Mediaboss Marketing

Environmentalists from the Sierra Club, union members with the Communications Workers of America and even a few members of Code Pink gather to protest the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations in Washington, D.C., on Monday. James Clark/NPR hide caption

Environmentalists from the Sierra Club, union members with the Communications Workers of America and even a few members of Code Pink gather to protest the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

When it comes to environmental regulations, taxes and the minimum wage, business groups generally object to President Obama's positions, while liberals support him.

But one issue blurs the usual political lines: trade.

Just last week, Obama told the Business Roundtable he would push to complete massive trade deals with both Asian and European nations. "If we can get that done, that's good for American businesses," he said.

On Monday, as negotiators from Pacific Rim nations assembled in Washington to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), they were met by protests from liberal groups including environmentalists, union members and consumer advocates.

Outside of the U.S. Trade Representative's office near the White House, the protesters carried signs saying, "TPP = Polluters' Bill of Rights" and "Save Our Jobs."

Shane Larson was among them. He says he objects to the way trade negotiations are conducted, which is in private. "The people are completely shut out of having input in what the trade agreement should look like," said Larson, the legislative director for Communications Workers of America, a union that strongly endorsed Obama's election.

Earlier in the day, several liberal lawmakers spoke with reporters, raising objections to the trade pact that would tie together the U.S. economy with 11 others around the Pacific Rim, including Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and Australia.

"The administration refuses to change its approach to secret negotiations and is pushing to send a final package to Congress with almost no ability for us to scrutinize it," said Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut.

See more here:
Some Liberals And Tea Partiers Unite To Oppose Trade Deals

Liberals are again invoking the legacy of the late Jim Flaherty to criticize the Harper government, this time over its treatment of veterans.

For weeks now, Grits and New Democrats have been calling for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino to resign or be fired by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in light of a number of controversies in his department.

First, it was revealed Veterans Affairs did not spend more than $1.1 billion of its budget over the past seven years. The auditor general then reported vets with PTSD are kept waiting too long for help and, days later, The Globe and Mail revealed a much-trumpeted $200-million fund to help veterans deal with mental health issues will be spread out over 50 years, not five or six.

But on Monday, much of the focus in question period was on the discovery that some of the biggest job cuts at Veterans Affairs in recent years have been in the disability awards branch and that, as reported by The Chronicle Herald, department managers reaped lucrative bonuses for slashing costs.

Fantino repeatedly told both New Democrats and Liberals that he would make no apologies for "reducing the bureaucracy" at Veterans Affairs. And the minister made it clear he isn't planning on calling it quits.

Eventually, the Liberal veterans affairs critic Frank Valeriote tried a different tack: questioning Fantino's courage.

"There was once a minister willing to stand up to the prime minister but unfortunately Jim Flaherty is gone now," Valeriote said. "When will the minister of veterans affairs stop the prime minister from making these callous cuts and misleading veterans and Canadians?"

Fantino shot back that it was pretty hard to "dignify" that question.

"However, let me assure the honourable member that the decisions that were taken are always in consideration of doing the right thing for the right reasons on behalf of our veterans," Fantino said.

The minister added that his department is focused on "creating efficiencies" so that savings can be translated to front-line services for veterans and their families.

Read the original post:
Liberal MPs To Julian Fantino: You're No Jim Flaherty

Pro-pot legalization advocates have acknowledged a ballot strategy that will place a greater emphasis on 2016. | AP Photo

Groups hope proposition push leads to U.S. action.

By Jonathan Topaz

12/8/14 5:33 AM EST

Progressives, frustrated at gridlock in Washington and at the state level, are planning a major ballot-initiative push across the country as they bank on a likely favorable electorate in 2016.

Groups supporting marijuana legalization, background checks on firearms and raising the minimum wage told POLITICO to expect a larger slate of ballot propositions in 2016 than during the past several election cycles.

Story Continued Below

In particular, organizations are confident that after achieving success on progressive ballot initiatives with an older and more conservative bloc of voters in 2014, the younger and more liberal electorate expected to turn out in the upcoming presidential contest will produce some major triumphs.

Its widely expected that referendums on gun control, marijuana legalization and economic fairness issues, including paid sick leave and equal pay, will outnumber those in 2012, a sign that liberals are embracing a state-based model that allows them to circumvent legislatures and Congress.

Conservatives, though, are taking notice, and vowing to blunt the momentum, potentially with competing ballot propositions.

See more here:
Liberals ramp up for state-by-state push in 2016

The Liberal government is taking the first legislative step toward creating a made-in-Ontario pension.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa and Associate Finance Minister Mitzie Hunter on Monday are introducing the framework legislation that will lead to the creation of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP).

Designed to complement the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), the mandatory ORPP would deduct 1.9 per cent of the pay of Ontarians who do not have a workplace pension plan. Their employers would be forced to match that contribution.

There are some extreme points of view claiming this to be a tax just as they did when CPP was introduced. These are premiums, these are contributions made by individuals into their savings plans for themselves, said Sousa.

None of this money comes into the coffers of the government. Its managed outside of government. They (are making) the same argument today as they made about CPP in the 1960s, the treasurer said.

Hunter said the preferred option at Queens Park is for the federal government to enhance CPP, which pays out a maximum benefit of $12,500 a year.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to bolster the national pension scheme, so the province is forging ahead on its own.

Mondays legislation commits the government to establish the ORPP by Jan. 1, 2017.

For a worker earning $45,000 a year, the Ontario plan would mean an additional $788 deduction a year with future retirees eventually receiving up to $25,000 in annual benefits.

Noting two-thirds of Ontario workers do not have an employees pension plan, Hunter said the onus is on the province to act to tackle the under-saving problem.

Read the original:
Liberals tabling legislation to create Ontario pension

Liberals on and off Capitol Hill are defending President Obama's healthcare law from the friendly fire of fellow Democrats.

The liberals say the criticisms from Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) are not only flat wrong, but also pointless coming four years after the laws passage.

"I disagree with both of them," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who helped usher the bill into law as then-chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "I disagree with what they said, and I can't quite see a lot of value in it."

Schumer and Harkin both of whom played an outsized role in crafting the legislation in 2009 and 2010 have raised eyebrows in recent weeks by second-guessing the wisdom of their work.

Schumer said the Democrats' timing was poor, arguing that party leaders should have used the momentum coming out of the Democrats' 2008 election sweep to focus on bread-and-butter economic issues.

After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, Schumer, the Senate's third-ranking Democrat, said in a Nov. 25 speech at the National Press Club. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs not for changes in their healthcare."

Harkin took those jabs a step further this week, arguing that the policy itself is flawed because Democrats didn't fight hard enough for a public insurance option or a single-payer system, like that underlying Medicare.

We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly, and we didnt do it, Harkin, the chairman of the Senate health committee, told The Hill. So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.

What we did is we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively, he added.

Waxman fired back, saying the ObamaCare law was the best the Democrats could do given the resistance from centrist Senate Democrats and outright opposition from Republicans.

Read more:
Liberals punch back at Dem criticism of ObamaCare