from front page CEO GREED
This discrepancy is growing as greed takes over America’s board rooms and senior management. In 1965 a CEO made more than 20 times the average worker. In 1989 the difference had grown to 58 times more. Today it is a staggering 278 times greater than the average worker.
That’s on average. Other examples of runaway pay are Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat, who made $24.2 million, 486 times more than Citi’s average worker’s pay. Disney’s CEO Bob Iger made $65.6 million that’s 1,424 times his average employee. So outrageous is his pay that even the granddaughter of Disney’s founder, Abigail Disney took to Twitter to say “…by any objective measure a pay ratio over a thousand is insane.”
What adds insult to injury is many employees are forced on to the welfare rolls. Sanders stated in a press release “Many of the firms lavishing multi-million-dollar compensation packages on their top executives rely on taxpayer support—through public housing, nutrition assistance, and Medicaid, for example—to assist full-time workers who struggle with poverty wages.”
The bill according to Lee “will incentivize companies to reduce the CEO-worker pay gaps and pay their workers the wages they deserve. Because if companies can afford to pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars, they can afford to raise wages for their employees.”
Sanders said in his press release “In America today, ordinary workers at some of the richest corporations are making poverty wages. Meanwhile, we’ve got a class of corporate CEOs who make hundreds—sometimes thousands—of times more than their employees. The last time I checked, corporations got by just fine when CEOs made a million bucks a year—one-tenth of what they make now. All around the world today, large, successful businesses manage to be profitable while treating their workers with dignity and not handing out obscene pay packages to their CEOs.”
The House version has cosponsors in representatives Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Norton (D-D.C.), Huffman (D-Calif.), Jayapal (D-Wash.), Khanna (D-Calif.), Thompson (D-Miss.), DeLauro (D-Conn.), Haaland (D-N.M.), Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Pressley (D-Mass.), Garcia (D-Ill.), Omar (D-Minn.), Takano (D-Calif.), Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) and McGovern (D-Mass.). It awaits a potential vote in the House Ways and Means Committee. Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has cosponsored the bill in the Senate.
The Act has many other supporters, some in powerful positions to motivate voters. The growing list of supporters includes AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Coalition on Human Needs, EPI Policy Center, Franciscan Action Network, Institute for Policy Studies/Global Economy Project, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Jobs With Justice, National Council of Churches, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, NETWORK, Other98, Our Revolution, People's Action, People Demanding Action, Public Citizen, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social Security Works, Strong Economy for All, Take on Wall Street, and the Working Families Party.
Sanders added, “If America’s corporate boards can’t understand the absurdity of paying their CEO friends—in one year—more than their workers will earn in a lifetime, then the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help them figure it out.”
It now waits on a vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Staff reporter Jeff McCoy can be reached at email@example.com
Taxpayer money could be used for abortions overseas
Mexico City policy trampled on
Upon moving into the White House President Trump was quick to sign an executive order that reinstated the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, formerly known as the Mexico City Policy. At one of the largest pro-life marches in the world, Trump addressed the crowd in Washington D.C. in 2019 and promised to veto any legislation sent to him if it weakened the protection of human life.
Those were not just strong words. The president had 169 members of the House of -
SCOTUS to hear abortion case
Another Pro-Life law challenged
Case similar to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee, a case where Louisiana Law, Act 620, which passed in June 2014, requires an abortion clinic to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of the procedure in case of an emergency. June Medical Services v. Gee is similar to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt which the high court heard in June of 2016.
The case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt revolved around a Texas law that stated in part that a clinic that provided abortions must also have hospital admitting privileges. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was out of bounds and struck it down.
So how can a similar case go back to the same Supreme Court? One reason is the lower court decided the case was significantly
So how can a similar case go back to the same Supreme Court? One reason is the lower court decided the case was significantly different from Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt citing that the law in Texas was determined to possibly close abortion clinics, thus restricting women’s access to an abortion based on lack of facilities, and that the Louisiana law could only affect a limited number of clinics and as such did not place an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.
The addition of two new justices in Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh is believed by pro-lifers to fall in their favor this time. Both men appear to be pro-life, both stated during hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee they would apply the Constitution as written. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants any rights for an abortion.
In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, five justices ruled in the majority, a majority that is not there now with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Out of the nine Justices, four appear to maintain a pro-choice stance, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Not enough for the majority this time.
Pro-lifers have maintained a constant struggle with pro-choice groups. Hundreds of thousands of pro-life groups and individuals make a march on the Supreme Court in Washington DC every January. The 2019 march was addressed by President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. It is a debate that both sides are very committed to. This issue, in addition to reaching the highest court of the land several times, has also reached the national political campaigns. Millions of dollars are raised and spent by both sides on candidates that they feel will promote their cause. The 2020 presidential campaign will be a testing ground for both sides.
Staff reporter Jeff McCoy can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Continued from front page MEXICO CITY
Representatives and 49 Senators promising to support his pro-life policies. A Veto would be difficult to overturn with that type of support.
In 1984 President Ronald Regan announced The Mexico City Policy that set the condition of receiving any federal funding by nongovernmental organizations to agree that they “would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”
In the State Foreign Operations spending bill, Senate leadership added language that would undermine the Administration’s PLGHA policy that protects taxpayers from being forced to pay for abortions overseas. Pro-abortion Senators have pushed to find ways to by-pass or eliminate the policy when it comes to abortions. The added language increased funding from $575 million to $632.55 million for international family planning for U.S. based NGO’s that promote abortions overseas.
Tom McClusky, President, March for Life Action, wrote “In addition, the language undermines the President’s PLGHA policy by adding new reporting requirements that are intended to effectively “name and shame” faith or community-based partners, particularly pro-life and pro-family partners. The resulting blacklist is designed to drive qualified faith-based providers away from providing foreign assistance.”
Senators are once again divided on the abortion issue. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, (D-WV) responded to a letter stating in writing “As a member of the House of Representatives, I voted to prohibit taxpayer funding from being used to pay for abortions and voted to block any funding for abortion subsidies or taxpayer funding for abortions under the Affordable Care Act. In addition, I voted to eliminate partial birth abortion and supported legislation that makes it a separate offense under Federal law for an individual who injuries or kills an unborn child, to be guilty of a separate offense for both the mother and child.
“I also voted in favor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, on January 17, 2019. This legislation would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition of taxpayer funding for abortion. Most recently, I voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, on February 25, 2019. This legislation would require that, when an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, health care practitioners must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. It would also require that the living child, after appropriate care has been given, be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. I was a proud cosponsor of this legislation because I believe that every child should be afforded the medical care necessary for their health and well-being regardless of the circumstances of their birth.”
The policy has been revoked and reinstated many times. Presidents Clinton and Obama reversed the policy and allowed U.S. taxpayers funding to be used for abortions overseas. Presidents Bush and Trump reinstated it.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced legislation in January that would make the administration’s “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” permanent statutory policy, thus eliminating the back and forth enforcement of the policy.
“The administration’s ban on funding overseas organizations that promote abortion has already saved and will continue to save countless lives across the globe,” Lee said. “We cannot leave the fate of these regulations up to the whims of successive presidents. Congress must now step up and do what they can to turn the ‘Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance’ executive order into law.”
In May of 2017, The Department of State restored President Reagan’s policy and renamed it “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” As part of this modernization, the policy was expanded to cover all Federal aid, not just family planning assistance.
Lee’s bill was referred to the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee.