Category Archives: From our INBOX

May 22 2012

We’ve got the President’s back – how about you?

 At a press conference Monday, the President was asked why the campaign is taking a look at Mitt Romney’s record as a corporate buyout specialist, a record Romney’s been claiming as his chief qualification for the presidency.

The President said that while there’s nothing wrong with private equity, Romney’s priority wasn’t to create jobs — it was to maximize profits for partners and investors. A president has to focus on more than just that.

Watch the rest of his response on why Romney’s record should be looked at, then share it far and wide:

Video: President Obama on Romney's record


Share on Facebook    Share on Twitter    Share via Email

President Obama said of Romney, “his main calling card for why he thinks he should be President is his business expertise … And when you’re President, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot.”

Folks, that’s what we’re going to be fighting for this year — and it’s up to us to lay out the stark differences between Romney’s views and our President’s. Get our President’s back — pass it on:

http://my.barackobama.com/Truth-Team-May22

May 18 2012

Happy National Women’s Health Week from the Whitehouse Council on Women and Girls

Weekly Women’s Update: Happy National Women’s Health Week!

Greetings All –

This week is National Women’s Health Week, an opportunity for all women to prioritize their health well-being by scheduling annual screening and exams. Due to the Affordable Care Act, more than 20.4 million women with private health insurance have received preventive health services at no additional cost.

Valerie Jarrett, the Chair of the Council on Women and Girls, addresses the Violence Against Women Act in a timely and important blog post.

On Monday, President Obama delivered the commencement address at Barnard College. Barnard is one of the famous “Seven Sisters” — liberal arts colleges founded to offer first class education to women before many elite institutions admitted women.

Thank you for taking the time to watch, read, and share this material.

Very Best Wishes,
The Council on Women and Girls

President Obama at Barnard College

Monday was a wonderful day, not just for the promising young women graduating from Barnard College, but for the recognition of women’s accomplishments everywhere, and all of the people who are committed to their success. Read more about the President’s visit here.

Please find (and feel free to share) the following:

President Barack Obama sits with Barnard College President Debora Spar, left, and Chairwoman Jolyne Caruso-Fitzgerald before he delivers a commencement address for Barnard College graduates at Columbia University in New York, May 14, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Update on the Violence Against Women Act

The Violence Against Women Act puts women’s safety above partisan politics. Last month, Democratic and Republican Senators came together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The bill they approved would address the high rates of domestic violence committed against Native American women, ensure that LGBT victims have access to services, and make college campuses safer places to live and study. Through its bipartisan vote, the Senate not only acted to preserve the original bill — they improved it, protecting even more women from violence and abuse.

However, the bill passed in the House of Representatives leaves out the important new protections found in the Senate bill, exposing more students, Native Americans, and LGBT Americans to the threat of violence. To learn more about the Violence Against Women Act, read this blog post by Valerie Jarrett, the Chair of the Council on Women and Girls.

National Women’s Health Week

This week is National Women’s Health Week, an opportunity for all women to prioritize their health well-being by scheduling annual screening and exams. President Obama’s health reform law requires that new health insurance plans cover preventative services such as memmograms, pap smears, and well-woman visits with no co-pay or deductible. Learn more about the law here.

Get Updates

If you received this email from a friend or colleague and aren’t already receiving our email updates, sign up for our newsletter using this form. We would like to send you updates and engage with you in other ways. Please fill out this contact form if you are interested.

Stay Connected

facebook Facebook twitter Twitter youtube YouTube flickr Flickr google+ Google+

Sign Up for Updates from the White House
Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

 

 

May 18 2012

GottaVote.org Will Help Americans Understand Their Voting Rights and How to Exercise Them in Their State

VOTING:

Today, Obama for America is launching GottaVote.org, the campaign’s bilingual, cutting-edge resource to help Americans understand their rights to vote, and know how to exercise it in their state. The President’s campaign is about inclusiveness and moving forward, not backward. That’s why we’re trying to get as many Americans involved as possible. That’s the true spirit of our elections and our country.

 After controversies of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, most Americans expected that we would fix our election problems, not make them worse. Unfortunately, many Republican-controlled state legislatures have been taking us backward, not forward, when it comes to voting rights – sometimes changing voter registration rules in the middle of a campaign.

o In 2011, more than 30 states introduced legislation or passed laws making it harder to vote, not easier.

o They closed early-voting windows, election-day registration, and made it more difficult for poll workers to do their jobs.

 As a country, we’re better off when more citizens can access the polls. Voting is a fundamental right, and we all have a vested interest in making sure that as many Americans as possible vote on Election Day.

 That’s why GottaVote.org is so important and is part of the campaign’s aggressive voter-protection program. GottaVote.org answers common questions voters in any state might have, including:
o When do I have to register by?
o What do I need to bring to the polls?
o Can I vote early?
o Where is my polling place?
 GottaVote.org is a one-stop shop for getting the facts on voting, reminders for key dates and deadlines, and alerts on the status of voting rights in state. It’s available in both English and Spanish because different languages shouldn’t keep Americans from voting.

o The Spanish-language website is www.GottaVote.org/es.

 While we’ll have fully armed voter protection teams in precincts across the country on Election Day, protecting the right to vote starts long before November. That’s why on May 19 and 20 the campaign will hold a national GottaVote Weekend of Action to educate voters about state election laws and register new voters to grow the electorate.

 We’ll connect with new voters and help them understand their rights. We’ll bring new people into our strong network of volunteers – training them and our staff on current state election laws.

 We’re doing all this for a simple reason: We’ve never solved anything in America with less democracy. And we won’t now. The President believes in an America where everybody can make their voices heard, regardless of who they are or what party they vote for.

