Chris Christie promises blunt campaign as he enters crowded 2016 race
A tough-talking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie launched his 2016 campaign for president Tuesday with a promise to tell voters the truth even if it makes them cringe. The Republican governor, a one-time GOP favorite who faded and now tries to climb back, lashed out at “bickering leaders” from both political parties in a kickoff rally in the gymnasium of his old high school. And in his trademark blunt style, he told voters – and warned Republican rivals – that he’s ready to be aggressive in the 2016 contest. “You’re going to get what I think whether you like it or not, or whether it makes you cringe every once in a while or not,” Christie declared. He added: “I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America.” Christie enters a Republican presidential field that already has more than a dozen GOP candidates. Not all draw as much attention as Christie, who will compete for the same slice of the electorate as pragmatic-minded White House hopefuls such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But it’s an accomplished lineup of governors, senators and business people. Christie’s effort is largely driven by his outsized personality, and his resume, while notable, contains scattered land mines that have given many Republicans pause. Four years ago, some of Christie’s backers tried to persuade him to challenge President Barack Obama. In the years since, he won re-election with ease, but also struggled to revive New Jersey’s moribund economy and fought with the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature over pensions and the state budget. While Christie’s turn as head of the Republican Governors Association was widely viewed as a success in the 2014 midterm elections, he’s also faced the fallout from the actions of three former aides, charged with creating politically motivated traffic jams at a bridge to retaliate against a Democratic mayor who declined to endorse Christie’s re-election. Christie has not been tied directly to wrongdoing, denies he had anything to do with the bridge closing and has seen no evidence emerge to refute that. Still, the episode deepened the sense that he may surround himself with people who will do anything to win. He declared early in the scandal that “I am not a bully” to counter the public perception that he is just that. The governor faces a tough sell with many conservatives, but has seemingly found his stride at times in visits to early voting states with the lively town hall meetings he’s known for at home. There will be plenty more of those now that he’s an affirmed candidate. Emboldened by his political successes in heavily Democratic New Jersey, he seems himself as a leader who can work across Washington’s bitter partisan divide. “We need this country to work together again, not against each other,” he said with his wife, Mary Pat, and their four children standing behind him. He promised to lead a White House that would “welcome the American people no matter what party, no matter what race or creed or color.” Yet Christie also jabbed President Barack Obama‘s “weak and feckless foreign policy” and called Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton the president’s “second mate.” “America is tired of hand-wringing and indecisiveness and weakness in the Oval Office,” he said. “We need to have strength and decision-making and authority back in the Oval Office. And that is why today I am proud to announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for president of the United States of America.” In 2012, Christie was seen as the charismatic, pragmatic governor who burst onto the scene in made-for-YouTube moments. He gained national attention with a landmark deal in which the state’s public sector unions agreed to higher health care costs and retirement ages in exchange for promised payments into the state’s chronically underfunded pension season. Christie’s fortunes have certainly changed. Now, Christie has been eclipsed by others in a pack of more than dozen rivals. And his poll numbers at home have sunk to record lows. New Jersey’s economy is lagging and there have been nine credit downgrades on Christie’s watch. Christie grew up in Livingston, a town about 20 miles west of New York City, and served as class president at the high school. His high school friends were among the first to receive word that Christie would be launching his campaign at their old school. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Nationwide study: Not easy being a woman in Alabama
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research recently completed a comprehensive state-by-state survey on the economic and political status of women and it did not portray Alabama in a flattering light. The state received grades of “D” and below in each of the six chapters of the study, which included categories such as “Employment & Earnings, “Reproductive Rights,” and “Political Participation.” In the area of “Poverty & Opportunity,” for instance, Alabama received a D-minus. While the statistics show the proportion of women entrepreneurs here is higher than the national average — 28.1 percent compared to 53.5 percent of men, good for 19th in the country — low ranks in rates of health insurance (32nd), educational attainment (46th) and percentage of women who live under the poverty line (46th) dragged down the overall grade severely. The most controversial aspect of the study focused on access to abortion providers, which the Institute sees as an indicator of sexual and reproductive freedom, a view that many Alabamians, including many women, would disagree with. Nonetheless, the state was docked in a big way for the following aspects of its body politic, among others: the state’s parental notification and consent laws with regard to abortion, the mandatory waiting period before one is available, a generally pro-life governor and legislature, and a minority of women (41 percent) who live in counties where abortion providers offer their services. The highest marks the IWPR gave the Yellowhammer state were for “Work & Family” — the state’s relatively low gender gap is workforce participation among those with young children (20.9 percent fewer women than men in that category work) and high “Child Care Index,” which measures access and affordability, buoyed the state’s rankings, edging it past Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho and West Virginia. Other select Alabama findings from the 2015 study: 31.5 percent of employed women work in low-wage jobs Men are 2.4 times more likely to work in a STEM field Women earn 76 cents on the dollar compared to men in the state 14 percent of women have diabetes, as well as 13.6 percent of men The state ranked 51st in mental health: women reported 5.6 days of ill mental health per month Heart disease remains a major problem: 184.3 women per one hundred thousand, and 281.8 men, die per annum of the malady.
