Center for American Progress

for American, United States

Center for American Progress

for American, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

News Article | May 23, 2017
Site: news.yahoo.com

Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. President Donald Trump's budget outline for fiscal 2018 calls for a major restructuring of the student loan program, including about $143 billion in cuts in student financial aid and loan repayment programs. Among the key White House budget cuts: eliminating federally subsidized loans, which go to students with financial need. Public-service loan forgiveness would also be ended. This is a relatively new option designed to benefit teachers, nurses, and others working in nonprofit or public sector jobs. “This budget only accelerates the growing student debt crisis,” says Maggie Thompson, executive director of Generation Progress, a youth-focused advocacy arm of the Center for American Progress. Presidential budgets are essentially wish lists, and Congress typically makes major revisions before passing any legislation. Critics of Trump’s budget are already contending that it contains math errors and overly optimistic projections, which are reasons some budget experts and Washington officials have already declared it “DOA.” Still, given the Republican-controlled Congress, some analysts think there’s a good chance that some portions of Trump’s budget may be enacted. “By making it clear that this is an administration priority, Trump gives lawmakers political cover to pursue their own higher education cuts,” says Clare McCann, senior policy analyst at New America, a think tank. Here are three major changes being proposed: Ending subsidized student loans. Undergraduates who are deemed to have financial need can qualify for these loans, which do not accrue interest while the borrower is in school and for six months after graduation. Some 6 million students per year receive subsidized loans. The interest deferral can make a big difference, especially for low-income students. According to an analysis by the nonprofit Institute for College Access & Success, for someone who borrowed the maximum in federal loans ($23,000), eliminating the subsidy would mean a 15 percent higher debt load, or $4,350, over a 10-year repayment period. That analysis was based on the current federal undergraduate loan rate, which is a relatively low 3.76 percent, points out Debbie Cochrane, vice president at TICAS. Higher rates could push up the debt burden sharply. Federal loan rates will climb to 4.45 percent July 1. Ending public-service loan forgiveness. For college graduates struggling with student debt, there has been a valuable path to reducing that burden: working in a public service job. By doing so, and by making regular repayment for 10 years, you could get any outstanding loan balance forgiven, assuming you had federal loans. There have been problems with the program since it launched in 2007, including lack of clarity about which jobs qualify for forgiveness. And it is proving to be more costly than originally forecast. Still the first borrowers are becoming eligible for forgiveness this fall, though those who have taken out these loans already may be grandfathered in. “This cut really wallops those who need it most—people who need graduate degrees to pursue relatively low-paying careers in public service,” McCann says. Overhaul of income-driven repayment plans. Trump's plan would consolidate what are now numerous loan repayment programs into one. The program for undergraduates would require that students pay 12.5 percent of their discretionary income vs. the current 10 percent under the Pay As You Earn plan. The repayment term would be cut to 15 years, down from 20. For some undergraduates, the changes may result in a better deal, Cochrane says. Although the payments may be higher, the shorter repayment term could mean those who earn higher salaries later in their careers may come out ahead. But Trump’s loan repayment plan would create major problems for graduate students. Those higher repayments would be stretched over 30 years. “Most grad students will not see an advantage to using 30-year income repayment,” McCann says. “It’s a lot like taking on a mortgage.” “The White House budget cuts sends a troubling signal,” says Suzanne Martindale, a staff attorney at Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. “It’s an indicator that the administration does not value higher education as a public good, one that makes a transformative difference in people’s lives and that benefits the nation as a whole.” More from Consumer Reports: Top pick tires for 2016 Best used cars for $25,000 and less 7 best mattresses for couples