 He believes voting should be easy and accessible. In 2012, we should be taking down roadblocks to voting, not putting up new ones. That’s what GottaVote.org is all about. That’s what our country is all about.

May 14 2012

White House Women’s Update: Happy Mother’s Day!

The White House Saturday, May 12, 2012
White House Women’s Update: Happy Mother’s Day!

Friends –

Happy Mother’s Day to you and yours!

Yesterday, the President released a presidential proclamation to celebrate the special role mothers play as cornerstones of our families and our communities, and on Thursday, First Lady, Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden hosted a Mother’s Day Tea for military families in the East Room of the White House and we hosted a Twitter Chat with the leadership of MomsRising.org, Mocha Moms, and Mamiverse – who were joined by their children and parents.

Additionally, please take a moment to read a new post by Lynn Rosenthal, the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and Senior Policy Director for Immigration, Felicia Escobar on the risk of Rolling Back Protections for Domestic Violence Victims.

We hope that you took a moment to watch the President’s interview with ABC News on Wednesday, where he said that, “I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” He made it clear that he believes that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships from getting married.

Happy Mother’s Day and thank you for all that you do!

The White House Council on Women & Girls

Joining Forces Honors Military Moms

 

First Lady Michelle Obama greets guests during a Mother’s Day Tea in the East Room of the White House, May 10, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Hebert)

In honor of yesterday, Military Spouse Appreciation Day, and in support of military families celebrating Mother’s Day, this Sunday, May 13, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden hosted a Joining Forces Mother’s Day event at the White House for three generations of military families – military mothers, as well as their mothers and their children. Click here to watch coverage of the event.

Rolling Back Protections for Domestic Violence Victims

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been an essential tool in helping to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence.  While seeking to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to victims of abuse, VAWA ultimately changed the landscape for those previously left to suffer in silence. Read and share this important piece by White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Lynn Rosenthal and Senior Policy Director for Immigration, Felicia Escobar on the risk of Rolling Back Protections for Domestic Violence Victims.

My First Job: Valerie Jarrett

Summer Jobs+ is a call to action for businesses, non-profits, and government to work together to provide pathways to employment for young people in the summer of 2012. It’s about helping people find their first jobs.

Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to the President, and Chair of the Council on Women and Girls, says her first job taught her about working with people who are under enormous amounts of stress, the importance of paying attention to details and something that virtually every worker deals with each day–showing up to work on time. Check it out here.

President Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage

On Wednesday, during an interview with ABC News, President Obama said, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” It’s no secret the President has gone through some soul-searching on this issue. In the end, the President said, he believes it’s important to “treat others the way you would want to be treated.”We need to recognize that people are going to have differing views on marriage and those views, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected.

West Wing Week: 5/11/12 or “Teach Your Parents How to Tweet”

This week, the President traveled to Virginia and New York to urge Congress not to let interest rates double on student loans and to introduce a to-do list for Congress. He also hosted the University of Kentucky Wildcats, the Fermi Science award winners, and this year’s Gershwin Award Winners. Watch the episode here.

The President’s Weekly Address

After signing an agreement that details our future relationship with Afghanistan, President Obama explains that we must now focus on the type of nation our troops return home to, and calls on Congress to take the money we are no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the other half to rebuild America. Check out the President’s weekly address here.

Stay Connected

facebook Facebook twitter Twitter youtube YouTube flickr Flickr google+ Google+

Sign Up for Updates from the White House
Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

May 11 2012

National Women’s History Project: History of Mother’s Day

History of Mother’s Day

Given the following possibilities, how many of us could pick the right answer?

Mother’s Day began:

In 1858, when Anna Jarvis, a young Appalachian homemaker, organized “Mother’s Work Days” to improve the sanitation and avert deaths from disease-bearing insects and seepage of polluted water.

In 1872, when Boston poet, pacifist and women’s suffragist Julia Ward Howe established a special day for mothers –and for peace– not long after the bloody Franco-Prussian War.

In 1905, when Anna Jarvis died. Her daughter, also named Anna, decided to memorialize her mother’s lifelong activism, and began a campaign that culminated in 1914 when Congress passed a Mother’s Day resolution.

The correct answer: All of the above. Each woman and all of these events have contributed to the present occasion now celebrated on the second Sunday in May.

This Mother’s Day – Honor the Strength of Women

The cause of world peace was the impetus for Julia Ward Howe’s establishment, over a century ago, of a special day for mothers. Following unsuccessful efforts to pull together an international pacifist conference after the Franco-Prussian War, Howe began to think of a global appeal to women.

“While the war was still in progress,” she wrote, she keenly felt the “cruel and unnecessary character of the contest.” She believed, as any woman might, that it could have been settled without bloodshed. And, she wondered, “Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?”

Howe’s version of Mother’s Day, which served as an occasion for advocating peace, was held successfully in Boston and elsewhere for several years, but eventually lost popularity and disappeared from public notice in the years preceding World War I.

 

For Anna Jarvis, also known as “Mother Jarvis,” community improvement by mothers was only a beginning. Throughout the Civil War she organized women’s brigades, asking her workers to do all they could without regard for which side their men had chosen. And, in 1868, she took the initiative to heal the bitter rifts between her Confederate and Union neighbors.

The younger Anna Jarvis was only twelve years old in 1878 when she listened to her mother teach a Sunday school lesson on mothers in the Bible. “I hope and pray that someone, sometime, will found a memorial mother’s day,” the senior Jarvis said. “There are many days for men, but none for mothers.”

Following her mother’s death, Anna Jarvis embarked on a remarkable campaign. She poured out a constant stream of letters to men of prominence — President William Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt among them — and enlisted considerable help from Philadelphia merchant John Wannamaker.

