Laura Booth joins Liberal Democrats and supports General Election candidate Lisa Smart

Stockport councillor Laura Booth reveals she’s joined the Lib Dems after she was due to stand as Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Hazel Grove but quit the party over ‘bullying’ claims

An independent councillor at the centre of a General Election campaign row has joined the Lib Dems.

Stockport councillor Laura Booth was due to stand as Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Hazel Grove but quit the party over ‘bullying’ claims last year.

Local members vehemently deny the accusations and say Coun Booth has failed to produce any evidence to back up the claims.

Coun Booth, who has sat as an independent in Stockport since leaving Labour, is now supporting Lib Dem general election candidate Lisa Smart.

As the M.E.N. revealed last week, Labour has accused the Lib Dems of ‘dirty tactics’ after an email from Coun Booth was circulated by the party to voters.

Members, including election candidate Michael Taylor, blasted her for ‘misleading’ residents, claiming her email deliberately ‘confuses’ voters into thinking a Labour councillor was backing a Lib Dem – and that the party has given up in Hazel Grove.

Mr Taylor said Coun Booth was a ‘Lib Dem in all but name’.

The Lib Dems have now revealed she has joined their party.

Coun Booth said: “Having worked closely with many local Lib Dem councillors, I have found them to be honest, hard-working people, who strive to get the best for local residents.

“I think Stockport is best placed in Lib Dem hands and therefore I feel happy to be joining them and also continuing to support Lisa Smart to become the MP for Hazel Grove.”

Ms Smart said: “I’m delighted to welcome Laura Booth to the Lib Dems.

“She is a very hardworking local councillor and is a great addition to the team.

“Everyone knows that in the Hazel Grove constituency, it is a clear fight between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

“More and more former Labour voters are telling me that they are voting Lib Dem this time as they know it’s the only way to stop the Conservatives in our area.”

Mr Taylor insists Labour has a chance of snatching the seat and denied former Labour supporters were being wooed by Ms Smart.

He said: “Around 40pc of the Lid Dem’s support is coming over to Labour, according to a recent YouGov poll.

“Coun Booth needs to be careful of traffic coming in the other direction.

“The Lib Dems are hemorrhaging support. This is the last desperate measure of a campaign in meltdown.”

 

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1Kqhyv9

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1KqhwmV
via IFTTT

CHRISTIE SAYS HE STILL HOLDS OUT HOPE FOR BUDGET DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS

But governor hints during monthly radio show that he would once again veto ‘millionaire’s tax’ to help deal with pension shortfall

Gov. Chris Christie says that this year he’s looking to negotiate a budget deal with lawmakers – possibly managing to avoid a repeat of last year’s messy budget season.

“The fact is that we have until June 30 to pass a budget and I’m confident we’ll do that,” Christie said last night during his monthly radio show on NJ 101.5 FM.

Despite that confidence, the Republican governor and Democratic legislative leaders have a lot of work to do, given that they’re far apart right now on the size of a planned contribution into the public-employee pension system and how to pay for it.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Vince Prieto (D-Hudson) have both talked openly this year about increasing the income tax rate on earnings over $1 million to bring in more revenue for a pension payment, something Christie has rejected on four different occasions since taking office in early 2010 and which he hinted he might do again.

“Listen, I’m not going to get into specifics of what they may or may not do,” Christie said last night. “If they choose to push a budget on their own, that’s their responsibility if they choose to do it that way.”

Last year, the Republican governor went against the wishes of the Democratic legislative leaders and significantly reduced a promised payment into the pension system when he used line-item veto powers to cut the $34 billion spending plan Democrats sent him at the end of June.

But in doing so, Christie spurred a lawsuit from public-worker unions, which accused him of breaking a state law calling for the bigger contribution — $2.25 billion compared to $681 million – and drew the attention of Wall Street credit-rating agencies, which later downgraded New Jersey’s credit ratings, primarily citing concerns about pension funding.

