critics have renewed the questions, with an eye on the severe quake and tsunami damage to nuclear reactors in Japan. One is Edward Markey, the Massachusetts congressman who wrote the 2002 law.

"We should not wait for a catastrophic accident at, or a terrorist attack on, a nuclear reactor in this country to occur to implement this common-sense emergency preparedness measure," Markey said on Monday.

Markey had previously called on President Barack Obama to expand stockpiles, but got a letter back from the White House last summer that let the Bush administration's position stand.

Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the U.S. nuclear industry's trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, said it supports the idea that evacuation is the best option.

"Our view quite strongly is that the science doesn't merit KI distribution beyond 10 miles," he said.

Markey spokeswoman Giselle Barry said his staff estimates U.S. agencies have purchased about 2 million KI tablets in the past decade, plus about 400,000 liquid doses for children. Some will expire soon, however.

The drug -- chemically similar to table salt -- is also sold by some pharmacies; a number of them on the West Coast have sold out in recent days, even as public health officials noted that the drug can be dangerous to people with allergies to shellfish or thyroid problems.

Some online suppliers seemed to be doing no better including Anbex.com, which calls its KI tablets "iOSAT. "As of March 14, 2011, Anbex is out of stock of iOSAT. New product expected by April 18, 2011," its website read on Tuesday.

Source http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-iodide-distribution-idUSTRE72F09G20110316?pageNumber=2

Wisconsin Puts Obama Between Competing Desires

2011-02-21T02:19:00.001-08:00

The battle in Wisconsin over public employee unions has left President Obama facing a tricky balance between showing solidarity with longtime political supporters and projecting a message in favor of deep spending cuts to reduce the debt.

Over the weekend, the White House and Democratic Party officials pushed back against criticism from Republicans that Mr. Obama and his political network were meddling in the Wisconsin dispute.

Administration officials said Sunday that the White House had done nothing to encourage the demonstrations in Wisconsin — nor was it doing so in Ohio, Florida and other states where new Republican governors are trying to make deep cuts to balance their budgets.

And, officials and union leaders said, reports of the involvement of the Democratic National Committee — specifically Organizing for America, the grass-roots network born of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign — were overblown to start with and were being inflated by Republicans sensing political advantage.

“This is a Wisconsin story, not a Washington one,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “False claims of White House involvement are attempts to distract from the organic grass-roots opposition that is happening in Wisconsin.”

Before Mr. Obama complained late last week of an “assault” on the unions by the Republican governor in Wisconsin, Scott Walker, the Democratic Party had alerted its volunteers in Organizing for America to support the protests there and elsewhere, seeing an opening to show solidarity with the labor movement and rev up the party’s liberal base ahead of the 2012 elections.

By the weekend, national party officials were taking credit for encouraging the protests, especially through the use of Twitter and other online social networks.

But the party got involved, officials say, without consulting the political team at the White House, which is wary of getting distracted from Mr. Obama’s own budget confrontations with Republicans in Washington and upsetting his carefully nurtured position as an advocate for serious measures to address deficits.

On Sunday, Republicans continued to censure Mr. Obama for weighing in on the Madison fight. In an interview with a Milwaukee television station on Thursday, the president criticized Mr. Walker for his proposal to restrict the bargaining rights of public employee unions. Republicans also said that political organizers at Democratic headquarters were stoking the protests.

Among Mr. Obama’s critics was Governor Walker. “The president ultimately should stay focused on fixing the federal budget because they’ve got a huge deficit and, believe me, they got their hands full,” Mr. Walker said on “Fox News Sunday.” He also said “more and more” protesters were coming from other states.

At issue in Madison is less Mr. Walker’s proposed reduction in public employees’ pay and benefits and more his proposal to limit their collective bargaining rights. But people familiar with the protests say the national Democratic Party got engaged days after the demonstrations began and mostly after union officials, liberals and Wisconsin Democrats complained that the Obama organization was missing in action.

Mr. Obama has had strained relations with unions in general, and many do not believe he fights hard enough for their issues; public employee unions have been especially critical lately, since he proposed a two-year freeze of federal employees’ pay.