Alabama reacts to Supreme Court rejecting EPA regulatory initiative
Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked one of the Obama administration’s most aggressive environmental initiatives — an Environmental Protection Agency effort to limit certain power plant emissions — saying the agency “unreasonably” failed to consider the cost of the regulations. Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.” The challenge against the EPA was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states, including Alabama. Here are reactions from elected officials and political groups in Alabama: U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby: The Supreme Court’s ruling rightly pointed out that the Obama Administration’s EPA failed to weigh the costs of its regulation on the economy and job creation. The EPA’s blatant disregard of the impact that its policymaking would have on the American people underscores the need to rein in this out-of-control agency. U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL-01): The Supreme Court ruled today that the EPA “unreasonably” failed to consider the cost of a proposed regulation on power plants. This should be considered a major victory for families and small businesses who would have likely seen their power bills go up. I will continue to look for ways to push back against the activist EPA as they continue to churn out expensive regulations. U.S. Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02): The Supreme Court’s ruling to block the EPA’s aggressive, costly regulation of power plants is a win for our state and consumers. This attempt at ‘backdoor-legislating’ is all too common at federal agencies, and the Court was right to put a stop to it. There hasn’t been a lot out of this Supreme Court to be happy about out lately, but I am glad to see them stop this agency’s radical environmental agenda, and I hope lower courts do the same. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (AL-03): I’ve long believed the EPA under President Obama has greatly overstepped its authority, especially with its War on Coal. This ruling is the latest evidence. Congress must continue to work to stop the EPA from pursuing its radical, jobs-threatening agenda. U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06): When deciding whether or not to propose new regulations, the first step should always be determining whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The EPA’s decision to move forward without considering the impact on individuals and the economy was ill-advised and I am pleased the Supreme Court recognized that. This Administration has been open about the fact that they want to put the coal industry out of business, regardless of what reasonable standards they may meet. This case is a blow to those efforts. I will continue to work in Congress to rein in the EPA when they overreach on environmental policy. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange: Alabama and 21 other states joined Michigan in the successful lawsuit challenging the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in which the agency ignored its legal obligation to consider costs of new power plant regulations as well as the impact upon health and the environment. The EPA chose to impose costly new regulations on electric utility emissions without considering the financial impact upon both the plant operators and the consumers. In this case, the EPA’s projected cost for a new mercury emission regulation would outweigh the benefit by a factor of 2 to 1. The EPA claims they don’t have to consider cost in power plant regulations under the Clean Air Act. However, the law requires both a study to evaluate health risks and a separate consideration of whether the regulation would be ‘appropriate and necessary.’ Today’s decision deals a major setback to the EPA’s overreach agenda and should send a signal to the agency that it cannot continue to end run the law in pursuit of a radical political agenda. Commissioner of the Alabama Public Service Commission Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh: Today’s ruling on the EPA by the U.S. Supreme Court was too little and too late for the hard-working people of this country. The U.S. Supreme Court simply acknowledged what we already knew. They rightly recognized that the EPA, in its zeal to push through the liberal agenda of President Obama and his radical environmental cronies, completely disregarded the harm it would cause consumers. These mandates have already cost the consumers and small businesses across this state and nation billions in unnecessary expenses. The simple analogy is you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube. Companies have already shut down coal-fired units and spent billions of dollars to comply with EPA regulations. That is why I will continue to fight for affordable and reliable electricity and against the radical environmental agenda.
