Every quarter, Factcheck.org likes to take a look at the numbers since Obama became President. They go deeper than just unemployment and study metrics like corporate profits, the number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and how other countries view the U.S. Here’s a look at where we stand in July 2016, with just a few months of his presidency left.

The post Obama’s numbers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s no surprise that the liberal leaning New Yorker is endorsing Barack Obama for president. Although predictable, it’s worth a read because it offers one of the more thoughtful looks at a complicated president who has disappointed many but, nonetheless, achieved a remarkable record. It begins with a reminder of the utter failure of the Bush presidency.

Obama succeeded George W. Bush, a two-term President whose misbegotten legacy, measured in the money it squandered and the misery it inflicted, has become only more evident with time. Bush left behind an America in dire condition and with a degraded reputation. On Inauguration Day, the United States was in a downward financial spiral brought on by predatory lending, legally sanctioned greed and pyramid schemes, an economic policy geared to the priorities and the comforts of what soon came to be called “the one per cent,” and deregulation that began before the Bush Presidency. In 2008 alone, more than two and a half million jobs were lost—up to three-quarters of a million jobs a month.

The gross domestic product was shrinking at a rate of nine per cent. Housing prices collapsed. Credit markets collapsed. The stock market collapsed—and, with it, the retirement prospects of millions. Foreclosures and evictions were ubiquitous; whole neighborhoods and towns emptied. The automobile industry appeared to be headed for bankruptcy. Banks as large as Lehman Brothers were dead, and other banks were foundering. It was a crisis of historic dimensions and global ramifications. However skillful the management in Washington, the slump was bound to last longer than any since the Great Depression.

The endorsement continues with a discussion of Barack Obama’s naïve aspiration to lead as a post-partisan president and rightfully criticizes him for not effectively communicating his policies to the country. It then praises the President for his ambitious legislative, social, and foreign policy successes that “relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration.” Rather than cheerleading, the endorsement offers a thoughtful and balanced chronicle of Obama’s achievements. It ends with the following:

The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The re-election of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.

The post The New Yorker: “The reelection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a fitting move on the 150^th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, President Obama has taken major step forward in the fight against human trafficking, a shameful practice that he calls “modern slavery.” According to the ACLU:

President Obama signed an executive order that would give better protections to vulnerable workers at U.S. military and diplomatic missions who are employed by government contractors.

The order…lays out new requirements for U.S. government contractors and their subcontractors operating overseas to prevent human trafficking and forced labor. It prohibits contractors and subcontractors from charging recruitment fees and requires prime contractors to take responsibility for ensuring that their subcontractors are not engaging in trafficking or forced labor. It also mandates the creation of new guidance and training for contract officers responsible for enforcing the new anti-trafficking provisions.

Some U.S. government contractors providing services to the military have a shameful history of trafficking and forced labor. Thousands of men and women have been victimized. Most come from low-wage countries such as Nepal, India and the Philippines.

Recruited from impoverished villages, they are charged exorbitant recruitment fees, often lied to about what country they will be taken to and how much they will be paid. Many are left with no choice but to live and work in unacceptable and unsafe conditions serving as security personnel, cooks, janitors, cleaners and construction workers on U.S. military bases and embassies in Afghanistan and Iraq

The Atlantic  reports that under the new order, companies working for the U.S. government will have to comply with a series of basic conduct requirements, which include:

…prohibitions against using misleading ads about the nature, location, and payment of the work offered; charging employment fees; and destroying, confiscating, or otherwise denying access to identification documents. It also requires contractors to pay return transportation costs for employees traveling to take expatriate jobs, provide housing where appropriate, and to make themselves available to inspectors. And it prohibits contractors from engaging in “procurement of commercial sex acts, or the use of forced labor in the performance of the contract or subcontract.”

The executive order furthers the intent behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which expired in 2011., and it has much in common with a bi-partisan bill making its way through Congress.

Many politicians and human-rights advocacy organizations have praised President Obama’s action—even some Republicans. One of them is Republican rising star U.S. Senator Marco Rubio.

Unfortunately, in today’s highly-charged, anything-Obama-does-is-bad political world, some Republicans are calling President Obama’s humanitarian action a politicization of the issue.