The Milwaukee television interview that was Mr. Obama’s first involvement in the Madison budget war was sought by the White House not to interject the president into the state’s fight but to promote his separate message concerning his own national budget-cutting drama: the station broadcasts into the district of the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul D. Ryan.

In the interview, the president sought to thread the needle between supporting the need for public employees to sacrifice while defending their bargaining rights: “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions.”

That comment was “inappropriate,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on the NBC program “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“The governor of Wisconsin is doing what he campaigned on,” Mr. Graham added.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, disagreed. “I believe the president should have weighed in,” he said on the same program. “I think we should all weigh in and say, ‘Do the right thing for Wisconsin’s budget but do not destroy decades of work to establish the rights of workers to speak for themselves.’ ”

While Republicans seized the opportunity to depict Mr. Obama as siding against deficit-cutting efforts, some Democrats and union organizers said the political benefit ultimately could be theirs.

“This has really kind of put a shot in the arm of the unions and Democratic base,” said Eddie Vale, the political communications director at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who is returning to Madison on Monday, when even bigger demonstrations are expected on a federal holiday. “If Republicans keep trying to do the same thing in state after state, they’re just going to be building the 2012 get-out-the-vote operation” for Democrats.

Source http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21democrats.html?_r=1&src=twrhp

Robert Plant not afraid to remake old classics at Ovens

2011-02-11T00:31:00.001-08:00

Rock legend Robert Plant brought his all-star Band of Joy to Ovens Auditorium Monday to perform new renditions of classics from both his solo and Led Zeppelin catalogs, as well as tracks from Band of Joy’s 2010 album.

Things kicked off subtly with Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog,” but the busy psychedelic folk version didn’t ring with instant familiarity. The theme of what Plant called this “reincarnation” of the band (which is named for his and John Bonham’s late `60s pre-Zeppelin blues and soul act) was reinterpreting, sometimes even rebuilding songs, whether a cover of Los Lobos’ “Angel Dance” (which also opened the new disc) or completely reworking “Houses of the Holy.”

Plant, who remains in good shape physically and vocally (his notes soared at times), surrounds himself with Nashville’s elite. Guitarist Buddy Miller (who played on Plant and Alison Krauss’ “Raising Sand” tour and co-produced “BoJ”), vocalist Patty Griffin, and multi-instrumentalist Darrell Scott all have critically-acclaimed careers as singer-songwriters and a few hits under their belts. Each artist left their own prints on the performance while complimenting their captain and band leader who, regardless of his reverence in rock n’ roll history, treated the musicians like a true ensemble. Each took lead vocals with Plant even stepping to the side to sing back up. The rhythm section of Byron House (bass) and Marco Giovino (drums) stepped up at times as well. Rich harmonies, especially between Plant, Griffin, and Scott, were often the centerpiece.

Miller’s guitar helped provide the psychedelic feel of many tunes. His meaty tone oozes with the angry spirit and expansiveness of old westerns, which was the kind of the feeling the arrangements conjured – that, combined with gospel and touches of world music. “Tangerine” and “Rock n’ Roll” remained truest to the originals. Others, such as the `80s MTV staple “Tall Cool One,” “Ramble On,” and “Gallow’s Pole,” were party to slower, thoughtful, well plotted arrangements.

The only complaint was that clarity was sometimes at the mercy of volume when the entire band would kick in on both vocals and instruments. It was as if the dynamics had nowhere to go, but would’ve been perfect for an outdoor show. Songs like “Monkey” (originally by Low) and “Tangerine” benefited from quieter, less busy arrangements.

The North Mississippi Allstars, aka second generation blues-rock brothers Cody and Luther Dickinson, played as a guitar and drums “Duo Loco” (without bassist Chris Chew). Its set consisted of choice cuts from its new album “Keys to the Kingdom,” which pays tribute to their late father, famed producer Jim Dickinson. The set, which included sharp covers of R.L. Burnside, Bob Dylan, and the oft-covered “Rollin’ and Tumblin’,” kicked off a soulful gospel-blues spirit that threaded throughout both band’s performances. The Allstars' last song, “Lay My Burden Down,” was met with a standing ovation from most of the crowd, a rarity for an opening act.