Ivanka acts as if she were her father’s better angel and would have us draw a bright line between Trump’s views and her own. But that line is illusory Ivanka’s paid family leave program in Trump’s 2018 budget is the perfect metaphor for her role in the administration: it serves as a fig leaf for his most oppressive policies. She’s made women’s empowerment her signature issue, saying as far back as the Republican National Convention: “Policies that allow women with children to thrive should not be novelties, they should be the norm.” But to say the priorities signaled in her father’s blueprint for fiscal spending in 2018 undercut those priorities is an understatement. As Dawn Laguens of Planned Parenthood put it Monday: “This is the worst budget for women and women’s health in a generation.” Ivanka has positioned herself as her father’s better angel and would have us draw a bright line between Trump’s views and her own. But any line there is illusory. We saw this earlier this year, when she published a book expounding on women’s empowerment in the workplace as her father vocally defended alleged sexual predator Bill O’Reilly and quietly rolled back Obama-era protections for women workers. Now, the unveiling of Tuesday’s budget offers more of the same. Trump’s first comprehensive budget proposal as president would cut Planned Parenthood out of all federal programs – the first time a president has ever attempted such a thing. It calls for $610bn in cuts to Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor on which women disproportionately rely, and would shave $21.6bn from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or welfare. That amounts to a 13% cut to the program, which provides temporary financial assistance for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children. The budget would also deny a key food support to poor mothers by slicing an estimated $191bn from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. Women are about twice as likely as men to have received food stamps at some point in their lives, and minority women, who are more likely to be poor, even more so. It would also trim funding for The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which gives poor moms money for baby essentials. “He’s literally taking baby formula out of the mouths of infants while claiming that he’s pro-family so I think people are going to see it for what it is, which is a figleaf,” said Jeremy Slevin of Hands Off, a new coalition of progressive groups to fight Trump’s budget housed by the Center for American Progress. Viewed in this light, Ivanka’s paid family leave program, which shakes out to less than $2bn annually over 10 years, is a relatively small consolation prize in a larger budget that would slash $1.7tn in entitlements disproportionately benefitting women. Her program would rely on a state by state patchwork to guarantee six weeks of paid leave to new parents. That’s certainly an improvement over existing federal paid leave policies in the US, which currently allow employees at certain companies up to 12 weeks of unpaid time away. But it doesn’t offset the larger losses in the budget to women – particularly poor women. Programs like Snap and Medicaid and WIC are intended to help the poorest of the poor. But to qualify for Ivanka’s six weeks of paid leave you have to already have a job. In other words, it’s a matter of taking money from the poorest mothers and redistributing it among richer ones. Perhaps this is what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Robert Greenstein had in mind when he told The Washington Post, Trump’s proposal would “feature Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies in an unprecedented scale”. Ivanka’s paid leave proposal is an improvement over current federal policy, and even an improvement over the one she put forward on the campaign trail which excluded fathers and adoptive parents. (The writer Prachi Gupta seems to have publicly embarrassed her out of doing that again.) But here as ever context matters. Paid leave is something that every other developed country in the world already has, and what Ivanka is proposing is still a less generous package than what other counties have, and what Democrats like Kirsten Gillibrand have put forward. She’s striving to take credit for something Democrats have long fought for and Republicans have long vociferously opposed – a policy that’s been propelled forward for decades on the backs of feminists and progressives. And now she’s doing what she has always done for the Trump administration: using this twig of an olive branch to encourage women to look past just how awful this administration really is for them. There’s good reason to think the paid leave provision won’t last. Republicans have repeatedly balked at such efforts, fighting a like-minded provision when Barack Obama pushed for it in 2015, and it may not be liberal enough for Democrats, who are pushing for more generous models. At this stage it’s entirely unclear if Ivanka’s paid leave plan can even get past Congress (the House and Senate will draw up their own versions). But helping women has never really mattered to Ivanka. What matters to her now, as ever, is helping herself. If the provision dies tomorrow it will have already accomplished her aim: it’s entirely clear is that it’s going to help Ivanka Trump’s brand.


