Mediaboss Marketing

I think that Congress ultimately has to do that (reclassify marijuana). This is a topic that ultimately, I think ought to be engaged in by our nation, informed by the experiences that we see in Colorado, in Washington. There is, I think, a legitimate debate to be had on both sides of that question where marijuana ought to be in terms of its scheduling.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, National Press Club speech, Feb. 17, 2015

I am concerned, however, about your comments regarding the classification of marijuana As you know, you already have the statutory authority to reclassify marijuana.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), letterto Holder in response, Feb. 18, 2015

Holder was asked this questionat the National Press Club event about marijuana: Under the Controlled Substances Act, the administration has the power to reclassify marijuana with no further congressional action needed. Do you think that is something that the president should consider in the next couple years?

Legalization advocates pushed back to Holders answer after the event, especially after Cohen, a longtime advocate of rescheduling marijuana, sent his letter in response. Some advocates took to social media to criticize Holder for denying he has authority. They encouraged one another on Facebook and Twitter to flood Holders office with calls challenging his statement. They made another push asking him to reclassify marijuana, noting that President Obama has said that he does not believe marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol.

Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, meaning it is classified as the most harmful category of drugs, with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Advocates believe that if marijuana is taken out of that classification, it would clear the path for more research into the effects of marijuana and ultimately lead to legalization and regulation nationwide.

While Holders statement was an opinion, and something that cant easily be fact-checked, it is important to explore it, as well asCohens response. As more states look toward legalizing recreational marijuana, advocates are pushing back stronger on statements such as Holders. Twenty-three states have legalized medical marijuana. Alaska recentlybecame the third state to legalize marijuana, and D.C.s recreational marijuana law is set to take effect Feb. 26.

Can the attorney general change the drug classification of marijuana? What are underlying policy issues that lead to questions over exactly what authority he has?

Under federal law, the attorney general can move to add, reschedule or remove drugs on his own, at the request of the health and human services secretary or in response to a public petition. But the law also requires the attorney general to gather data and scientific and medical evaluation from the HHS secretary before doing so.

Continue reading here:
Can Eric Holder change the federal drug classification of ...

I think that Congress ultimately has to do that (reclassify marijuana). This is a topic that ultimately, I think ought to be engaged in by our nation, informed by the experiences that we see in Colorado, in Washington. There is, I think, a legitimate debate to be had on both sides of that question where marijuana ought to be in terms of its scheduling.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, National Press Club speech, Feb. 17, 2015

I am concerned, however, about your comments regarding the classification of marijuana As you know, you already have the statutory authority to reclassify marijuana.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), letterto Holder in response, Feb. 18, 2015

Holder was asked this questionat the National Press Club event about marijuana: Under the Controlled Substances Act, the administration has the power to reclassify marijuana with no further congressional action needed. Do you think that is something that the president should consider in the next couple years?

Legalization advocates pushed back to Holders answer after the event, especially after Cohen, a longtime advocate of rescheduling marijuana, sent his letter in response. Some advocates took to social media to criticize Holder for denying he has authority. They encouraged one another on Facebook and Twitter to flood Holders office with calls challenging his statement. They made another push asking him to reclassify marijuana, noting that President Obama has said that he does not believe marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol.

Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, meaning it is classified as the most harmful category of drugs, with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Advocates believe that if marijuana is taken out of that classification, it would clear the path for more research into the effects of marijuana and ultimately lead to legalization and regulation nationwide.

While Holders statement was an opinion, and something that cant easily be fact-checked, it is important to explore it, as well asCohens response. As more states look toward legalizing recreational marijuana, advocates are pushing back stronger on statements such as Holders. Twenty-three states have legalized medical marijuana. Alaska recentlybecame the third state to legalize marijuana, and D.C.s recreational marijuana law is set to take effect Feb. 26.

Can the attorney general change the drug classification of marijuana? What are underlying policy issues that lead to questions over exactly what authority he has?

Under federal law, the attorney general can move to add, reschedule or remove drugs on his own, at the request of the health and human services secretary or in response to a public petition. But the law also requires the attorney general to gather data and scientific and medical evaluation from the HHS secretary before doing so.

Follow this link:
Fact Checker: Can Eric Holder change the federal drug classification of marijuana?

Dont be surprised if outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder looks a bit youthful in his official portrait, set to be unveiled Friday afternoon.

Thats because Holder, who apparently adheres to the Boy Scouts motto be prepared, began planning for the portrait in April 2009, three months after taking over the job. And the portrait these things run around $40,000 or so was completed about a year later. (Unclear where its been waiting these past few years.)

This seems a bit unusual, but its not unprecedented.

