Saturday, August 17, 2013
Filthy Filner Can No Longer Patronize Hooters
According to a tweet from San Diego Republican Party executive director Francis Barraza. Barraza also tweeted that her server said it was a “corporate” decision for “every location,” according to a server. A call to her office said she was out to lunch, presumably, at Hooters. An email to Hooter’s spokesperson was not immediately returned.
South Korean 'Super Gun' Can Lock On And Eliminate A Human Target From 3-Kilometers
Academic Women's Center to Conservative Women: Not Here
 |
| Alderman Library on the campus of UVA. |
After completing an exhilarating Capitol Hill internship in 2004, Karin Agness returned to University of Virginia eager to find a group of conservative women with whom she could continue her political education. But when she approached the school’s women’s center about co-sponsoring a club to that end, she was rebuffed by a faculty member.
“She just looked at me like I was crazy,” Agness recalled. “She chuckled and said, ‘Not here.’”
Undeterred, Agness founded her own club for young conservative college women — an organization, Network of enlightened Women (NeW), that has since grown to 20 chapters on campuses across the country, and that Republicans hope will offer a foothold in their outreach to an elusive voting demographic: female college students.
According to 2012 exit polls, Mitt Romney won only 36% of women under 30 years old. Republican National Committee spokesperson Sarah Isgur-Flores blamed the party’s trouble reaching these voters, in part, on their message getting “distorted through the lens of liberal academia.”
“We’re a party of ideas that really resonate with college students,” said Isgur-Flores. “Liberty, self-governance — once they hear those ideas from us, they’re meaningful and they identify with them. I think part of this for us is finding messengers and getting them
Muslim Women who fear being forced to marry abroad told to hide spoon in underwear
Charity advises women and young girls to set off airport metal detectors to give them more time to seek help from authoritiesKarma Nirvana says purposefully setting off an airport scanner can give women and girls one last chance to tell someone they are at risk of being forced into marriage. Photograph: Benoit Tessier/Reuters
A number of women and girls at risk of forced marriage have avoided going abroad by concealing spoons in their underwear at airport security, according to a campaign group.
Karma Nirvana, a Derby-based charity that supports victims of forced marriage, advises people who ring its helpline to hide a spoon in order to set off metal detectors at British airports. The group says that its recommendation has prevented some women from being spirited overseas.
Last week ministers warned that young people were at the highest risk of being taken abroad for a forced marriage during the school holidays. The government's forced marriage unit received 400 reports between June and August last year, out of an annual total of 1,500.
No one knows for sure how many Britons are forced into marriage each year. Estimates range from 1,500 to 5,000. More than a third of those affected are thought to be aged under 16.
Speaking to the AFP news agency, Natasha Rattu, Karma Nirvana's operations manager, said that when worried youngsters ring the charity's helpline, "if they don't know exactly when it may happen or if it's going to happen, we advise them to put a spoon in their underwear.
"When they go through security, it will highlight this object in a private area and, if 16 or over, they will be
Lobbyist Secretly Wrote House Dems' Letter Urging Weaker Investor Protections
Thirty-two liberal Democrats signed onto a letter drafted by a financial-industry lobbyist that aims to block protections for millions of Americans' retirement accounts.
June 14 letter from 32 House Democrats to the Department of Labor.
A letter that a group of progressive Democrats sent to federal regulators opposing new protections for millions of Americans' retirement accounts was drafted by a financial-industry lobbyist, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.
The Department of Labor, which oversees the federal law setting minimum standards for many retirement plans, would like to require retirement investment advisers to act in the best interest of their customers, as opposed to their own best interest.
But 28 out of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—a group of African American members of Congress that advocates the interests of low-income people and minorities—signed onto a June 14 letter opposing the rule. So did Democratic lawmakers Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Ed Pastor of Arizona, and Jim Costa of California.
The letter's metadata indicates it was drafted by Robert Lewis, a lobbyist who works for the Financial Services Institute (FSI), an investment industry trade group:
Together, the liberal lawmakers who signed the letter have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money from the securities and investment industry in recent years.
In the letter, the lawmakers caution the Labor Department against proposing new regulations, warning that a strict new rule on retirement advisers may cause many of them to leave the market and thus "could severely limit access to low-cost investment advice" for "the minority communities we represent."
But the Department of Labor, financial reform groups, and consumer advocates say the regulation won't make it any harder for poor and middle-class customers to get investment advice. The current law doesn't do enough to prevent unscrupulous investment brokers from parking Americans' hard-earned cash in high-fee investments that benefit themselves, even if it's not in their customers best interests, argues Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America.
Current Labor Department regulations governing retirement investment advisers date back to 1974, when most people had traditional pension plans that left few decisions to workers. Today, most employees have to figure out how to invest their retirement money on their own. Each year, according to the Congressional Research Service, about 10 million people change jobs and must move their retirement money from employee-sponsored 401(k) plans into individual retirement accounts. As Americans seek advice on what to do with those IRAs, they often consult advisers who stand to profit by duping investors into making unnecessary high-fee investments.
"This rule is about protecting people from conflicts of interest," says Phyllis Borzi, the Department of Labor's assistant secretary for employee benefits security, who is spearheading the push for a stronger investment adviser rule. "Those conflicts harm everyone who is doing the right thing and trying to save."
Borzi emphasizes that an updated adviser rule is especially important to protect working-class people from predatory investment counselors. Conflicts of interest in the business "are particularly harmful when you're talking about low-income workers, who can least afford to lose their hard-earned savings," she says.