By May of 1907, a Mother’s Day service had been arranged on the second Sunday in May at the Methodist Church in Grafton, West Virginia, where Mother Jarvis had taught. That same day a special service was held at the Wannamaker Auditorium in Philadelphia, which could seat no more than a third of the 15,000 people who showed up.

The custom spread to churches in 45 states and in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Mexico and Canada. The Governor of West Virginia proclaimed Mother’s Day in 1912; Pennsylvania’s governor in 1913 did the same. The following year saw the Congressional Resolution, which was promptly signed by President Woodrow Wilson.

Mother’s Day has endured. It serves now, as it originally did, to recognize the contributions of women. Mother’s Day, like the job of “mothering,” is varied and diverse. Perhaps that’s only appropriate for a day honoring the multiple ways women find to nurture their families, and the ways in which so many have nurtured their communities, their countries, and the larger world.

via National Women’s History Project.

May 10 2012

Mitt Romney and others on denying civil rights to same sex couples

Today, Mitt Romney reiterated his place with the extreme voices in his party in opposing civil unions, which puts him to the right of George W. Bush, and supporting a federal marriage amendment, which would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and invalidate state laws legalizing same sex marriage. And it would be the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to discriminate and deny rights. Additionally, he’s funded groups such as the National Organization for Marriage that have engaged in fear-mongering on this issue.

Key Points on Federal Marriage Amendment:

A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would roll back rights for committed gay and lesbian couples and limit American freedoms.

 A federal “Protect Marriage Amendment” would prohibit committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying, and prevent courts from guaranteeing same-sex couples the same rights as other Americans.

 State laws allowing gay marriage would be invalidated, and same-sex couples that are already married would likely see their marriages declared void. All states could be required to discriminate against committed same-sex couples, taking this decision away from the states and making it a federal mandate.

If enacted, this would be the first time the Constitution was amended to discriminate and deny rights.

 Our Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, and the amendment process has been used throughout history to expand America freedom. Constitutional amendments have eliminated slavery; given women, racial minorities, and eighteen year olds the right to vote; and guaranteed our rights to free expression, a fair trial, and the free exercise of religion.

 America has never used its constitutional amendment process to discriminate. Indeed, the history of amendments to our Constitution displays a steady march of progress.

ROMNEY REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS “ONE OF THE NATION’S LEADING ADVOCATES OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE”

Romney: “I Stood Up To Fight Same Sex Marriage. I Was One Of The Nation’s Leading Advocates Of Traditional Marriage.” [KVRR (Fargo, ND), 3/1/12]

Romney Called Gay Marriage “A Blow To The Family.” [Boston Globe, 2/26/05]

ROMNEY VOWED TO “FIGHT FOR A FEDERAL AMENDMENT DEFINING MARRIAGE AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”

Romney: “When I Am President, I Will Preserve The Defense Of Marriage Act And I Will Fight For A Federal Amendment Defining Marriage As A Relationship Between One Man And One Woman.” [Romney Prepared Remarks, Conservative Political Action Conference, 2/10/12]

Romney: “We Should Have A Constitutional Amendment That Defines Marriage As A Relationship Between A Man And A Woman.” “‘My view is that we should defend the Defense Of Marriage Act and that we should have a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman,’ he said, before adding: ‘This path is one that as you watch it, we become more and more of a secular nation.’” [New York Times, 1/16/12; Romney, South Carolina Faith & Freedom Coalition, 1/16/12]

Romney Said He Supported A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage Rather Than Leaving It Up To The States. At the New Hampshire primary debate John King asked, “Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who, like I believe, the congresswoman just said, this should be made — this decision, same sex marriage, should be a state’s decision?” … KING: “Governor Romney, constitutional amendment or state decision?” ROMNEY, “Constitutional.” [New Hampshire Debate, 6/13/11]

THE FEDERAL “PROTECT MARRIAGE AMENDMENT WOULD ROLL BACK RIGHTS FOR LGBT INDIVIDUALS AND USE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

The Federal Protect Marriage Amendment Would Define Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Could Prevent Courts From Providing Marriage-Like Benefits. Under the proposed amendment, the Constitution would be amended to say: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” [H. J. RES. 88, introduced June 6, 2006]

 “Barack Obama Voted Against The Federal Marriage Amendment In 2006 Which Would Have Defined Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman And Prevented Judicial Extension Of Marriage-Like Rights To Same-Sex Or Other Unmarried Couples.” [Change.gov, accessed 05/09/2012]

Congressman Jared Nadler Said That A Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage Would Be The First Amendment To Deny Civil Rights To Certain Americans. “And Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, called the president’s proposal ‘shameful.’ ‘By stating his support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the president is trying to write discrimination into the Constitution, for the first time amending our sacred document to deny civil rights to a large number of Americans,’ Mr. Nadler said.” [New York Times, 2/24/04]

Mary Cheney Said A Federal Marriage Amendment “Is Writing Discrimination Into The Constitution.” Mary Cheney: “I think that is what the federal marriage amendment is. It is writing discrimination into the constitution… Well, I certainly don’t know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill. But you know, what I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong. Now, I would certainly hope that, you know, and understand, this is an issue that Americans do disagree on and that we do need to debate and discuss. And I would certainly hope that those discussions would continue. And I would also hope that no one would think about trying to amend the constitution as a political strategy, that people wouldn’t try and use amending the constitution to further their own political goals.” [Fox New Sunday, Fox, 5/14/06]

ROMNEY HAS OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS SINCE “DAY ONE”…

