Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
FYI: America's problems predate 2009, and President Obama is working to improve the country.
There seems to be an industry around creating the impression that President Obama is everything that is wrong with this country. Republicans are destroying the country, from the federal to state level, and there are those spending everying waking moment criticizing every single action taken by this President, every single one, with little to no focus on the real threats. In the event that they attack the anyone from bankers to Republicans, it's in the context of attacking the President. He is responsible for not only failing to solve the ills of the country, but also the actions of those who continue to reek havoc. You know the criticisms of Presidential nominations or policies are getting petty when they include swipes at Michelle Obama and Bo.
So I'm reposting this as an FYI:
Obama, winning the argument
By Eugene Robinson
In his bid to be remembered as a transformational leader, President Obama is...gradually winning the argument about what government can and should do. His State of the Union address was an announcement of that fact — and a warning to conservatives that, to remain relevant, they will have to move beyond the premise that government is always the problem and never the solution...Repairing the nation’s infrastructure is not a partisan issue; bridges rust at the same rate in Republican-held congressional districts as in Democratic ones. The benefits of universal preschool will accrue in red states as well as blue. Climate change is not deterred by the fact that a majority of the Republican caucus in the House doesn’t believe in it.
<...>
When Obama took office, the United States was in a similar funk. Ronald Reagan’s conservative ideas had been corrupted by his followers into a kind of anti-government nihilism. Reagan wanted to shrink government; today’s Republican Party wants to destroy it.
Obama assumed leadership of a country in which inequality was growing and economic mobility declining, with the result that the American dream was becoming less attainable. It was a country whose primary and secondary schools lagged far behind international norms; whose airports, roads and bridges were showing their age; and, most important, whose path to continued prosperity, in the age of globalization and information technology, was not entirely clear.
Obama’s State of the Union speech was a detailed reiteration of his position that we can and must act to secure our future — and that government can and must be one of our principal instruments.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-winning-the-argument/2013/02/14/31f7bf32-76e9-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html
By Eugene Robinson
In his bid to be remembered as a transformational leader, President Obama is...gradually winning the argument about what government can and should do. His State of the Union address was an announcement of that fact — and a warning to conservatives that, to remain relevant, they will have to move beyond the premise that government is always the problem and never the solution...Repairing the nation’s infrastructure is not a partisan issue; bridges rust at the same rate in Republican-held congressional districts as in Democratic ones. The benefits of universal preschool will accrue in red states as well as blue. Climate change is not deterred by the fact that a majority of the Republican caucus in the House doesn’t believe in it.
<...>
When Obama took office, the United States was in a similar funk. Ronald Reagan’s conservative ideas had been corrupted by his followers into a kind of anti-government nihilism. Reagan wanted to shrink government; today’s Republican Party wants to destroy it.
Obama assumed leadership of a country in which inequality was growing and economic mobility declining, with the result that the American dream was becoming less attainable. It was a country whose primary and secondary schools lagged far behind international norms; whose airports, roads and bridges were showing their age; and, most important, whose path to continued prosperity, in the age of globalization and information technology, was not entirely clear.
Obama’s State of the Union speech was a detailed reiteration of his position that we can and must act to secure our future — and that government can and must be one of our principal instruments.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-obama-winning-the-argument/2013/02/14/31f7bf32-76e9-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html
The Real Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022372942
The sequester is a horrible policy that will devastate the poor. Destroying social programs isn't required to cut the deficit. In fact, smart cuts, increased revenue and spending are the keys to reducing the deficit and debt.
Last week, the Senate voted on a bill to replace the sequester.
<...>
If the bill would have become law, it would have replaced tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts set to take place this year with 10 years’ worth of deficit reducing tax increases and targeted spending cuts. The revenue would have come largely from individuals making over $5 million a year, by imposing a minimum “Buffett Rule” tax on their earnings. The cuts would have been divided evenly between agriculture subsidies and defense spending.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-block-sequestration-alternative.php
If the bill would have become law, it would have replaced tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts set to take place this year with 10 years’ worth of deficit reducing tax increases and targeted spending cuts. The revenue would have come largely from individuals making over $5 million a year, by imposing a minimum “Buffett Rule” tax on their earnings. The cuts would have been divided evenly between agriculture subsidies and defense spending.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/republicans-block-sequestration-alternative.php
Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00027
Statement from the President
Today, Republicans in the Senate faced a choice about how to grow our economy and reduce our deficit. And instead of closing a single tax loophole that benefits the well-off and well-connected, they chose to cut vital services for children, seniors, our men and women in uniform and their families. They voted to let the entire burden of deficit reduction fall squarely on the middle class.