But the industry has a lot to lose from a rule change. FSI has expressed concern that the regulation would limit the types of fees advisers can collect for servicing retirement accounts. The trade group spent $196,000 on lobbying in the just the first quarter of 2013—that's nearly half the the total it spent on lobbying in all of 2012. On a recent federal disclosure form, FSI listed the Labor Department's investment adviser rule at the top of its lobbying issues. FSI did not respond to requests for comment on the ghostwritten letter.
It's not unheard of for lobbyists to ghostwrite letters—or even legislation—for lawmakers. In May, Mother Jones reported on a House bill written almost entirely by a Citigroup lobbyist that would vastly expand the types of risky trades a bank can conduct with taxpayer-backed money.
The House Dems' letter of opposition could help the financial industry make a case that there is widespread concern about the change. The signatories represent low- and middle-income districts with large proportions of minority voters. The CBC has long backed progressive policies that help low-income folks, such as nutrition assistance, jobs programs, and unemployment benefits. Fifteen of the CBC members who signed the letter are also part of the 68-member Congressional Progressive Caucus.
A spokeswoman for the CBC emphasized that the caucus is concerned about the effect of the rule on the "smaller, independent financial services firms that provide tailored financial services to underrepresented communities" that FSI represents, adding that "the one-size-fits-all approach to policymaking is not always in the best interest of our constituents." (The offices of the non-CBC signatories did not respond to a request for comment.)
Marcus Stanley, policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform, notes that no matter the size of the firms FSI represents, the trade group has "a very clear interest that gives them a perspective on this that can be at odds with the perspective of constituents who are investing their retirement investments."
In just the last election cycle, lawmakers who signed the June 14 letter raked in over $88,000 in donations from the
June 14 letter from 32 House Democrats to the Department of Labor.
A letter that a group of progressive Democrats sent to federal regulators opposing new protections for millions of Americans' retirement accounts was drafted by a financial-industry lobbyist, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.
The Department of Labor, which oversees the federal law setting minimum standards for many retirement plans, would like to require retirement investment advisers to act in the best interest of their customers, as opposed to their own best interest.
But 28 out of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—a group of African American members of Congress that advocates the interests of low-income people and minorities—signed onto a June 14 letter opposing the rule. So did Democratic lawmakers Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Ed Pastor of Arizona, and Jim Costa of California.
The letter's metadata indicates it was drafted by Robert Lewis, a lobbyist who works for the Financial Services Institute (FSI), an investment industry trade group:
Together, the liberal lawmakers who signed the letter have received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money from the securities and investment industry in recent years.
In the letter, the lawmakers caution the Labor Department against proposing new regulations, warning that a strict new rule on retirement advisers may cause many of them to leave the market and thus "could severely limit access to low-cost investment advice" for "the minority communities we represent."
But the Department of Labor, financial reform groups, and consumer advocates say the regulation won't make it any harder for poor and middle-class customers to get investment advice. The current law doesn't do enough to prevent unscrupulous investment brokers from parking Americans' hard-earned cash in high-fee investments that benefit themselves, even if it's not in their customers best interests, argues Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America.
Current Labor Department regulations governing retirement investment advisers date back to 1974, when most people had traditional pension plans that left few decisions to workers. Today, most employees have to figure out how to invest their retirement money on their own. Each year, according to the Congressional Research Service, about 10 million people change jobs and must move their retirement money from employee-sponsored 401(k) plans into individual retirement accounts. As Americans seek advice on what to do with those IRAs, they often consult advisers who stand to profit by duping investors into making unnecessary high-fee investments.
"This rule is about protecting people from conflicts of interest," says Phyllis Borzi, the Department of Labor's assistant secretary for employee benefits security, who is spearheading the push for a stronger investment adviser rule. "Those conflicts harm everyone who is doing the right thing and trying to save."
Borzi emphasizes that an updated adviser rule is especially important to protect working-class people from predatory investment counselors. Conflicts of interest in the business "are particularly harmful when you're talking about low-income workers, who can least afford to lose their hard-earned savings," she says.
But the industry has a lot to lose from a rule change. FSI has expressed concern that the regulation would limit the types of fees advisers can collect for servicing retirement accounts. The trade group spent $196,000 on lobbying in the just the first quarter of 2013—that's nearly half the the total it spent on lobbying in all of 2012. On a recent federal disclosure form, FSI listed the Labor Department's investment adviser rule at the top of its lobbying issues. FSI did not respond to requests for comment on the ghostwritten letter.
It's not unheard of for lobbyists to ghostwrite letters—or even legislation—for lawmakers. In May, Mother Jones reported on a House bill written almost entirely by a Citigroup lobbyist that would vastly expand the types of risky trades a bank can conduct with taxpayer-backed money.
The House Dems' letter of opposition could help the financial industry make a case that there is widespread concern about the change. The signatories represent low- and middle-income districts with large proportions of minority voters. The CBC has long backed progressive policies that help low-income folks, such as nutrition assistance, jobs programs, and unemployment benefits. Fifteen of the CBC members who signed the letter are also part of the 68-member Congressional Progressive Caucus.
A spokeswoman for the CBC emphasized that the caucus is concerned about the effect of the rule on the "smaller, independent financial services firms that provide tailored financial services to underrepresented communities" that FSI represents, adding that "the one-size-fits-all approach to policymaking is not always in the best interest of our constituents." (The offices of the non-CBC signatories did not respond to a request for comment.)
Marcus Stanley, policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform, notes that no matter the size of the firms FSI represents, the trade group has "a very clear interest that gives them a perspective on this that can be at odds with the perspective of constituents who are investing their retirement investments."
In just the last election cycle, lawmakers who signed the June 14 letter raked in over $88,000 in donations from the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)