My two coins: People who object to a Presidential effort to end one of the 21^st Century’s worst human-rights abuses need to crawl back into the caves they came out of.

The post Obama signs anti-human-trafficking executive order appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When adding up the accomplishments of the Obama administration, the increase in auto fuel efficiency standards, also known by the acronym CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is high on the list. My continual frustration with Obama administration is its failure to communicate its policies and accomplishments clearly and often to voters. The failure at communicating the benefits of the Affordable Care Act is a great example, taking credit for the increase in CAFE standards, and explaining how this helps consumers is another.

On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum requesting that NHTSA and EPA develop a coordinated National Program to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of passenger cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2017-2025. On August 28, the Obama administration announced that it had finalized a new, historic 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard. Talking Points Memo reports that this new standard builds on the first phase of the National Program for these vehicles for model years 2012-2016, which boosted the 2016 fuel efficiency standard to 34.1 miles-per-gallon. The new standard will fully take effect by 2025.

By setting these new, even more ambitious standards, the Obama administration is taking positive, meaningful action to address global climate change, and reduce oil consumption and dependence on foreign oil. The new amount, 54.5 mpg, would more than double the current average fuel economy of 25.2 miles per gallon.

The EPA and the Department of Transportation estimate that, for cars released in the next 13 years, the new standards will result in “the most significant single reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in U.S. history.” Although average vehicle cost will increase by $1,800 by 2025, the government estimates consumers will save $8,000 per vehicle in fuel costs throughout the lifetimes of their increased-efficiency vehicles, which represents a substantial $1.7 trillion in savings.

Automakers are onboard

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 12 major auto companies, including the “Big Three” — GM, Ford and Chrysler — has signed on to the challenge and are pleased with the Obama administration crafting a single national program eliminating conflicting requirements from several regulatory bodies.

The Romney campaign claims that CAFE standards have hurt the auto industry by denying consumers the choices they want.  Yet, typical of Romney, the truth is the opposite. The new CAFE standards have prompted the industry to become more profitable because they are competitive with foreign auto makers. Automotive News reports that the new fuel efficiency vehicles are the key drivers in the 2012 increased sales.

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, perennially out of step with everyone, (both consumers and auto makers) has has threatened to eliminate CAFE standards if elected into office.  The only winners Romney envisions are his donors, big oil companies and the Koch Brothers, who would prefer gas guzzlers stay on the road.

The post Obama sets new auto fuel efficiency standards: 54.5 mpg by 2025 appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the most-read posts here on Occasional Planet continues to be “President Obama’s 244 accomplishments.” Since it first appeared in 2010, that post has garnered thousands of clicks [and some updates] and has had several surges that place it on our weekly Google Analytics top 10 again and again.  Why? I have a theory that despite all of the carping from the left—and, of course, the hatred and vitriolic propaganda from the right—many of us still think that that President Obama is essentially a good president whose heart is in the right place, and who has accomplished many positive things for our country, in the face of overwhelming opposition and obstructionism. We want to be reassured that we’re correct in that notion—so we search for confirming evidence. And a list called “244 accomplishments” makes us feel pretty darn good about our view of the President.

So, it’s heartening to be able to add to that list in 2012. Here are three new items and one possibility.

Saying no to Keystone XL Pipeline

The 60-day deadline Republicans in Congress placed on a decision about the controversial oil pipeline from Canada to the Midwest backfired, when on January 18, 2012 President Obama said:

As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

The decision, while further stirring ire among Republicans, was a political victory, good news for the environment and a principled stand that the left can applaud.

Recess appointment of Richard Cordray

On Jan. 5, 2012, President Obama announced his decision to use his executive power to bypass Congress and put Richard Cordray in charge at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The move came after months of maneuverings by Senate Republicans to block Cordray, holding his appointment hostage to changes in the CFPB’s structure that would gut the agency’s powers.

According to Huffington Post, in his announcement, President Obama said:

Today, I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdogThat means he’ll be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interest of American consumers. His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions.

Huffington Post continues:

Obama called it “inexcusable” and “wrong” that CFPB still doesn’t have a director since beginning operations in July. He said while he will continue to “look for every opportunity to work with Congress” to boost the economy, he has “an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” hence the recess appointment.