That churchlike atmosphere concluded Plant’s portion of the concert as well. After an encore that included another `80s solo hit, “In the Mood” and Zeppelin’s “Rock n’ Roll,” the set ended with a fabulous a cappella performance of “And We Bid You Good Night,” which featured harmony from all six band members.

“See you at Bonnaroo,” Plant said as he left the stage, feeding the presumably true rumors that Band of Joy will be part of the Tennessee summer festival’s as yet unannounced line-up.

Source http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/08/2045677/robert-plant-not-afraid-to-remake.html

Obama May Put Deficit Test on Attempts to Reduce U.S. Corporate Tax Rate

2011-01-24T22:07:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama has suggested he’s open to supporting a corporate tax code overhaul. Now companies and Republican lawmakers are waiting to see if he shares their priority of lowering the top rate.

Obama told supporters he’ll focus on a theme of making the U.S. more competitive with economic rivals in his State of the Union address tonight. Procter & Gamble Co. Chairman Robert McDonald told a House committee last week that reducing the 35 percent marginal corporate rate and easing tax burdens on global profits would go a long way toward achieving that goal.

Businesses have pressed those points with Congress and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in the past month. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he expects to hear some mention of tax proposals that Republicans have urged for years.

“I’m told he’s going to come out for lowering the corporate tax rate,” McConnell said on Fox News Sunday on Jan. 23. “We have the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world right now. It’s not competitive.”

Obama is unlikely to provide details of his tax proposals until February, some analysts say. The president is set to speak to the Chamber of Commerce on Feb. 7, a week before releasing a budget blueprint for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

‘A Mention’

“He won’t talk a lot about it but he will give it a mention” in tonight’s speech, predicted former New York Representative Dan Maffei, a Democrat who now leads an initiative advocating a rewrite of the corporate tax code for Third Way, a Washington group with Democratic ties. “Presidents always put down markers that create expectations.”

Top officials of General Electric Co., Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America Corp., United Technologies Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Caterpillar Inc. and Microsoft Corp. met with Geithner this month to discuss corporate taxes. Some executives, such as Cisco Systems Inc.’s CEO John Chambers, are pushing for a special tax break to import their foreign profits.

Last October, Obama said at a meeting of his economic recovery advisory board that he’d be open to lowering the corporate tax rate if it could be financed by eliminating tax breaks. He further fueled expectations in December, directing his economic team to begin analyzing alternatives for a tax overhaul that would trim the budget deficit.

The administration faces a major challenge on a tax overhaul because the budget deficit, which totaled $1.3 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, limits their options.

Jason Furman, Obama’s deputy director of the National Economic Council, said in a speech at a conference at Georgetown University Law Center Jan. 21 that any moves to cut the corporate rate must not cause the deficit to increase.

Revenue Neutral

Obama has “repeatedly expressed interest in this and said he’s open to any ideas that promote economic growth without making our deficit problem worse,” Furman said, stressing several times that the effort must be “revenue neutral.”

The top 35 percent marginal U.S. corporate tax rate will soon be the highest in the developed world. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation in 2007 estimated a proposal to reduce the rate to 30.5 percent would cost the government about $363.8 billion in foregone revenue over 10 years.

Congress and the White House likely would look to recover that revenue by eliminating deductions and credits available to some companies that allow them to pay an effective tax rate that’s well below 35 percent.

At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Jan. 20, Procter & Gamble’s McDonald told lawmakers that a group of chief financial officers asked Geithner to take the revenue-neutral approach “off the table for now” and focus on lowering the corporate tax rate.

Fiscal Questions

“Let’s just agree that what we want to do is to do something that’s fiscally responsible,” said McDonald, who is also chairman of the fiscal policy initiative of the Business Roundtable, a Washington-based group representing corporations.

In recent weeks, the administration has debated internally whether rewriting the tax code is worth the political pain if the effort doesn’t raise revenue, according to a top administration official.

All the sides say it will take strong signals from Obama to determine whether talk of tax reform this year will produce legislation or will end up as another academic exercise.

“It will require leadership from the executive, which I am sure will be forthcoming,” said Michigan Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

Source http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-25/obama-may-put-deficit-test-on-attempts-to-reduce-u-s-corporate-tax-rate.html