The U.S. remains in a recession: 79 percent of voters. By 53 – 25 percent they blame former President George W. Bush more than Obama for the current economic conditions.
American voters say 64 – 30 percent that reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the federal budget deficit, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Even Republicans say 58 – 38 percent that reducing unemployment is more important.
The U.S. remains in a recession, 79 percent of voters tell the independent Quinnipiac University poll, compared to 74 percent who felt that way in May and 71 percent who said so in May of 2008, when the economy began its slide.
American voters say 52 – 44 percent the economy is not beginning to recover. Only 23 percent say the economy is getting better, while 31 percent say it is getting worse and 44 percent see no change. In May, 32 percent of voters thought the economy was getting better, while 24 percent said it was getting worse and 43 percent saw no change.
“The public seems to be reassessing the view held through the winter and spring, when they thought economic conditions were lousy but could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now they aren’t seeing that light,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
By 53 – 25 percent they blame former President George W. Bush more than Obama for the current economic conditions, compared to blaming Bush 55 – 20 percent in a January Quinnipiac University survey.
A new study examining death sentences in North Carolina over a 28-year period ending in 2007 shows that among similar homicides, the odds of a death sentence for those who are suspected of killing whites are approximately three times higher than the odds of a death sentence for those suspected of killing blacks.
The study, to be published in The North Carolina Law Review next year, was conducted by Michael Radelet, a sociology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Glenn Pierce, a research scientist in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University in Boston. It is the most comprehensive study of the modern administration of the death penalty in North Carolina to date.
“It’s just kind of baffling that in this day and age — race matters,” said Radelet, one of the nation’s leading experts on the death penalty.
One of the top states to use the death penalty over the past 30 years, North Carolina has one of the nation’s largest death rows with 155 men and four women facing execution.
And with its passage of the Racial Justice Act last year, North Carolina became the second state in the nation after Kentucky to allow murder suspects and those already on death row to present statistical evidence of racial bias. The law is aimed at ensuring that the race of the defendant or victim doesn’t play a key role in the sentence a person receives in death penalty cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that statistical evidence of racial bias could not be considered in individual cases, but that states could pass their own legislation to do so. The study by Radelet and Pierce is the first to be released since North Carolina passed the Racial Justice Act.
Radelet and Pierce examined 15,281 homicides in North Carolina between 1980 and 2007, of which 368 resulted in death sentences for those convicted.
Using Supplemental Homicide Reports from the FBI, as well as other records from the North Carolina Department of Correction and the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the authors obtained information on all death row cases in which the victim was either black or white. The other 16 cases were eliminated.
The authors also looked for any additional factors — such as multiple victims or homicides accompanied by an additional felony, such as rape or robbery — that might explain the disparity in death penalty sentencing. These additional factors partially explained death penalty decisions, but even after statistically controlling for their effect, race remained an important predictor of who was sentenced to death.
An examination of these factors “show that the reason why the probability of a death sentence is higher for those who are suspected of killing whites than for those who are suspected of killing blacks is not because the former cases tend to be more aggravated,” the authors wrote. “Regardless of whether there are zero, one or two additional legally relevant factors present, cases with white victims are more likely to result in a death sentence than are cases with black victims.”
Specifically, the study found that the odds of receiving a death sentence in North Carolina “in a white victim case are on average 2.96 times higher than are the odds of a death sentence in a black victim case.” The finding is statistically significant and the probability of obtaining a similar result if racial bias were not an option is less than 5 percent, according to the authors.
Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., have introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which overhauls the law that allows chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, or other illnesses in the products we use on our bodies every day.
“Harmful chemicals have no place in the products we put on our bodies or on our children’s bodies,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “Our cosmetics laws are woefully out of date—manufacturers aren’t even required to disclose all their ingredients on labels, leaving Americans unknowingly exposed to harmful mystery ingredients. This bill will finally protect those consumers.”
The legislation includes a phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer and birth defects, full ingredient disclosure, and help for small businesses to meet new regulations.
Americans use an average of 10 personal care products each day, resulting in exposure to about 126 chemicals. Personal care products add to our daily chemical exposures from air, water, food and other consumer products.
“The cosmetics industry says the amounts of potentially toxic chemicals in their products are so small that they carry no risk, but we know that for some chemicals small doses can have big effects,” said Maryann Donovan, Ph.D., an expert on environmental exposures and biological effects from the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “We need to better understand the short- and long-term health effects resulting from small doses of toxic chemicals, repeated daily exposures, exposures during fetal or infant development, and exposures to mixtures of chemicals in personal care products.”
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has launched The Story of Cosmetics, a 7-minute video by Annie Leonard of The Story of Stuff that reveals the toxic side of the beauty industry and calls for regulatory change:
“When there are cancer-causing chemicals in baby shampoo and mercury in skin cream, you know the system is broken,” said Janet Nudelman of the Breast Cancer Fund and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 recognizes that consumers have a right to safe personal care products, that companies have a responsibility to understand the health effects of the chemicals in their products, and that we need government to help us get there.”
NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut PAC has announced endorsements for the
August 10th Primaries in key races across Connecticut. The group is
non-partisan, and endorsements are given only to candidates who
request an endorsement and are deemed by the PAC to be 100% pro-
choice.
In the Republican Primary for Attorney General, NARAL Pro-Choice CT
PAC has endorsed Ross Garber. Garber faces anti-choice challenger
Martha Dean who has been endorsed by the anti-choice Family Institute
of Connecticut (FIC).
“Ross Garber promises to enforce the laws of Connecticut,” said PAC
Chair Cari Pierdes. “It is extremely important that the next Attorney
General of the state of Connecticut remain pro-choice”.
In the Democratic Primary for State Comptroller, NARAL Pro-Choice
Connecticut PAC has endorsed Kevin Lembo. Kevin Lembo is a leader on
reproductive choice.
“As the state’s HealthCare Advocate, Kevin worked closely with the pro-
choice community in defense of federal conscious clause legislation
and attempts to restrict access to abortion in federal health care
reform,” said Cari Pierdes, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut PAC
Chair.
Lembo faces anti-choice Michael Jarjura in an August 10th Democratic
Primary.
NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut PAC has also endorsed two candidates in
state House primaries: Matt Ritter in the 1st district Democratic
Primary (Hartford), and Susana Vidan for the open seat in a Democratic
Primary in the 144th district (Stamford).
NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut PAC also notes that gubernatorial
candidates Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy, Lieutenant Governor candidates
Nancy Wyman and Mary Glassman, and Secretary of State candidates
Denise Merrill and Gerry Garcia are all 100% pro-choice based on their
responses to the PAC questionnaire.
The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, which was sponsored by U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) provides an additional $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In the first six months of 2010 alone, nearly 528,000 homes were taken over by lenders. This rate is on track to eclipse the unprecedented 900,000 homes repossessed in 2009, according to data released on July 15th by RealtyTrac Inc.
NSP provides emergency assistance to states and local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed, vacant and abandoned properties that lead to blighted neighborhoods and declining property values.
The Act permits the purchase and redevelopment of vacant properties to count toward the requirement that 25% of funds be spent on families with very low incomes. This change will make it easier to leverage NSP funds with private dollars, reduce the per-unit cost to rehabilitate and sell low-income homes, and return more vacant properties to productive neighborhood assets.
Specifically, NSP funds are used to: purchase and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed homes; establish financing tools for the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed homes; create and operate land banks for foreclosed properties; demolish blighted structures; and develop demolished or vacant properties.
With 12 legislative days remaining before the August recess, Congress should prioritize reinstating the estate tax, currently the most progressive tax in the code and the only national tax on wealth.
Hardworking families who live paycheck to paycheck pay their fair share of taxes, and so should the heirs of millionaires. If Congress chooses to shrink the estate tax, the middle class will face higher taxes or cuts in vital services like unemployment benefits or education. We don’t need to weaken the estate tax – we need to strengthen it.
Robert Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury is widely credited with overseeing the Clinton era economic boom:
“Our country is on an unsustainable fiscal path. A progressive estate tax can provide needed revenue with no adverse supply-side economic effect, and that revenue can then fund deficit reduction, additional public investment, or added assistance to those affected by the economic crisis. Our nation has always held itself out as a meritocracy and a land of opportunity, and an estate tax helps avoid accumulation of inherited economic and political power that is antithetical to this historical vision of our society.”
“Our economy remains on the edge of a double-dip recession, and we urgently need to create millions of jobs and invest in our future, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy,” said Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO. “Anyone who pretends to care about cutting deficits while opposing the restoration of the estate tax is clearly residing on a different planet.”
Progressive proposals that are worthy of support include the bill offered by Senators Sanders, Harkin, and Whitehouse (S.3533) with a $3.5 million exemption per spouse, 45-55% rate, and a 65% rate on amounts over $1 billion; and a House bill from Rep. Jim McDermott (HR 2023) with a $2 million exemption per spouse and a 45-55% rate.
The federal estate tax, established in 1916, has been temporarily suspended for one year at the beginning of 2010 as a result of Bush era tax policies and Congress’s failure to act in 2009. If Congress fails to pass new legislation, the estate tax reverts in 2011 to a $1 million exemption per spouse and rates from 41-55%.
United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is a national non-profit organization based in Boston, which raises awareness about the dangers of extreme economic inequality and works to foster a more broadly shared prosperity. Responsible Wealth, a project of UFE, is a network of business leaders, investors and inheritors in the top 5 percent of wealth and/or income in the US who use their surprising voice to advocate for progressive state and federal taxes and greater corporate accountability.