2012: Romney Senior Adviser Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney “Has Not Been In Favor Of Civil Unions, If By Civil Unions You Mean The Equivalency To Marriage But Without The Name Marriage.” “‘[H]e has not been in favor of civil unions, if by civil unions you mean the equivalency to marriage but without the name marriage,’ Fehrnstrom said. ‘What he has favored, and he talked about this, I believe, last night, was a form of domestic partnership or a contractual relationship with reciprocal benefits.’” [Huffington Post, 1/8/12]

2007: Romney: “I Opposed Then, And I Do Now, Gay Marriage And Civil Union” And “I Am Proud Of The Fact That I And My Team Did Everything Within Our Power And Within The Law To Stand Up For Traditional Marriage.” “During his dinner speech at the National Review Institute’s Conservative Summit, the former governor said he was a strong opponent of a November 2003 state supreme court decision making Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage. ‘I opposed then, and I do now,

gay marriage and civil union,’ he said. ‘I am proud of the fact that I and my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage.’” [Associated Press, 1/28/07]

2005: Romney Said He Has Been Against Gay Marriage And Civil Unions Since “Day One.” “In February, Romney told a South Carolina Republican audience that ‘from day one, I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.’ But gay rights groups, including a leading GOP organization, accused Romney of flip-flopping, saying he had supported some benefits for gay couples in his 2002 campaign.” [Boston Globe, 6/17/05]

2002: Romney Opposed Civil Unions Saying “For All Intents And Purposes” Civil Unions And Gay Marriage “Are The Same.” In an interview with Bay Windows, Romney was asked, “To you, what is the difference between civil unions between same-sex couples and gay marriage?” He responded, “Very little, if any. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.” He was then asked, “Do you support civil unions?” and responded, “No, because I believe it’s virtually identical to marriage.” [Bay Windows interview, 1/1/02]

…AND WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DENY BENEFITS TO GAY COUPLES IN DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING HOSPITAL VISITS

Romney Would Leave “Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” Romney: “My preference again would be to have a national standard, with one standard for the nation. Now that doesn’t mean that same sex couples can’t enter into domestic partnerships, and the benefits associated with domestic partnerships could be, developed from, by enterprise, by the state, by the federal government. So one could say for instance that in Iowa, a same sex couple can come together, can adopt a child. And they can have hospital visitation rights and so forth. I mean you could decide what benefits, each state can decide the benefits associated with people who live in domestic partnerships. But I believe the term marriage should be defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]

 Romney: “So One Could Say For Instance That In Iowa, A Same Sex Couple Can Come Together, Can Adopt A child. And They Can Have Hospital Visitation Rights And So Forth. I Mean You Could Decide What Benefits, Each State Can Decide The Benefits Associated With People Who Live In Domestic Partnerships.” [Ames Tribune Editorial Board Interview, 12/29/11]

CIVIL UNIONS CONFER KEY RIGHTS AND BENEFITS TO SAME SEX COUPLES

Civil Unions Provide Same Sex Couple Rights and Benefits Including Rights To Inherit Property, Medical Rights, And Family Leave Benefits. “Civil union/domestic partnership laws confer certain rights and benefits upon domestic partners which vary depending on the state law. Some of these rights and benefits include laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession; causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, or loss of consortium; probate law and procedure; adoption law and procedure; insurance benefits; workers’ compensation rights; laws relating to medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification; family leave benefits; public assistance benefits under state laws and laws relating to state taxes.” [Congressional Research Service, 09/04/2004]

In Hawaii, Same-Sex Couples With A Civil Union “Have Access To The Full Range Of State Law Rights And Responsibilities When They Enter Into Their Civil Union.” [Equality Hawaii, accessed 5/9/2012]

 Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Same-Sex Couples Family Law Rights. [Equality Hawaii, accessed 5/9/2012]

 Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Same-Sex Couples Medical And Death-Related Rights, Including Hospital Visitation, Medical Decision-Making, Making Funeral Arrangements,

Partner Health Insurance, Inheritance Rights In The Absence Of A Will And Other Family Benefits. [Equality Hawaii accessed 05/09/12]

Hawaii’s Civil Union Law Provides Partners In A Civil Union Numerous Other Rights And Responsibilities, Including The Right To File Joint State Income Taxes, Property Rights And Workplace Benefits Like Sick Leave. [Equality Hawaii accessed 05/09/12]

New Jersey’s Civil Union Law “Grants Gay Couples Adoption, Inheritance, Hospital Visitation And Medical Decision-Making Rights And The Right Not To Testify Against A Partner In State Court.” [Washington Post, 12/21/2006]

Illinois’s Civil Union Law Provides The “Same Legal Obligations, Responsibilities, Protections, And Benefits That State Law Provides To Married Spouses.” [Equality Illinois, 07/2011]

GEORGE W. BUSH CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF CIVIL UNIONS

George W. Bush: “I Don’t Think We Should Deny People Rights To A Civil Union, A Legal Arrangement, If That’s What A State Chooses To Do So.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I, I, I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.” CHARLES GIBSON: “The Republican platform opposes it.” PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: “Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Look, if you’re, if you’re interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, that’s through the constitutional process. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making on behalf of the American people.” [ABC News, World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, 10/25/04]

ROMNEY SURROGATES HAVE STATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR CIVIL UNIONS

Chris Christie: “I Have Been Just As Adamant That Same-Sex Couples In A Civil Union Deserve The Very Same Rights And Benefits Enjoyed By Married Couples—As Well As The Strict Enforcement Of Those Rights And Benefits.” “Renewing his push for gay marriage to go to New Jersey voters in a referendum in November’s general election, Christie said an ombudsman should be appointed to ensure the state’s civil union law is being followed. ‘I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’ Christie said.” [The Star-Ledger, 2/18/12]