President proposes to expand overtime for almost 5 million workers
They’re called managers, and they sometimes work grueling schedules at fast food chains and retail stores. But with no overtime eligibility, their pay may be lower per hour than many workers they supervise. With those employees in mind, the Obama administration is proposing making up to 5 million more people eligible for overtime, its latest effort to boost pay for lower-income workers. These workers would benefit from rules requiring businesses to pay eligible employees 1 1/2 times their regular pay for any work beyond 40 hours a week. “We’ve got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded,” President Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed published Monday in The Huffington Post. “That’s how America should do business. In this country, a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.” Employers can now often get around the rules: Any salaried employee who’s paid more than $455 a week — or $23,660 a year — can be called a “manager,” given limited supervisory duties and made ineligible for overtime. Yet that would put a family of four in poverty territory. Obama says that the level is too low and undercuts the intent of the overtime law. The threshold was last updated in 2004 and has been eroded by inflation. The long-awaited overtime rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week. To keep up with future inflation and wage growth, the proposal will peg the salary threshold at the 40th percentile of income. The White House said 56 percent of those who would benefit in the first year are women, and 53 percent have a college degree. With the higher threshold, many more Americans — from fast food and retail supervisors to bank branch managers and insurance claims adjusters — would become eligible for overtime. A threshold of $984 a week would cover 15 million people, according to the liberal Economic Policy Institute. In 1975, overtime rules covered 65 percent of salaried workers. Today, it’s just 8 percent, the White House says. The beneficiaries would be people like Brittany Swa, 30, a former manager of a Chipotle restaurant in Denver. As a management trainee, she started as an entry-level crew member in March 2010. After several months she began working as an “apprentice,” which required a minimum 50-hour work week. Yet her duties changed little. She had a key to the shop and could make bank deposits, but otherwise spent nearly all her time preparing orders and working the cash register. She frequently worked 60 hours a week but didn’t get overtime because she earned $36,000. The grueling hours continued after she was promoted to store manager in October 2010. She left two years later, and now processes workers’ compensation claims at Travelers. She makes $60,000 a year, “which is surprising, since I only work 40 hours a week,” she says. Swa has joined a class-action lawsuit against Chipotle, which charges that apprentices shouldn’t be classified as managers exempt from overtime. A spokesman for Chipotle declined to comment on the case. Dawn Hughey, a former store manager for Dollar General in Flint, Mich., would have also benefited from a higher overtime threshold. Hughey worked 60 to 80 hours a week for about two years before being fired in 2011. She was paid $34,700. “I missed a lot of family functions working like that,” Hughey said. “It was just expected if you were a store manager.” She made about $45,000 a year as an hourly worker in a previous job at a Rite Aid in California, where she typically worked 48 hours a week and received overtime. The White House’s proposed changes will be open for public comment and finalized sometime next year. They can be enacted through regulation without approval by the Republican-led Congress. They set up a populist economic argument that Democrats have already been embracing in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said the proposal means businesses would no longer be able to shirk their responsibility to pay fair wages. “This long overdue change in overtime rules is a step in the right direction and good news for workers,” Sanders said. Yet the proposals won’t necessarily produce a big raise for people like Swa and Hughey. The National Retail Federation, a business group, says its members would probably respond by converting many salaried workers to hourly status, which could cost them benefits such as paid vacation. Other salaried workers would have their hours cut and wouldn’t receive higher pay. Businesses might hire additional workers to avoid paying overtime or extend the hours they give part-timers. Yet supporters of extending overtime coverage say they would welcome those changes. “It’s a job creation measure,” said Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas, Austin. “Employers will substitute workers for hours, when the hours get more expensive.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Inboxes overflow as 2016-ers amp up email appeals for cash