Those events all ran counter to statements Christie’s made as he explores running for president in 2016, including his claims that he works well with Democrats and that his handling of the pension system has been a marked improvement over predecessors who chronically underfunded the state’s numerous pension funds.

This year, then, it’s not surprising that Christie is indicating that he would prefer to negotiate a budget deal with legislative leaders and reach an agreement well before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.

Pension-reform laws Christie signed in 2010 and 2011 guaranteed a payment of $3.1 billion, an amount the legislative leaders want to see the governor come close to funding. But Christie has said that amount is now unaffordable, and his $33.8 billion spending plan] for the 2016 fiscal year calls for a $1.3 billion contribution.

Last night, radio-show host Eric Scott tried to press Christie on what he would do if Democrats, as they did last year send him a proposal to increase taxes on earnings over $1 million – what’s often referred to as a millionaire’s tax – if the additional revenue were used only to boost the pension contribution.

That’s the course New Jersey voters want their leaders to take this year, according to a poll released last week by Quinnipiac University.

Asked specifically whether they approve of increasing taxes on those earning over $1 million to help cover the pension contribution, 64 percent of the voters surveyed said they would support doing so, compared to 33 percent who said they wouldn’t.

Christie seemed to indicate last night that he’s readying another veto, but didn’t come right out and say so.

“I’ve vetoed a millionaire’s tax four times, so sometimes past is prologue, but we’ll see what happens,” Christie said. “I’m not going to negotiate in public on the budget.”

Neither Sweeney nor Prieto could be reached for comment last night.

If the three men do reach an agreement on a spending plan this year it would mark the third time that Democrats have been able to work with the governor on a consensus budget since he took office in early 2010. It’s something they accomplished during Christie’s first year in office and again in 2013, when Christie was up for re-election and all 120 legislative seats were also on the November ballot.

But there was no budget deal in 2011, 2012 or last year. That resulted in the budget being signed into law only after Christie exercised gubernatorial line-item veto authority, which enables him to delete language and spending from the budget, but not make any additions.

Christie’s decision to veto a millionaire’s tax hike and an associated surcharge on corporate revenue that Democrats proposed last year to help fund the larger, $2.25 billion pension contribution resulted in enactment of the current $32.8 billion budget.

Depending on how the pension litigation plays out, the governor and lawmakers may ultimately be forced to make the larger payment before the current fiscal year ends on June 30. The unions won the first round of the case in state Superior Court in February, but Christie’s administration has appealed to the state Supreme Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 6.

The court has also agreed to allow Sweeney and Prieto – who have sided with the unions – to join the case as a “friend of the court,” accepting a brief yesterday that they filed last week against the governor’s wishes.

Christie has also proposed a new round of public-employee benefits changes, including freezing the current pension system in favor of a new retirement plan with features of a 401(k). But last week officials from the New Jersey Education Association pulled out of talks with a panel of experts Christie appointed last year to review the affordability of employee benefits, striking a blow to his hopes for new reforms.

He acknowledged during the radio show last night that there’s been “no progress” when it comes to his broader reform plan, which also includes a proposal to offer employees less-generous healthcare coverage.

“The fact is that they never got anywhere near coming to any final negotiations on this,” Christie said.

 

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1ENbBcT

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1ENbAFZ
via IFTTT

Fallout From Corinthian Collapse

WASHINGTON — The implosion of Corinthian Colleges over the past 10 months was an unprecedented challenge for the U.S. Department of Education. But navigating the politics left in the wake of the company’s collapse may prove even trickier.

As Corinthian shut down its remaining campuses on Monday, the Education Department was again defending its role in dismantling the for-profit college chain and facing renewed pressure from congressional Democrats to relieve the federal loans of students who attended Corinthian.

The sudden closure of those campuses, which displaced approximately 16,000 students, could cost taxpayers as much as $214 million, according to a department official, who declined to be named. That figure represents the maximum possible hit to federal coffers if every student at the campuses shuttered Monday were to request a discharge of their federal loans based on Corinthian’s closure.

The actual amount of debt canceled is likely to be less, however, as students who continue their studies elsewhere would not be eligible for the closed-school discharge.