Jon Huntsman: “I Think Civil Unions Are Fair. I Think There’s Such A Thing As Equality Under The Law.” “Personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law. I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. […] And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.” [ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR Republican Primary Debate, 1/7/12]

REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ENDORSED CIVIL UNIONS

Sen. Mark Kirk: “I Support Civil Unions.” At a debate in 2010 Kirk said, “I oppose gay marriage, and– I support civil unions. But I also don’t think we should have a federal takeover of all marriage law in the United States. I think the federal government is already trying to take over too much.” [Illinois Senate Debate, 10/19/10]

Sen. Scott Brown: The Characterization Of Me As “Gay-Hating” Is “Mean Spirited And Certainly A Misrepresentation,” Since “I Have The Same Position As Barack Obama” In Supporting Civil Unions. “He has been the bête noire of gay rights activists since 2001, when he said it was `not normal’

for Jacques and her partner to have children, and referred to Jacques’s role in the relationship as `alleged family responsibilities.’ Brown quickly apologized and said he chose his words poorly. Activists have neither forgotten nor forgiven. `Scott Brown has demonstrated a persistent antagonism toward equality’ for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, said Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, an advocacy group. `He’s not someone who even likes or tolerates gay people or their families.’ Brown responded that `it was never about hating or disliking any particular group because of their sexual orientation. `When I read the headlines in Bay Windows or any other groups – you know, `gay-hating Scott Brown’ – it’s mean-spirited and certainly a misrepresentation,’ he said, `especially when I have the same position as Barack Obama,” who, like Brown, favors civil unions.” [Boston Globe, 11/20/09]

2008: ROMNEY SENT FUNDS TO THE ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE GROUP, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MARRIAGE

Headline: “Mitt Romney Fuels NOM’s Divisive Racial Tactics” [LGBT Weekly, 3/31/12]

Headline: “Mitt Romney Secretly Supported Anti-Gay-Marriage Group” [Daily Beast, 3/30/12]

Headline: “Mitt Romney’s PAC Funded Anti-Gay Marriage Group Under The Radar” [Huffington Post, 3/30/12]

2008: Romney’s Free And Strong America PAC Contributed $10,000 To National Organization Of Marriage “At A Time When The Anti-Gay Rights Organization Was Seeking Repeal Of A California Law Legalizing Marriage Equality.” “In 2008, Mitt Romney’s political action committee made a $10,000 donation to the National Organization of Marriage at a time when the anti-gay rights organization was seeking repeal of a California law legalizing marriage equality. … But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM’s public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.” [Huffington Post, 3/30/12]

 2008: Romney Spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom: Romney Donated $10,000 To The National Organization For Marriage And “Feels Strongly That Marriage Is An Institution Between A Man And A Woman.” “Romney, a former Massachusetts governor claimed by Utahns as a favorite son candidate before he dropped out of this year’s presidential race, appears to be positioning himself for another run for the White House. … The former leader of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City also has contributed more than $375,000 from his Free and Strong America political action committee to a variety of conservative candidates and causes. Those causes include California’s Proposition 8, which would reverse that state’s Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage there earlier this year. Romney donated $10,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, [Romney spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom said. ‘The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California,’ Fehrnstrom said.” [Deseret News, 10/28/08]

Romney’s $10,000 Donation To The National Organization For Marriage Helped In Their Efforts To Pass California’s Proposition 8 Including A Number Of Ads. “In 2008 presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 through his PAC to the National Organization for Marriage to help in their efforts to pass California’s Proposition 8, which reversed the state court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. Here are three ads Romney helped pay for.” [BuzzFeed 3/8/12]

 Yes On California Proposition 8 Ad: Warned That Children Would Be Taught They Could Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex In Schools. “Yes on 8 TV Ad: Its Already Happened”: Daughter: “Mom, guess what I learned in school today?” Mom: “What sweetie?” “Daughter: “I learned how prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.” Professor Richard Peterson, Pepperdine University School of Law: “Think it can’t happen? It’s already happened. When Massachusetts legalized gay