“I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve,” the president said to applause. “Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class.”

Guaranteeing full access to contraception under ACA

On Jan. 20, 2012, the Obama administration announced that, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, the vast majority of employer-based health insurance plans must cover preventive services for women, including contraception, without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. This means all women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of preventive services originally recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.

And one to hope for…

Under a little-known clause in the omnibus bill passed by Congress in December 2011, the president is empowered to issue an executive order that would require companies with government contracts to reveal their political contributions. This policy has been under discussion since April 2011, when a draft executive order along those lines was leaked, causing a furor among—who else?—corporations who don’t want their contributions revealed—and the politicians who receive them. Such a policy would help counteract the already-evident effect of massive corporate spending unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling of 2010. President Obama could make his own important contribution to a more democratic and transparent election system by issuing this order.

As the 2012 election campaign gathers steam, let’s keep looking at that list of accomplishments, hoping that we can add to it, comparing it to what the right has failed to do [and threatens to do if they win the Presidency], and understanding the differences and implications.

The post More items to add to your Obama-accomplishment list appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Looking for some good news about the Obama presidency? Here’s one: President Obama is moving at a historic pace to try to diversity the nation’s federal judiciary.

A recent Associated Press story says:

 “Nearly three of every four people [President Obama] has gotten confirmed to the federal bench are women or minorities. He is the first president who hasn’t selected a majority of white males for lifetime judgeships.”

More than 70 percent of Obama’s confirmed judicial nominees during his first two years were “non-traditional,” or nominees who were not white males. That far exceeds the percentages in the two-term administrations of Bill Clinton (48.1 percent) and George W. Bush (32.9 percent),

To enumerate, because it’s worth reminding ourselves: President Obama won Senate confirmation of the first Latina to the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He also managed to get Elena Kagan confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, bringing the total of women on the high court to three for the first time in history. In addition, he nominated and won confirmation of the first openly gay man to a federal judgeship.

Of course, many of President Obama’s judicial nominees have been held up by members of Congress, whose stated goal is to obstruct the President at every turn. But they’ve not stopped them all, and those who have been confirmed represent an undeniably significant shift in judicial diversity: According to Obama administration figures,  of the 90 Obama nominees who have been confirmed, 21 percent are African-American, 11 percent are Hispanic, 7 percent are Asian-American and almost half — 47 percent — are women.

Obama also has doubled the number of Asian-Americans sitting on the federal bench. There currently are 14 Asian-American federal judges on the 810-judge roster. In fact, President Obama has nominated as many Asian-Americans as were sitting on the bench when he was inaugurated.

The post Obama is increasing the number of female and minority judges appeared first on Occasional Planet.

President Obama is about to deliver on one of his promises, as his administration ends the military policy known as “stop-loss” next month [March 2011]. Stop-loss is the practice of involuntarily keeping volunteers in the military after their expected discharge dates. The Bush Administration instituted the stop-loss policy in 2001 and expanded it in 2004, as it struggled to maintain troop strength for two wars: Iraq and Afghanistan. Stop-loss expanded again in 2007, when President Bush called for more troops in Iraq.

The policy was controversial from the start, viewed by many—especially troops and their families—as a dishonest practice that violated the trust of those who volunteered for military service, many of whom had no idea that a forced extension of duty was in their contracts.

In its own words, the Defense Department describes stop-loss this way:

Stop-loss allows the military to extend service members beyond their end-of-term of service dates. The program has been used extensively since 9-11 to maintain personnel strength in deploying units. The program allows the military to extend service members whose end-of-term of service, retirement or end-of-service obligation date falls during a deployment. They may be involuntarily extended until the end of their unit’s deployment. The Army and Marine Corps used the policy the most.

At its peak in 2005, stop-loss affected 15,000 troops. Over time, that number was cut to 4,000. But it continued to create morale problems within the ranks. In effect, the stop-loss policy was a “back-door draft.” According to USA Today, more than 140,000 troops — all but about 20,000 of them Army soldiers — had assignments extended under the policy since 2001.