I believe we should do better. We should work together to reduce our deficit in a balanced way – by making smart spending cuts and closing special interest tax loopholes. That’s exactly the kind of plan Democrats in the Senate have proposed. But even though a majority of Senators support this approach, Republicans have refused to allow it an up-or-down vote – threatening our economy with a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will cost us jobs and slow our recovery.
Tomorrow I will bring together leaders from both parties to discuss a path forward. As a nation, we can’t keep lurching from one manufactured crisis to another. Middle-class families can’t keep paying the price for dysfunction in Washington. We can build on the over $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we’ve already achieved, but doing so will require Republicans to compromise. That’s how our democracy works, and that’s what the American people deserve.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/28/statement-president
Today, Republicans in the Senate faced a choice about how to grow our economy and reduce our deficit. And instead of closing a single tax loophole that benefits the well-off and well-connected, they chose to cut vital services for children, seniors, our men and women in uniform and their families. They voted to let the entire burden of deficit reduction fall squarely on the middle class.
I believe we should do better. We should work together to reduce our deficit in a balanced way – by making smart spending cuts and closing special interest tax loopholes. That’s exactly the kind of plan Democrats in the Senate have proposed. But even though a majority of Senators support this approach, Republicans have refused to allow it an up-or-down vote – threatening our economy with a series of arbitrary, automatic budget cuts that will cost us jobs and slow our recovery.
Tomorrow I will bring together leaders from both parties to discuss a path forward. As a nation, we can’t keep lurching from one manufactured crisis to another. Middle-class families can’t keep paying the price for dysfunction in Washington. We can build on the over $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we’ve already achieved, but doing so will require Republicans to compromise. That’s how our democracy works, and that’s what the American people deserve.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/28/statement-president
This vote has been completely ignored, but it likely to come up for another vote and it reflects the kind of policies that have been enacted by this President. It's going to take time for much of these policies to have a noticeable effect, and they'll still only make a dent.
First, these are relevant:
CHART: Remember When Poor People Saw Their Incomes Grow Faster Than Rich People?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417514
Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant (because any noticeable change after decades of moving in the wrong direction is).
<...>
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266
Is this enough? Hell no.
Income inequality is the real root cause of all our economic (problems)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457480
The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.
Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
The Mostly Solved Deficit Problem
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesn’t look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesn’t look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
<...>
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
Then there are the health care savings.
Medicare’s Projected Spending Has Dropped $500 Billion Without Lawmakers Cutting A Dime
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
This helps:
Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924
The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.
Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.
b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.
c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services
a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.
b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.
c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.
d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION
Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.
New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451
Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922
Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967
Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762
The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
The President has also enacted serious Wall Street reforms: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022456858
The Wall Street reform law would have a significant impact if implementation is sped up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441546
There is also big movement in civil rights.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to strike down Defense of Marriage Act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022416121
Another big, bold stroke for gay rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022442960
<...>
Evan Wolfson, who leads the pro-marriage-equality group Freedom To Marry, told TPM that the brief makes as expansive a legal case as plausible for putting gay and straight couples on equal footing. “The arguments laid out powerfully and clearly refute all the purported justifications for withholding the freedom to marry for gay couples,” Wolfson said.
- more -
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/obama-gays-have-a-constitutional-right-to-marry.php
Evan Wolfson, who leads the pro-marriage-equality group Freedom To Marry, told TPM that the brief makes as expansive a legal case as plausible for putting gay and straight couples on equal footing. “The arguments laid out powerfully and clearly refute all the purported justifications for withholding the freedom to marry for gay couples,” Wolfson said.
- more -
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/obama-gays-have-a-constitutional-right-to-marry.php
LGBT People Will Receive First-Ever Domestic Violence Protections Under VAWA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022443504
The President is leading the way in other areas.
President Obama Shows No CISPA-like Invasion of Privacy Needed to Defend Critical Infrastructure
By Michelle Richardson
Last night the President signed an executive order (EO) aimed at ramping up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the EO focuses on privacy-neutral coordination between the government and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI)—such as the banking, communication, power, and transportation sectors—which have long been regulated because of their fundamental role in the smooth operation of society. Now that these important entities are all connected to the internet, the administration insists that their cybersecurity be on par with their physical security.