May 10 2012

President Obama and LGBT rights – words and actions bring change

 The President’s personal view is that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so.
 It’s no secret the President has gone through some soul-searching on this issue. He’s talked to his wife about it, like so many couples do. He’s heard from folks—gay friends in long-term, loving relationships; brave young servicemen and women he got to know through the fight to end Don’t, Ask Don’t Tell; staff members; folks who sent compelling letters about their lives. It’s no doubt they’ve shaped his view on this issue.
 In the end, the values that the President cares most deeply about is how we treat other people. The President and First Lady are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put them at odds with the views of others, but when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you’d want to be treated.
 We make it absolutely clear that we are talking about civil marriages and civil laws. This isn’t a federal issue. We must be respectful of religious liberty, that churches and other faith institutions are still going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are, what they recognize.
 We need to recognize that people are going to have differing views on marriage and those views, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected.
 Mitt Romney not only opposes same sex marriage, but he believes we should amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Romney’s federal marriage amendment would be the first time the nation amended the Constitution to deny Americans equal rights.
 Mitt Romney also opposes civil unions, which could rollback a whole range of equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian Americans.
The Obama Administration’s record in support of the LGBT community includes:
 Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The President signed the bill to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on December 22, 2010, putting in motion the end of a discriminatory policy that ran counter to our values as Americans. As of September 20, 2011, when the repeal took effect, gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans can serve openly in our Armed Forces and without fear of losing their jobs for who they are and who they love.
 Ending the Legal Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): If a couple is married under state law, whether they are gay or straight, they’re entitled to exactly the same legal rights as any other couple, and the federal government has no businesses invalidating those marriages. In February 2011, the President and Attorney General
announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA against equal protection constitutional challenges brought by same-sex couples married under state law. In July 2011, the White House announced the President’s support of the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nadler, which would repeal DOMA and uphold the principle that gay and lesbian couples should receive the same Federal rights and legal protections as straight couples. The President has long supported a legislative repeal of DOMA.
 Signing Historic Hate Crimes Legislation: President Obama overcame years of partisan gridlock to pass and sign the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law, which extends the coverage of Federal hate crimes law to include attacks based on the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
 Ensuring Hospital Visitation Rights for LGBT Patients and Their Loved Ones: Following a directive from the President, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now requires all hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds – just about every hospital in America – to allow visitation rights for LGBT patients. The President also directed HHS to ensure that medical decision-making rights of LGBT patients are respected.
 Preventing Bullying Against LGBT Students: President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services convened students, parents, and teachers, in addition to non-profit leaders, advocates, and policymakers, for the first-ever White House Conference on Bullying Prevention in March 2011. Early in the Obama Administration, six Federal agencies joined together to establish the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee to explore ways to provide guidance on combating bullying to individuals and organizations.
 Developing and Implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy: President Obama fulfilled a pledge to those with HIV by developing and releasing the Nation’s first comprehensive plan for responding to the domestic HIV epidemic. In 2009, President Obama signed legislation reauthorizing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program for four years to provide critical health services to uninsured and underinsured people living with HIV. The Administration has also prioritized funding increases for HIV prevention, care, and research in each successive President’s budget.
 Expanding Access to Health Coverage: The Affordable Care Act ensures that Americans have secure, stable, and affordable insurance. In 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against anyone due to a pre-existing condition, and because of the law, insurers can no longer turn someone away just because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. In addition, the federal website, HealthCare.gov, designed to help all consumers find the health insurance best suited to their needs, makes it easy to locate health insurers that cover domestic partners.
 Addressing Health Care Disparities: The Affordable Care Act is funding preventive efforts for communities, including millions of dollars to use evidence-based interventions to address tobacco control, obesity prevention, HIV-related health disparities, better nutrition and physical activity. In addition, the new health care law is making other investments that will help address health disparities. Funding is going toward building a more diverse and culturally competent health care workforce, as well as investing in community health centers to serve up to 20 million

May 8 2012

President Obama Calls on Congress to Act on “To Do List” to Create Jobs

President Obama calls on Congress to move forward with a concrete plan that creates jobs and helps restore middle class security.

At this make-or-break moment for the middle class Congress needs to take action on these common sense initiatives.  We need to create an economy built to last that creates secure American jobs and makes things the rest of the world buys – not one built on outsourcing, loopholes, or risky financial deals.

Congress’ To Do List:

  1. Reward companies who bring jobs back to the U.S. with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.
  1. Cut red tape so hard working, responsible homeowners who are paying their mortgage can refinance at today’s lower rates.
  1. Help hard working small business owners create jobs by giving them a tax credit for new hires.
  1. Invest in American clean energy manufacturers who create American jobs through innovation of new technologies and new fuels that reduce our reliance on foreign oil and lead to more secure energy sources.
  1. Ensure our commitment to our veterans is as strong as they are by creating a Veterans Job Corps that helps hire veterans as cops, firefighters, and serving their communities.

Insourcing:

  • The President will travel to New York to talk about the importance of creating jobs and bringing jobs back to America.
  • The President believes we must attract and keep good jobs in the U.S. by rewarding companies who bring jobs back to America with lower taxes and pay for it by eliminating tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas.
  • Specifically, the President calls  on Congress to pass legislation that gives companies moving operations back to the U.S. a new 20 percent tax credit for moving expenses and pay for it by ending the tax break that allows companies to deduct expenses associated with moving operations overseas.
  • It is simply wrong that companies get tax breaks for shipping U.S. jobs to foreign countries.  No company should be rewarded for outsourcing production and jobs.
  • We should be rewarding those companies that bring jobs back to our shores with tax credits.  This tax credit will cover moving expenses for businesses that close down production abroad and bring jobs back to the U.S.
  • Rather than moving forward to reward companies that bring jobs back to America, Republicans are fighting to preserve tax breaks that incentivize sending jobs overseas.
May 8 2012

Scott Brown just voted NO on a bill to stop student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1st

Friend,

Our Republican opponent Scott Brown just voted NO on a bill to stop student loan interest rates from doubling on July 1st.

Can you believe it?

Just a few weeks ago, Scott Brown voted once again to protect big oil subsidies. And now he is telling thousands of college students in Massachusetts — kids drowning in debt from the soaring cost of tuition and fees — that they have to pay even more.

This isn’t about economics — it’s about our values.

Tell Scott Brown and the Republican Party to stop blocking action on student loans.

Scott Brown had a choice this morning: To help students who are trying to build a future for themselves, or to stand with the leadership in the Republican Party.

Scott Brown made his choice loud and clear.

And Massachusetts voters are seeing through his independent act. Even after Scott Brown and the Republican Party have thrown the kitchen sink at Elizabeth this past week, a new poll conducted yesterday shows Elizabeth and Scott Brown are tied at 45-45.

We need your help to tell every student, parent and grandparent about Scott Brown’s vote today — and to make sure Massachusetts voters know whose side he’s on.

Thanks,

Mindy Myers
Campaign Manager
Elizabeth for MA

Donate

May 2 2012

President Obama Travels To Afghanistan – the details spelled out

From our inbox 

·         We have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 of our men and women will leave by the end of the summer. Steady reductions will continue after that. And as our Alliance has agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

 

·         Tonight the President said, “My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.”

 

·         Today, President Obama traveled to Afghanistan to sign an historic Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan; to visit with our troops; and to address the American people about how we will responsibly end the war in Afghanistan.