The department official said that the potential cost to the federal government of Corinthian’s closure could have been higher if it weren’t for the department’s “rapid and strong action to ensure an orderly wind-down of Corinthian’s business.”

Had Corinthian collapsed last fall before the department brokered the sale of most of the company’s U.S. campuses to the ECMC Group, the official said, taxpayers would have faced a liability of $639 million in possible loan discharges.

Corinthian had more than 72,000 students last summer when the department-imposed restrictions on its access to federal aid caused a liquidity crisis at the company. Approximately 16,000 students had been enrolled this week, according to Corinthian.

“This is a consequence of the orderly wind-down,” the department official said Monday.

Intensifying Calls for Debt Relief

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill on Monday, meanwhile, sought to step up pressure on the Education Department to forgive the federal loans of students who attended Corinthian Colleges and some other for-profit institutions.

Six Democrats sent a letter to the Education Department and the four companies it hires to collect loans, calling on the government and the servicers to immediately identify and notify students who may qualify for federal loan discharges or cancellations.

The lawmakers, along with student activists and some state attorneys general, have been pushing the Education Department to set up a clear process for loan borrowers to file claims to have their loans canceled because of their college’s misconduct.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has been leading that charge, slammed the Education Department Monday for not setting up a process for handling those claims, known as “defense to repayment” claims.

“These borrowers — people who were cheated and people who have been buried in debt — just keep on paying and the government keeps on collecting,” she said at forum on student loan debt at Howard University. “This is wrong.”

The department “has all the information it needs to simply discharge the loans” of Corinthian students, Warren said. “But the department isn’t doing that.”

“We’re pushing them hard,” she told reporters after the event. She said that she had “more than once” discussed the issue directly with Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Duncan said last week that the department was still deciding how to handle the defense to repayment claims, adding that “everything’s on the table.”

The department plans to provide new information on such during the first week of May, a department official said in an email on Monday.

 

 

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1GCMfPe

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1KpIMC0
via IFTTT

The Democrats are making a stand on currency manipulation — and it’s a really good idea

It’s down to the wire, but Democrats appear to finally be getting serious about making sure the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal — a massive trade pact between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations — is worker-friendly. And if it isn’t, it may not happen at all.

At issue is what’s called trade promotion authority — or “fast track” authority — which would give the president the ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries with some minimal criteria from Congress. Then the deal would be approved or rejected by the legislature in a simple up-or-down vote.

On Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House,threw her weight behind an alternative version of fast track authority that comes with more serious strings: It would create an advisory board to ensure the White House has met certain criteria in the TPP deal, including labor and environmental protections.

But most importantly, the Democrats’ alternative would require the TPP to include rules against currency manipulation by the member countries.

Currency manipulation is when governments engage in policies that drive down the value of their currency relative to other currencies. And lately, “other currencies” has usually meant the U.S. dollar. This makes our exports more expensive, and their imports cheaper, which drives up the U.S. trade deficit.

In practical terms, this means that demand, which could be staying in the U.S. economy and creating jobs, is instead leaving to create jobs in other countries’ economies. At the moment, the trade deficit is somewhere in the vicinity of $500 billion, which amounts to about 3 percent of the economy just getting sucked up into the ether every year. That costs American jobs. But because the jobs lost are disproportionately in exporting industries like manufacturing — and because a high-value dollar helps low-wage employers, like Walmart, that have invested in low-cost foreign supply chains — the trade deficit also drives down wages, speeding up the “hourglass” effect, in which our economy produces lots of high-paying and low-paying jobs, but fewer and fewer middle-income jobs.

The latest work on the U.S. trade deficit, by Fred Bergsten and Joseph Gagnon, suggests currency manipulation could account for anywhere between $200 billion to $500 billion of the trade deficit — a little less than half, to nearly all of it.