At the Justice Department, the time between departure and unveiling is shorter than, say, at the State Department. Portrait unveilings for former secretaries of state Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright have occurred six to eight years after their departures. Hillary Clinton hasnt had hers hung yet.

But Holder did the honors for his predecessor Michael Mukasey about nine months after Mukasey left office, and former attorney general Alberto Gonzales unveiled predecessor John Ashcrofts painting just shy of two years after he left.

Holders portrait is going to be unveiled while hes still attorney general, since nominee Loretta Lynch, though approved Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, isnt likely to be confirmed by the full Senate for a couple of weeks.

Like Holder, Janet Reno, the second-longest serving attorney general, was still in office though with only five days to go before the Clinton administration ended when her portrait was unveiled.

Justice folks were suspiciously hush-hush this week about whos going to be doing the presentation. Naturally, it turns out to be President Obama.

(We should note that Congress, on a year-to-year basis, started banning the use of federal funds for these portraits. But there is no permanent ban.)

In the tank

See more here:
In the Loop: In the Loop: Portrait of (a younger) Eric Holder

The top Democrat in California's State Assembly visited Chinatown on Wednesday to unveil a plan to boost affordable housing in the state.

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins is proposing a new $75 fee on many real estate transactions, with the proceeds dedicated to financing the development of more apartments for low- and moderate-income Californians.

It's part of a broader package Atkins is pushing that would boost the state's low-income housing tax credit by $300 million, set up guidelines for allocating new federal housing money expected to start flowing next year, and use a portion of funds from Proposition 47 to develop housing programs for recently released prisoners.

All told, the package would establish more than a half-billion dollars in new housing funds.

"Housing instability is affecting more people than ever before, including young people and families," Atkins said. "To make inroads against California's housing issues, the Assembly is taking a comprehensive approach to increasing the amount of affordable housing in our state."

Some of these ideas have been tried before as California has searched for permanent funding sources to replace dried-up bond funds and now-shut-down redevelopment agencies.

The transaction fee -- which Atkins' office projects would raise "a few hundred million" dollars -- was proposed in a Senate bill last year but stalled amid opposition from trade groups such as the California Assn. of Realtors, which worried it could further drive up the cost of housing.

Those concerns may still exist. Alex Creel, chief lobbyist at the Realtors group, said he's been meeting with Atkins' office about the plan but had yet to see detailed legislation. Any new funds for a statewide concern like affordable housing, he said, should be shared broadly across as many Californians as possible.

"To place the entire burden on real estate recordings, we don't think is fair and equitable," he said.

Southern California routinely ranks among the least-affordable housing markets in the country, and a study last year by a group of nonprofit housing developers estimated that Los Angeles Countyneeds 500,000 more apartments that are affordable to low-income renters.

More:
State Assembly speaker pushes plan to fund more affordable housing

Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, explains in an interview why hes insisting currency-manipulation language be included in a Pacific trade deal

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) Rep. Sander Levin says he respects Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, but on one particular issue, shes wrong.

We need to face up to this basic issue, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, says about including currency obligations in trade deals specifically, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations are now trying to agree to the final terms of that trade partnership.

Currency impacts jobs, Levin told MarketWatch in an interview. Currency should not be the tool of one country against another.

Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, spoke with MarketWatch on Thursday about Yellens opposition to currency-manipulation language in trade agreements; the status of talks on both trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership; and why he believes Congress needs leverage over the contents of trade deals. Trade promotion authority, or fast track, would let the president negotiate trade deals Congress could not amend.

Here is a condensed and edited Q&A between Levin and MarketWatch:

MarketWatch: There have been reports negotiators are getting close to a deal on trade promotion authority. What do you know about the status of a TPA deal and also, how much work remains on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Levin: I dont know the status; you hear different stories every day. I think the key is whats being negotiated in TPP. Thats the real issue. It would cover 40% of the GDP of the world and include, now, Japan. It would include new economies with whom weve never negotiated a trade agreement. And there are issues that have never really been seriously considered in multilateral agreements for example, state-owned enterprises. And also, while there have been through our efforts basic labor and environmental provisions the May 10 standard that essentially was written by some House Democrats while that is now in the negotiation mix, how it would be implemented is also critical.

This is an important negotiation and its really vital to get it right. Negotiations can go both ways in trade; it isnt automatic that trade is a plus. It can be a plus if its shaped the correct way; it can be a minus if it isnt. So I think the appropriate focus at this point needs to be on the contents of TPP, where it is, where its short, and where it can be made better and involving in a meaningful way Congress as a partner.

MarketWatch: Looking back at past trade deals, critics say NAFTA, for example, allowed American jobs to be shipped overseas. So how do you make the case that deals like the TPP would be good for the middle class?

Follow this link:
Capitol Report: U.S. must face up and include currency in trade deal, Levin says