There are two important information sharing advancements in the EO, and this time they are good for privacy. They do not include the many problems of legislation like the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) because an executive order by definition cannot take away the privacy protections granted by current statutes. In other words, the EO cannot exempt companies from privacy statutes, or let the government collect new information. It can only act within its existing power to change policies and practices.
Two cheers for cybersecurity programs that can do something besides spy on Americans.
The first information sharing advancement greases the wheels of information from the government to the private sector. Section 4 lights a fire under agencies and directs them to share more information with companies—information they already have and can legally collect under current law. Information flowing in this direction is nowhere as near as problematic as the opposite direction. To the extent that corporate and congressional advocates claim that CISPA is needed for this purpose, the administration beat them to the punch. The EO directs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security to set up a system to get threat information to critical infrastructure owners and operators. They have four months to pull it together.
The second information sharing provision is a net positive for civil liberties. Section 5 directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate current interagency information sharing. There is plenty of cyber information floating around the executive branch and across different agencies. There doesn't appear to be any publicly available regulation of how that information is protected for privacy purposes, and it may very well be that it is protected by a mish-mash of originating statutes that treat different types of information with varying protections. By holding the agencies accountable to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)—transparency, choice, minimization and more—we may see a government-wide cybersecurity privacy regime evolve. To get it done right, PCLOB will need to be funded and staffed up, and advocacy will be needed to keep the agencies true to the FIPPs, but the President has now declared them the bellwether for cybersecurity information.
Overall, the EO is a win for privacy and civil liberties. It's a good reminder that while some are focused like a laser on turning our internet records over to the National Security Agency, there are a lot of other things that government can do to advance cybersecurity instead. Now it's up to all of us to make sure Congress follows the President's lead.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/president-obama-shows-no-cispa-invasion-privacy-needed
By Michelle Richardson
Last night the President signed an executive order (EO) aimed at ramping up the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Overwhelmingly, the EO focuses on privacy-neutral coordination between the government and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (CI)—such as the banking, communication, power, and transportation sectors—which have long been regulated because of their fundamental role in the smooth operation of society. Now that these important entities are all connected to the internet, the administration insists that their cybersecurity be on par with their physical security.
There are two important information sharing advancements in the EO, and this time they are good for privacy. They do not include the many problems of legislation like the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) because an executive order by definition cannot take away the privacy protections granted by current statutes. In other words, the EO cannot exempt companies from privacy statutes, or let the government collect new information. It can only act within its existing power to change policies and practices.
Two cheers for cybersecurity programs that can do something besides spy on Americans.
The first information sharing advancement greases the wheels of information from the government to the private sector. Section 4 lights a fire under agencies and directs them to share more information with companies—information they already have and can legally collect under current law. Information flowing in this direction is nowhere as near as problematic as the opposite direction. To the extent that corporate and congressional advocates claim that CISPA is needed for this purpose, the administration beat them to the punch. The EO directs the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security to set up a system to get threat information to critical infrastructure owners and operators. They have four months to pull it together.
The second information sharing provision is a net positive for civil liberties. Section 5 directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and the Office of Management and Budget to evaluate current interagency information sharing. There is plenty of cyber information floating around the executive branch and across different agencies. There doesn't appear to be any publicly available regulation of how that information is protected for privacy purposes, and it may very well be that it is protected by a mish-mash of originating statutes that treat different types of information with varying protections. By holding the agencies accountable to the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)—transparency, choice, minimization and more—we may see a government-wide cybersecurity privacy regime evolve. To get it done right, PCLOB will need to be funded and staffed up, and advocacy will be needed to keep the agencies true to the FIPPs, but the President has now declared them the bellwether for cybersecurity information.
Overall, the EO is a win for privacy and civil liberties. It's a good reminder that while some are focused like a laser on turning our internet records over to the National Security Agency, there are a lot of other things that government can do to advance cybersecurity instead. Now it's up to all of us to make sure Congress follows the President's lead.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/president-obama-shows-no-cispa-invasion-privacy-needed
After Petition, White House Says Unlocking Cell Phones Should Be Legal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022458326
Everything is perfect again in the country, but ignoring the massive volume of changes implemented(http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211) by this President to move the country in the right direction is simply an attempt to destroy his character.
Let it sink...in!
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