 

·         President Obama and President Karzai agreed to begin these negotiations nearly two years ago in Washington, DC and it is fitting that we complete them in Kabul, as a demonstration of our respect for the sovereignty of the Afghan nation, and respect for the Afghan people.

 

·         The Strategic Partnership Agreement provides a long-term framework for relations between the United States and Afghanistan after the drawdown of US forces. The SPA details how the partnership between our countries will be normalized as the war comes to an end. Just as we did in Iraq, we are building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability and prosperity, while advancing our shared goal of defeating al Qaeda and contributing to the security of the region.

 

·         This Agreement comes at a time when we have made significant progress toward achieving our goal in Afghanistan: defeating al Qaeda, and denying it the ability to rebuild a safe-haven. It is fitting that the SPA is being signed one year to the day that Osama bin Laden was taken out, putting al Qaeda further on a path to defeat.

 

·         This plan completes our mission and ends the war in Afghanistan as fast as we safely and responsibly can. After a decade of war, we are now at a pivotal moment. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half. We have a clear path to finish our work in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

 

Additional Details of Strategic Partnership Agreement:

·         The SPA is one component of our strategy to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan while achieving our objectives. That strategy has five elements: transitioning to Afghan lead by 2014; training Afghan Security Forces; building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan; reconciliation; and promoting regional stability.

 

·         First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in areas where Afghan Security Forces are moving into the lead. In Chicago, ISAF will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans move into the lead.

 

·         As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 of our men and women will leave by the end of the summer. Steady reductions will continue after that. And as our Alliance has agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

 

·         Second, we are training Afghan Security Forces to get the job done. As our troops draw down, Afghan forces have surged and become more capable. This year, those forces will peak ahead of schedule at 352,000. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years, and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

 

·         Third, we are building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan. The SPA sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It sets forth the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including mutual commitments to combat terrorism, and strengthen democratic institutions. U.S. commitments to support Afghanistan’s security, economic development, and regional cooperation are matched by Afghan commitments to strengthen accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights. Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country.

 

·         Fourth, we are pursuing Afghan-led reconciliation. In coordination with the Afghan government, the U.S. has made it clear to the Taliban that they can be a part of Afghanistan’s future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in a settlement. A pathway to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk that path will have to contend with strong Afghan Security Forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

 

·         Fifth, we are building an international consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. Pakistan can be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan’s sovereignty, interests, and democratic institutions. In this pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

 

·         There are those who will ask why we need a firm timeline. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America’s image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that.

 

·         Others have asked why we don’t pack up and leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must pursue a transition that gives Afghanistan the opportunity to stand on its own two feet. Otherwise, stability could be threatened, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more.

Apr 25 2012

Reauthorize the Violence against women act –

You would think this is given – but the right wing has a problem protecting all human beings – really?

Democrats

Friend –

This week, the Senate may not reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Since this bipartisan legislation first passed in 1994, it’s been reauthorized twice without a hitch. And it’s been tremendously successful in helping to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

So it should be a no-brainer, right? Not to the Senate GOP, not in an election year, apparently.

Republicans are willing to throw away the entire law now that it helps protect lesbians, gay men, undocumented immigrants, and Native Americans. Do they believe acts of violence committed against these groups don’t matter as much?

The Senate’s voting on the Act any moment now, and we need to put pressure on the GOP to pass it.

Before the vote, stand with me for all victims of domestic violence — no matter who they are: Add your name in support of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Since this law passed, it has helped reduce the annual rate of domestic violence by an astounding 53 percent. The rate of women killed by an intimate partner has dropped 34 percent.

Its programs, including violence prevention programs, shelters and rape crisis centers, and funding for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes have made a world of difference in giving victims of violence a safe place to turn.

It has without a doubt saved thousands of lives.

And Senate Republicans are ready to roll back all our progress.

This year’s Act would make sure that LGBT Americans receive equal treatment for services, it would make it easier for undocumented immigrants to come forward as victims and provide temporary visas in certain cases, and let Native Americans on reservations go to tribal courts for abuse cases. With these additional protections, the GOP has promised to fight it every step of the way.

If Congress votes against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, all of these programs could grind to a halt, and the hundreds of thousands of women who rely on them will once again be left on their own.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s resistance is just another example of putting women’s health and well-being on the line in order to score a few cheap, political points with their base.

We can’t stand by and let them take away this critical legislation.

Before the Senate votes this week, add your name in support of protecting all victims of domestic and sexual violence, no matter who they are:

http://my.democrats.org/Reauthorize-the-Violence-Against-Women-Act

And keep an eye on when they do vote — because we’ll be keeping the pressure on.

Thanks for your help,

Debbie

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Chair
Democratic National Committee

Apr 19 2012

Update on the Buffett Rule

Friends:

I wanted to make sure you heard the news on the Buffett Rule coming out of the Senate this week.

Senate Republicans filibustered the bill, blocking debate and preventing a simple up-or-down vote, despite the fact that a majority of senators supported the law.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you added your name to the call to pass the rule, and a recent CNN poll showed that almost three-quarters of Americans support the Buffett Rule. Monday’s result was disappointing, but it was not entirely unexpected. Republican leadership, from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell, has consistently lined up to defend tax breaks and loopholes for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the middle class and the health of our economy. Apparently they think it’s fair that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

It’s not fair, and it’s not right for the economy either. The Buffett Rule is an important part of the president’s plan to make tough choices on spending and taxes to bring down the deficit and invest in the middle class. And with supporters like you keeping the heat on, the Buffett Rule is going to be a defining issue in this race. We’re going to make sure the voters know President Obama is fighting for middle-class security, while Mitt Romney protects tax loopholes for himself and other millionaires.