In March 2009, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, declared that the practice had to end, saying it was “breaking faith” with those who volunteered to serve. Gates reportedly has opposed the policy since he came to the Defense Department in 2006. He had ordered the services to reduce stop loss in 2007. However, the numbers of troops affected climbed more than 40% in the months that followed, largely because of additional troops sent to Iraq.

The need for stop-loss has decreased as the military—which went into Iraq and Afghanistan with what then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called “the Army you have, not the Army you want”—has beefed up its numbers considerably since 2001. [Although  stop-loss is about to end for the vast majority of troops, the policy will remain an option, says Gates, for soldiers with a limited range of highly exceptional skills deemed critical to their units’ missions. The new stop-loss policy, says Gates, will affect dozens, rather than thousands, of US troops.]

The essential end of stop-loss has itself been deferred several times. Gates’ first attempt to end the policy in 2007 failed. Then, under the Obama Administration in 2009, a new timetable called for an end to the policy in 2010. News reports chronicle several delays, pushing the end date from May 2010 to August 2010 to March 2011.

Stop-loss pay

In an effort to right the wrongs of stop-loss, the Obama administration enacted the 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations Act, which established a special payment for each month and partial month a soldier served in stop-loss status. Service members, veterans, and beneficiaries of service members whose service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2009 are eligible.

According to the Department of Defense, as of Sept. 15, 2010, “about 58,000 of 145,000 eligible claims had been paid, and $219 million had been disbursed of the $534 million appropriated.  While tens of thousands of veterans already have received retroactive pay averaging nearly $4,000 each, many others have still not applied for the back pay. Many may be reluctant to sign anything coming from a military system that fooled them in the first place, and some have wondered if accepting the retroactive pay was another gimmick to reactivate them. As a result, the deadline for applying for the special pay has been extended several times. The deadline now stands at March 4, 2011.

The end of stop-loss is a welcome development for veterans groups, who have voiced outrage over the practice since its inception.

“The stop-loss policy is one that has been expanded and abused for too long,” said Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, in a New York Times interview, “and it is a significant and positive sign that the president plans to largely end it. If we had to point to one policy that has placed the most strain on our troops and their families, and adversely affected the morale and readiness of our forces, it would be stop-loss.”

Image credit: C. Todd Lopez

The post Presidential promise kept: Stopping stop-loss appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At the outset of the first Gulf War, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney imposed a ban on photographs and broadcast coverage of the arrival of war casualties at Dover Air Force Base [Delaware]. The media blackout lasted 18 years, until, in February 2009, President Obama ended it.

That’s a change worth remembering. The Obama administration’s move restores press access to the honor ceremonies that accompany the arrivals, which had been the practice from World War II through the Panama invasion of 1989.

The media blackout started during George H.W. Bush’s presidency, continued through the Clinton years, and extended through Bush II [with a few exceptions, mostly implemented for political/pr reasons.]  Bush I spun the blackout as a way to shield grieving families from media glare. Critics saw it as a way to hide the human cost of war.

The family-protection argument—while having some shred of plausibility—was weak from the beginning, and to most observers it was a thinly veiled attempt to limit the public-relations damage that could result from recurring images of flag-draped coffins.  In addition, say some, Bush I didn’t want public opinion to shift away from supporting Gulf War I—which was supposed to be high-tech, precise and possibly even bloodless—by seeing evidence contradicting that propaganda. One purported genesis of the ban took place earlier, during the 1989 invasion of Panama: During a press conference, George H.W. was embarrassed when—as he spoke—all three major television networks went into split-screen mode, simultaneously showing H.W. speaking and joking, while a military transport arrived at Dover, disgorging flag-draped caskets.

When the ban was imposed in 1991, then-Senator Joe Biden, who represented Delaware, objected, calling it “shameful that soldiers’ remains were being snuck back into the country under the cover of night.”