With those numbers, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) projected that eliminating currency manipulation could create anywhere from 2.3 million to 5.8 million American jobs. In February of 2014, EPI estimated that job creation would close one-third to three-fourths of the hole blown in the American economy by the 2008 collapse. (It might close it even further now, given the strong job growth we saw in the past year.) Furthermore, those job gains would be spread across every state and they would reduce the federal budget deficit, since the government would need to borrow less to make up the lost demand. In fact, in terms of impact on the economy, the importance of the trade deficit swamps the federal government’s budget deficit.

Economists who support putting currency manipulation rules in the TPP also think there’s a pretty simple definition that teases out the manipulation from other legitimate policies that also happen to affect currency values. “That is the use of domestic government or government-controlled resources to buy assets denominated in foreign currencies,” said Robert Scott, an economist with EPI. “If you look at the foreign currency holdings of the Federal Reserve, they’re trivial — a few tens of billions of dollars. Officially, in the Japanese central bank, they’re about $1.4 trillion. So that’s a bright line.”

For example, when the U.S. Federal Reserve engaged in quantitative easing to try to boost the economy, it mainly did it by buying up assets denominated in our own currency. That would pass muster under this definition, even though the policy did put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Had the Fed done it by buying up assets in foreign currencies, that would’ve been another matter.

Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has also endorsed this approach, and pointed to Bergsten’s suggestion that the line be drawn at holding enough assets in a foreign currency to cover one year’s worth of external liabilities, and no more. The idea is that foreign governments would need to divest holdings to get below that threshold, and if they got above it again, certain penalties would hit: taxes, fines, cancelation of certain trade privileges, or even allowing reciprocal currency intervention by other countries.

For the moment, about 20 countries, including China, have been buying up assets in foreign currencies at a rate of about $1 trillion per year, using their central banks and other institutions like government-controlled wealth and pension funds.

Administration officials and other observers seem pretty sure that demanding rules on currency manipulation would kill the TPP. But the deal is probably among the last opportunities to set the rules of the road for international trade; China isn’t part of the TPP discussions, but the deal will definitely set the terrain for future negotiations. So risking the whole deal to force a reckoning on currency manipulation, as well as otherprotections for workers, makes sense — especially given that powerful corporations will make out like bandits under the TPP’s likely expansionof intellectual property law.

Along with Pelosi, other top Democrats in the House and Senate — including Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer — are on record opposing the current approach to the TPP and fast track authority. That not only puts them at odds with mainstream Republicans, but with a massivelobbying blitz by the Obama administration as well.

The White House’s preferred version of fast track authority has made it through several committees, but it still needs its final vote in both the House and the Senate. With a fair number of Tea Party Republicans also in revolt, the White House and its GOP allies will need all the votes they can muster.

If Pelosi and the other Democrats hold firm, they could yet force a set of reformed fast track and TPP agreements on their terms.

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1zgQ624

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1J4PE73
via IFTTT

Democrats offer Connecticut budget that replenishes many Malloy cuts, changes spending cap

HARTFORD, Conn. –  Leaders of the Democratic-controlled budget-writing committee have crafted a two-year, $40.5 billion spending plan for Connecticut that would restore many of the social service and health care cuts proposed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and decried by advocates as draconian.

Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, co-chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said state funding is “probably about 90 percent back to normal” for many of those programs.

“The main thing is to maintain the services,” she said. “They’re not going to be at the vibrance that they were last year, but they’re still there and what we have to do is figure out how we maintain them without costing people services.”

Members of the Appropriations Committee were scheduled to vote Monday afternoon on the plan, which spends $605 million more than Malloy’s budget over two years in the General Fund, the state’s main spending account. The Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee has until May 1 to vote on a corresponding revenue package. Ultimately, both plans will become the basis for negotiations between the legislature and the Democratic governor on a final budget agreement.

The legislative Democrats’ proposed spending plan would come in well below the state’s constitutional spending cap. But that’s mostly because of a proposed change in the spending cap’s rules. Under their proposal, unfunded pension liabilities for state employees, teachers and judges would no longer be counted toward the overall spending figure.

If approved, it would mark the second change in recent years in how the cap is interpreted.