Hillary Clinton has a dinner invite for you. Jeb Bush is out to make a big splash. Rick Santorum wants to scare the heck out of you. Ted Cruz is looking for a sacrifice. Lincoln Chaffee wants to be your pal. Oh, and all of them want your money — and preferably before midnight on Tuesday night, please. Danger: The 2016 presidential candidates are emailing Americans such a flurry of appeals for money and support that the risk of inbox internal combustion is high. With each candidate making his or her own come-on, they’ve been offering voters all sorts of reasons to open their wallets before the quarterly reporting period for raising cash ends on Tuesday. Marco Rubio dangled the chance to win a trip to his Las Vegas birthday party with host Rick Harrison of TV’s “Pawn Stars.” “Official Hillary car magnet — plus free shipping!” reads one Clinton email. “Chip in $10 or more.” Cruz’s recent appeals for cash have included a plea for supporters to make a sacrifice on his behalf. He’s already made his own sacrifices, he tells them, and lists a few, such as the loss of family time and sleep, personal financial strain and the dreaded “pizza diet” on the campaign trail. Never mind the pizza, people: Santorum headlined one donation pitch with this chilling subject line: “ISIS is here.” Bush put his son Jeb Jr. to work trying to line up “5,000 Day One supporters by midnight to prove we’re serious about taking back the White House.” Lincoln Chafee went the let’s-be-pals route, using the subject line “hey” to try to lure voters to click on his email. The Republican candidates, in particular, are playing up the quarterly deadline as a reason to donate NOW and make a statement about their viability in a big pack of rivals. With no one casting votes yet, contributions from legions of grassroots donors can be read as a proxy measure of support, they reason. To be sure, there’s no other big reason to pony up now instead of later. Breathless appeals for cash won’t end Wednesday. But to hear them tell it, the looming reporting deadline is nothing less than the apocalypse. Cruz is running a “One Million Dollar Money Bomb Challenge.” Rubio has a “Let Freedom Ring” money bomb going. And Rand Paul wants $20.16 for his “End of Quarter Money Bomb.” Cruz’s latest emails have helpfully included an “FEC Deadline Countdown” clock showing the days, hours, minutes and seconds left until the Federal Election Commission‘s midnight deadline. “If there is still time on the clock below, then make an IMMEDIATE secure contribution by following this link,” he writes. Scott Walker, who has yet to enter the race, keeps asking supporters whether he should run — and to say so with cold cash. “Your gift today will show me your answer,” he writes. If words alone won’t close the deal, maybe different fonts, italics, bold-faced words, underlined phrases, CAPITAL LETTERS, stripes of color and exclamation points will reel in donations!!! With an oversized Paul vs. Obama photo and giant lettering that evoked a promo for a boxing prizefight, Rand Paul last month turned his opposition to government surveillance programs into a flurry of emails about a “NSA SPYING SHOWDOWN.” No, a simple “donate now” button will not suffice when candidates are lucky if even 20 percent of readers bother to open an email appeal. Campaigns rely on both research and hunches to try to figure out what will work — and there’s a lot happening on both sides of that equation. Cornell University political scientist Adam Seth Levine says campaigns can easily test what messages, words, colors, fonts and formats work best by sending out variations on the same fundraising pitch. “A lot of people don’t realize they are constantly being experimented upon,” says Levine. Campaigns may send out hundreds of variations to figure out what’s most effective, Levine says, analyzing who opens the emails, who clicks on links, what they do next and who ultimately donates. “The one thing they can’t do, which would be extremely Big Brother-ish, is see exactly where your eyes go,” Levine says. For all of those solid metrics, “intuition is going to play a large role because at the end of the day, no campaign is going to be the same as another campaign,” says Ryan Lyk, who runs email marketing for Alexandria, Va.-based IMGE, which works for companies, associations and GOP campaigns. “You’ve got to be creative and innovative with it.” Who’s at the forefront this year? Lyk gives good marks to Rubio for creativity and colorful content, and Carly Fiorina for casual wording that’s easy to relate to yet creates a sense of urgency. He credits Walker with aggressively bulking up his email list. And Clinton, Lyk says, “has all the bells and whistles.” Blue State Digital founder Joe Rospars, chief digital strategist for the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns, cautions that there’s a lot more to a winning strategy than simply cutting and pasting what’s worked before. “It really comes down to the relationship you’re building with the people on the other end of the email,” says Rospars. One of the Obama campaign’s most successful pitches to small givers — donate to try to win a meal with him — started as an experiment in 2007 when other candidates were holding fancy dinners with big-dollar contributors, Rospars recalls. Now, Clinton is urging her donors to sign up for a chance to win dinner “with the future President of the United States (knock on wood).” There’s no “donate” button. But you can bet those who sign up will be hearing more from Clinton — and getting the ask. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