The Bush-era ban was, in one sense, ironic. Photos of dead soldiers and flag-draped coffins, and media coverage of military funerals, have long been used as propaganda tools to inflame public opinion against an enemy and to justify wars. And one might have expected George H.W. and George W. Bush to use those props to pimp their own military adventures. That they took the opposite tack—to cover up the casualties of war—might seem out of character, except for the lessons they and their advisers apparently took from Vietnam-era news coverage. For years, the conservative party line has been that the news media “lost” Vietnam for America. Of course, that’s not true: it was America’s failed policies—military, political and diplomatic—that created the Vietnam debacle. But there’s no doubt that prime-time coverage of wounded, dying and dead soldiers in the field and in caskets helped turn public opinion against that war.

In fact, images from Dover are considered so powerful that in the 1990s, politicians and generals began using the phrase “the Dover test” to assess whether Americans support a war or other military action by public reaction to returning war casualties.

And thus was born the Dover media blackout. Its birth and nearly two-decade life infuriated the press, many politicians, anti-war activists and even some military families. The news media filed and lost a first-amendment challenge to the ban, but in 2005, a Freedom of Information Act challenge forced the release of hundreds of images taken by the military’s own photographers. Unfortunately, the FOIA challenge resulted in an unexpected consequence: Realizing that, under FOIA, “it had no basis to withhold its own images, the military stopped taking photos documenting the return of fallen soldiers.”

Then, after he was inaugurated in 2009, President Obama asked for a review of the ban. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the blanket restriction made him uncomfortable. The National Press Photographers Association called for the ban to be lifted, and the White House News Photographers Association joined in. Both organizations offered their assistance to draw up new guidelines for media operations at Dover” to insure both decorum and the appropriate level of press access so taht the arrivals can be well covered while maintaining the solemn and dignified atmosphere the military is concerned with protecting.” In February 2009, when President Obama ended the blackout, it was a victory for the First Amendment, freedom of the press and the public’s right to know.

Under the new Pentagon policy, families of fallen servicemen will decide whether to allow media coverage of their return. If several bodies arrive on the same flight, coverage will be allowed only for those whose families have given permission.

“This reversal of two decades of policy is an important and welcome milestone for the American people, “says Professor Ralph Begleiter, professor of political communication at the University of Delaware. “This decision restores to its rightful, honorable place the immense value of the sacrifice American troops make on behalf of their nation. The Pentagon’s reversal of the news media ban should also result in the military itself returning immediately to documenting with its own photographers the honorable return of war casualties – and making those images public. That public documentation by the government should not be subject to anyone’s veto.”

[Author’s note: I’m not a fan of the hyperbolic terms routinely used to describe dead and wounded soldiers. I’m not sure what dress uniforms, military ceremonies,  21-gun salutes or the playing of Taps has to do with “honoring” people who shouldn’t have been in a war in the first place. And I’m aware that there’s danger in making their return into an event that glorifies war and celebrates unquestioning “patriotism.” But through the years, thousands of human beings have arrived maimed or dead at Dover–and even more at other casualty reception centers. That’s a fact that should not be hidden from the American public, and I’m glad to know that we now have a President who agrees with that idea.]

The post Obama’s accomplishments: Lifting the media blackout at Dover appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you’re looking for an example of the good work that can be done-and has been done—by a president, Democrats and a US Congress who care about equality, fairness and the general well-being of our democracy, there’s no better place to start than with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

In fact, it was a great place to start for President Obama, too, as it was the first act he signed into law as President, on January 29, 2009.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act “struck a powerful blow for justice …for anyone who has been victimized by wage discrimination,” said the ACLU after the signing ceremony.

Let’s review. The law is named after Lilly Ledbetter, a former Goodyear plant manager. After nearly 20 years working at a plant in Alabama, Ledbetter found out she was being paid far less than her 15 male counterparts and sued. Eventually, in 2007, the US Supreme Court ruled against her claim. In the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that “Ledbetter’s complaint was time barred, because the discriminatory decisions relating to pay had been made more than 180 days prior to the date she filed her charge.”  In effect, the Supreme Court said that time runs out on paycheck discrimination claims 180 after the first paycheck—even if a worker doesn’t find out about discriminatory practices until much later.

Workers’ rights groups, the ACLU and others were outraged by the Supreme Court decision, saying that, by enforcing an unreasonable statute of limitations, it denied many employees the right to challenge, in federal courts, illegal wage discrimination.

The Fair Pay Act rights that wrong. It amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck.