In 2013, Malloy and the Democratic-controlled General Assembly agreed to shift about $6 billion in mostly health care spending out from under the spending cap, which was imposed in 1991 to place limits on state spending following passage of a personal state income tax. Two years ago, the legislature’s minority Republicans criticized moving the Medicaid spending off-budget, a debate that could be repeated this year even though the GOP also wants to replenish many of Malloy’s cuts.

The Democrats’ spending plan replenishes funding for health care coverage for certain poor adults, including pregnant women. It also restores the state’s Medicaid reimbursement rate to hospitals and $18 million of Malloy’s proposed $25 million in cuts in grants to mental health providers. But Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, the other Appropriations Committee co-chair, said there was not enough money to provide a cost-of-living increase to nonprofit social service agencies — an issue she said could be revisited later this session.

The budget proposal also restores funding for libraries, state parks, youth service bureaus, regional tourism districts and other initiatives. However, it does not expand seats in charter schools, as Malloy had propsed. Lawmakers also trimmed funding for Malloy’s proposed Second Chance Society initiative, which includes programs to help offenders transition back into society.

Many of the cuts restored fully or partially in the Democrats’ budget were also restored in the budget proposal offered Friday by the legislature’s Republicans. The GOP has called for givebacks from state employees to help cover the cost, including a one-year hiring freeze.

“The core function of government is to protect the most vulnerable. The costs of fundamental programs should not be shouldered on the backs of those who can least afford it and those who already face many challenges,” said Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven. “We need to work collaboratively to prioritize people over politics.”

 

 

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1b7oy3p

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1PNVbTl
via IFTTT

Michigan Democrats introduce bill package to mandate equal pay among genders

Michigan Democrats introduced a bill package that, if approved, would mandate equal pay among genders in the state.

State Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, recently re-introduced two bills that would remedy the pay inequity gap between women and men and would prohibit wage discrimination based on gender.

“Study after study has proven that women have known for decades — that we are paid less than men for the same work,”Warren said in a statement. “What is most troubling though is that we have seen very little movement to close the gap in the last 10 years.”

If the bill is approved, the employee could request the employer to disclose wage information on similarly situated employees covering a period of three years prior to the request.

The employer would not only have to disclose the wage information to the employee within 30 days of requested but will also have to include the sex and seniority of the employees who are within the same job classification as the employee requesting the information.

The second bill introduced by Warren, Senate Bill 273, if approved, will prohibit an employer to “refuse or fail to provide equal compensation for work of comparable value in terms of the composite skill, responsibility, effort, education or training, and working conditions” based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight or marital status.

Both bills were referred to the committee on government operations.

“(Women) are buying our groceries, paying our mortgages and supporting our families, all on paychecks that are almost a quarter smaller than our male counterparts,” Warren said in a statement. “We simply cannot afford to wait that long — literally or figuratively.”

According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, women in Michigan earn 77.1 cents for every dollar a man earns — at the current rate, women will not receive equal pay until 2086.

In order to ensure equal pay, state Sen. Curtis Hertel, D-East Lansing, introduced a bill that would create the Commission on Pay Equity — the commission would be created in the Department of Civil Rights.

Hertel’s bill was referred to the committee on commerce.

View the original content and more from this author here : http://ift.tt/1z6GpD2

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1GpP7d0
via IFTTT

North Dakota Democrats hire Robert Haider as new director

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) – North Dakota’s Democratic Party has hired Burlington native Robert Haider as its new executive director.

The party says it approved Haider’s hiring at a meeting in Bismarck on Saturday.

Haider will succeed Chad Oban, who has served as executive director since December 2012. Haider will start work on May 1.

Haider is a graduate of the University of North Dakota’s law school.

He managed Ryan Taylor’s unsuccessful campaign for agriculture commissioner last year. He also managed Corey Mock’s failed bid for secretary of state in 2010.

Haider has run successful legislative campaigns for Rep. Mock, Rep. Kylie Oversen and Sen. Mac Schneider.

 

 

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1QBejFm

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1QBehgI
via IFTTT