Thank you for adding your voice to this debate. This isn’t over, and with your help, we’ll keep fighting for an economy built to last, where everyone pays their fair share.

-James

James Kvaal
National Policy Director
Obama for America

P.S. — The Buffett Rule is just one example of the choice voters will face in November. Can you pitch in to help spread the word?

Apr 13 2012

Romney Waffles on Equal Pay, Isn’t Willing to Stand Up For Women and Their Families

From the DNC to our inbox – here’s the thing…

It’s no surprise women don’t trust Mitt Romney to stand up for them and their families; he isn’t willing to do it.

 Mitt Romney spent the Republican primary joining Republican attacks on women, and now he’s losing among women by 19 points. Romney is trying and failing to Etch-A-Sketch away his record on women by hypocritically misleading voters and attacking President Obama’s record on women and jobs. It’s no surprise women don’t trust Romney to stand up for them – he isn’t willing to do it.
 This week, when asked whether Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that helps women fight for equal pay, his campaign tersely replied “we’ll get back to you on that.” Romney isn’t willing to stand up for working women across America who on average earn just 77 cents on the dollar. Romney now says he’s not going to change current pay equity laws, suggesting he opposes the Paycheck Fairness Act.
o Please see this campaign video on Romney and the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
 Women should have the ability to take their bosses to court to get the same pay as their male coworkers. Anyone who wants to be president shouldn’t have to think about whether they support pursuing every possible avenue to ensuring women get the same pay for the same work as men. America’s economic security depends on it.
 Romney’s extreme comments have left him underwater with women. Romney himself has said the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, that he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, and that he supports the Blunt Amendment that would give women’s health decisions to their bosses.
 Romney’s attacks are both hypocritical and wrong. Romney has no plan to keep teachers on the job and no plan to accelerate job creation now to strengthen the recovery. In fact, Romney’s plans include tax increases that disproportionately hurt women, raising taxes on 18 million working families.
 Under President Obama’s leadership, women are actually gaining jobs during the recovery, and the President has a plan to get women – and all Americans – back to work now. His budget would help support 320,000 teacher jobs, more than two-thirds of which would likely go to women.
 Over the past 25 months, women have gained nearly 1.2 million private-sector jobs. That starkly contrasts the situation President Obama inherited. Almost 300,000 women lost their jobs in the month President Obama took office, making it the worst month on record for women’s jobs losses.
o President Obama’s measures have helped keep 400,000 teachers in classrooms, kept nurses and health care professionals on the job and helped put women back to work.
o He’s put payroll tax cuts into the pockets of nearly 75 million working women while passing 18 tax cuts for women-owned small businesses.

Apr 12 2012

From Elizabeth Warren on the Buffett Rule – we couldn’t agree more!

I wanted to forward one more email to you today. Like you, I’ve signed up for a few email lists.

On Monday, President Obama’s team sent an email about the Buffett Rule — legislation that makes sure people who make more than $1 million a year pay their fair share in taxes.

The President didn’t ask me to do this, but I wanted to double check that you’d seen this email. It’s that important.

In 2009, there were 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually but paying less than 15% of their income in income taxes — and 1,470 paid no federal income taxes at all.

My opponent, Republican Senator Scott Brown, agrees with Mitt Romney that it’s okay for millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else. He wants to block the Buffett Rule. I think that’s wrong, and I’m standing with President Obama on this.

To me, the Buffett Rule shows what this upcoming election is all about. It’s a clear choice: do we want a Senator who protects millionaires and billionaires while voting against rebuilding roads and bridges and voting against preventing layoffs for our teachers?

Or do we want to level the playing field, to change the rules so millionaires don’t pay a lower tax rate than everyone else, and to use that money to honor our promises to our parents and to make the investments so more kids have their chance to get ahead?

Thanks,

Elizabeth

 

Donate

From: Jim Messina, BarackObama.com
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012
Subject: Buffett Rule

Obama - Biden

Elizabeth –

Warren Buffett, a billionaire, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Think that’s unfair? So does Warren Buffett.

Right now, millionaires and billionaires have nearly the lowest tax rates they’ve had in 50 years, while everyone else picks up the tab.

So President Obama is asking Congress to pass a commonsense bill, known as the Buffett Rule, to fix the tax code and make sure that millionaires and billionaires pay at least the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families.

The Buffett Rule would reduce the deficit while helping to pay for investments in education, clean energy, jobs, and other programs that will help our economy grow.

If you think that’s fair, then speak up for it before Congress votes next week — stand with President Obama in asking the richest Americans to pay their fair share.

Many Republicans are dead-set against this commonsense step, so the unfortunate reality is that next week’s vote may not go our way.

But tax fairness is one of the defining issues in this election, and supporting this policy is one of the touchstones of this campaign.

Not only does Mitt Romney oppose the Buffett Rule, but he wants to protect special breaks and loopholes that help wealthy Americans like himself avoid paying their fair share — and he wants to shower them with even more tax breaks paid for by middle-class families and seniors.

If that’s not the kind of country you want to see for the next four years, do something about it now.

Join President Obama in urging Congress to pass the Buffett Rule:

http://my.barackobama.com/Pass-the-Buffett-Rule

Thanks — and stay tuned.

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. — After adding your name, check out our new Buffett Rule website to see exactly what it does, who’s behind it, and how you can help. Take a look, then pass it on.

 

Apr 10 2012

The Buffett Rule – spelled out

http://www.barackobama.com/buffett-rule?source=20120408_ofa_EMS

The Buffett Rule would create up to $32 MILLION in tax revenue from just one millionaire. Find out exactly how that money could make a difference on issues that affect us all.