According to the House Committee on Education and Labor,

Under the bill, every paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or in part, from an earlier discriminatory pay decision or other practice would constitute a violation of Title VII, which guards against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and religion.

In other words, each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock for filing a charge. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days (or 300 days in some jurisdictions) of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges will be considered timely.

Since the Ledbetter decision can impact pay discrimination claims under other statutes, the bill ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act to provide the same protections for victims of age and disability discrimination.

Before signing the bill, President Obama made clear that this bill [was] not just about Lilly Ledbetter or his two daughters or the countless women who are still facing unlawful pay disparities; it is also about the families who have to make ends meet with less because of wage discrimination:

Equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue — it’s a family issue. It’s about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition and child care; couples who wind up with less to retire on; households where one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves; that’s the difference between affording the mortgage — or not; between keeping the heat on, or paying the doctor bills — or not. And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month’s paycheck to simple and plain discrimination.

There is still much to be done to ensure fair pay for everyone. But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was a big step forward—one that, like so many other progressive ideas, took effect over the objections of most Republicans and their allies in the corporate world. The law is an accomplishment of the Obama administration that progressives can and should hang onto as we endure a dark, frustrating period of continuing Republican obstructionism.

The post Thanks, President Obama: Acting against wage discrimination appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Don’t believe ‘em when they say the progressive agenda is unloved by American citizens. Much has been accomplished in the first two years of the Obama administration, and ordinary people are benefiting. Of course, some progressives feel disappointed that the administration hasn’t pushed hard enough, that its policies are too centrist, and/or that it has failed to communicate its accomplishments. And there’s justification for some of that disappointment.  But, just to be sure that we don’t forget who’s behind the policies that address the common good, here’s first in a series of reminders about what has been done, and how it helps.

In  August 2010, the final provisions of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act [CARD] of 2009 took effect.  Designed to hold credit-card companies accountable and to eliminate deceptive practices, the CARD act addresses the interests of the “nearly 80 percent of American families who have a credit card, and the 44 percent of families who carry a balance on their credit cards.” Here are some of the provisions of the 2009 CARD Act, as listed by International Business Times.

• Requires creditors to give consumers clear disclosures of account terms before consumers open an account, and clear statements of the activity on consumers’ accounts afterwards;
• Requires issuers to make contracts available on the Internet in a usable format;
• Bans retroactive rate increases;
• Requires contract terms be stable for the entirety of the first year;
• Requires institutions give card holders a reasonable time to pay the monthly bill – at least 21 calendar days from time of mailing – and it ends late fee traps such as weekend deadlines, due dates that change each month, and deadlines that fall in the middle of the day;
• Requires companies to apply excess payments to the highest interest balance first;
• Ends the confusing and unfair practice by which issuers use the balance in a previous month to calculate interest charges on the current month, so called “double-cycle” billing;
• Restricts fees on subprime, low-limit credit cards;
• Requires institutions to obtain a consumer’s permission to process transactions that would place the account over the limit;
• Requires issuers to display on periodic statements how long it would take to pay off the existing balance – and the total interest cost – if the consumer paid only the minimum due; and also to display the payment amount and total interest cost to pay off the existing balance in 36 months;
• Requires regulators to report annually to Congress on their enforcement of credit card protections;
• Holds regulators accountable to keep protections current;
• Increases penalties for card issuers that violate these new restrictions;
• Increases protections for college students and young adults.

The last pieces of the act took effect over the summer. They require credit-card companies to honor gift-cards for five years, and prohibit them from reducing the amount of gift cards that are not used quickly. Also, credit card issuers will no longer be allowed to charge a late fee larger than your minimum payment, or charge you more than one penalty fee for a single violation of your agreement, or charge a fee for not using or terminating your account. Credit card companies, since 2009, have been required to  give 45 days notice of a rate hike. Now, the company must also say why it’s raising rates, and it must re-evaluate the hike every six months.

Certainly, it’s not a perfect law. But there’s a lot to love there. So–pun intended–let’s give credit for this where it’s due.

The post Thanks, President Obama: Credit-card holders get a better deal appeared first on Occasional Planet.