News Article | May 9, 2017
Site: hosted2.ap.org

(AP) — President Donald Trump is delaying a decision on whether to withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday that the president will not make an announcement on the agreement until after the G7 summit in Italy in the end of May. The White House had previously said a decision would be reached before Trump's appearance at the summit. A meeting of top White House aides to discuss the agreement had been scheduled for Tuesday. But it was postponed. It was the second time a meeting of top aides on the issue had been delayed. Spicer said Trump wants to "continue to meet with his team," seeking advice from both an economic and an environmental perspective as he works to make a decision. Donald Trump pledged during the presidential campaign to renegotiate the accord, but he has wavered on the issue since winning the presidency. His top officials have appeared divided about what to do about the deal, under which the United States pledged to significantly reduce planet-warming carbon emissions in the coming decade. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chief executive of the oil company Exxon, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he supports staying in the deal. But Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the Paris pact "is a bad deal for America" that will cost jobs. Ivanka Trump, who serves as an adviser to her father, was supposed to meet separately Tuesday with Pruitt and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. That meeting was also canceled, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss private talks. The Paris accord, signed by nearly 200 nations in 2015, was never ratified by the Senate due to the staunch oppositions of Republicans. It therefore does not have the force of a binding treaty, and the United States could potentially withdraw from the deal without legal penalty. A senior administration official said the president's inclination has been to leave the pact, but Ivanka Trump set up a review process to make sure he received information from experts in the public and private sector before a making a decision. The official requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. As speculation continues about how Trump will handle the agreement, Tillerson is set to travel to Alaska for an Arctic Summit council this week amid concerns from other nations that the Trump administration will undermine global efforts to address climate change in the Arctic, where rising temperatures are having a disproportionate effect. David Balton, a top U.S. diplomat who works on environmental issues, said there would be "no change" in U.S. participation even if Trump ultimately decides to pull out of the Paris pact. "The U.S. will remain engaged in the work that the Arctic Council does on climate change throughout," Balton said Monday. In his prior post as the elected attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt closely aligned himself with the needs of the state's oil and gas industry. He repeatedly sued the EPA over restrictions on extracting and burning fossil fuels. Among the regulations he opposed in court was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which sought to place new restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants with the goal of helping the United States meet its commitments under the Paris accord. Like Trump, Pruitt has questioned the consensus of climate scientists that man-made carbon emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Over the weekend, the EPA administrator released a letter stating that under federal ethics standards he is obligated to recuse himself from legal cases he was involved with in his old job. However, in his letter Pruitt said his recusal does not extend to matters of "general applicability," such as making policy decisions involving current or future environmental regulations. The EPA contends, therefore, there is no ethical issue with Pruitt making decisions to roll back carbon limits he previously opposed in court, because those decisions affect the nation as a whole rather than just Oklahoma. "Federal ethics rules distinguish between specific party matters such as an individual permit or lawsuit and matters that apply generally such as a nationally applicable regulation," said Kevi Minoli, the EPA lawyer who advises Pruitt on ethics issues. High-profile supporters of the deal on Monday urged the U.S. to stay in the Paris accord. In a conference call organized by the liberal Center for American Progress, Brian Deese, a climate adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that "the race is on for which countries are going to be the 21st century clean energy super-powers." Deese said the U.S. must decide whether to "continue to play in that race or step off the field." Mindy Lubber, president of the nonprofit Ceres, which works with companies on sustainability issues, said that investors around the world are "eager to open their wallets to a low-carbon future." "We must stay in Paris, we must pass on a healthy economy and a healthy environment to our children," Lubber said. Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report. Follow Catherine Lucey at http://twitter.com/catherine_lucey and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck


News Article | May 9, 2017
Site: hosted2.ap.org

(AP) — The White House has postponed a Tuesday meeting to discuss whether the United States should withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration. The White House said late Monday that the meeting would be rescheduled. This is the second time a meeting of top aides on the issue has been delayed. Donald Trump pledged during the presidential campaign to renegotiate the accord, but he has wavered on the issue since winning the presidency. His top officials have appeared divided about what to do about the deal, under which the United States pledged to significantly reduce planet-warming carbon emissions in the coming decade. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chief executive of the oil company Exxon, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he supports staying in the deal. But Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the Paris pact "is a bad deal for America" that will cost jobs. Ivanka Trump, who serves as an adviser to her father, was supposed to meet separately Tuesday with Pruitt and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. The White House did not immediately respond to questions late Monday on whether that meeting would continue. The Paris accord, signed by nearly 200 nations in 2015, was never ratified by the Senate due to the staunch oppositions of Republicans. It therefore does not have the force of a binding treaty, and the United States could potentially withdraw from the deal without legal penalty. A senior administration official said the president's inclination has been to leave the pact, but Ivanka Trump set up a review process to make sure he received information from experts in the public and private sector before a making a decision. The official requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. As speculation continues about how Trump will handle the agreement, Tillerson is set to travel to Alaska for an Arctic Summit council this week amid concerns from other nations that the Trump administration will undermine global efforts to address climate change in the Arctic, where rising temperatures are having a disproportionate effect. David Balton, a top U.S. diplomat who works on environmental issues, said there would be "no change" in U.S. participation even if Trump ultimately decides to pull out of the Paris pact. "The U.S. will remain engaged in the work that the Arctic Council does on climate change throughout," Balton said Monday. In his prior post as the elected attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt closely aligned himself with the needs of the state's oil and gas industry. He repeatedly sued the EPA over restrictions on extracting and burning fossil fuels. Among the regulations he opposed in court was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which sought to place new restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants with the goal of helping the United States meet its commitments under the Paris accord. Like Trump, Pruitt has questioned the consensus of climate scientists that man-made carbon emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Over the weekend, the EPA administrator released a letter stating that under federal ethics standards he is obligated to recuse himself from legal cases he was involved with in his old job. However, in his letter Pruitt said his recusal does not extend to matters of "general applicability," such as making policy decisions involving current or future environmental regulations. The EPA contends, therefore, there is no ethical issue with Pruitt making decisions to roll back carbon limits he previously opposed in court, because those decisions affect the nation as a whole rather than just Oklahoma. "Federal ethics rules distinguish between specific party matters such as an individual permit or lawsuit and matters that apply generally such as a nationally applicable regulation," said Kevi Minoli, the EPA lawyer who advises Pruitt on ethics issues. High-profile supporters of the deal on Monday urged the U.S. to stay in the Paris accord. In a conference call organized by the liberal Center for American Progress, Brian Deese, a climate adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that "the race is on for which countries are going to be the 21st century clean energy super-powers." Deese said the U.S. must decide whether to "continue to play in that race or step off the field." Mindy Lubber, president of the nonprofit Ceres, which works with companies on sustainability issues, said that investors around the world are "eager to open their wallets to a low-carbon future." "We must stay in Paris, we must pass on a healthy economy and a healthy environment to our children," Lubber said. Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report. Follow Catherine Lucey at http://twitter.com/catherine_lucey and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck


News Article | May 9, 2017
Site: hosted2.ap.org

(AP) — The White House has postponed a Tuesday meeting to discuss whether the United States should withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration. The White House said late Monday that the meeting would be rescheduled. This is the second time a meeting of top aides on the issue has been delayed. Trump pledged during the presidential campaign to renegotiate the accord, but he has wavered on the issue since winning the presidency. His top officials have appeared divided about what to do about the deal, under which the United States pledged to significantly reduce planet-warming carbon emissions in the coming decade. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chief executive of the oil company Exxon, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he supports staying in the deal. But Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the Paris pact "is a bad deal for America" that will cost jobs. Ivanka Trump, who serves as an adviser to her father, was supposed to meet separately Tuesday with Pruitt and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. The White House did not immediately respond to questions late Monday on whether that meeting would continue. The Paris accord, signed by nearly 200 nations in 2015, was never ratified by the Senate due to the staunch oppositions of Republicans. It therefore does not have the force of a binding treaty, and the United States could potentially withdraw from the deal without legal penalty. A senior administration official said the president's inclination has been to leave the pact, but Ivanka Trump set up a review process to make sure he received information from experts in the public and private sector before a making a decision. The official requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. As speculation continues about how Trump will handle the agreement, Tillerson is set to travel to Alaska for an Arctic Summit council this week amid concerns from other nations that the Trump administration will undermine global efforts to address climate change in the Arctic, where rising temperatures are having a disproportionate effect. David Balton, a top U.S. diplomat who works on environmental issues, said there would be "no change" in U.S. participation even if Trump ultimately decides to pull out of the Paris pact. "The U.S. will remain engaged in the work that the Arctic Council does on climate change throughout," Balton said Monday. In his prior post as the elected attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt closely aligned himself with the needs of the state's oil and gas industry. He repeatedly sued the EPA over restrictions on extracting and burning fossil fuels. Among the regulations he opposed in court was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which sought to place new restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants with the goal of helping the United States meet its commitments under the Paris accord. Like Trump, Pruitt has questioned the consensus of climate scientists that man-made carbon emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Over the weekend, the EPA administrator released a letter stating that under federal ethics standards he is obligated to recuse himself from legal cases he was involved with in his old job. However, in his letter Pruitt said his recusal does not extend to matters of "general applicability," such as making policy decisions involving current or future environmental regulations. The EPA contends, therefore, there is no ethical issue with Pruitt making decisions to roll back carbon limits he previously opposed in court, because those decisions affect the nation as a whole rather than just Oklahoma. "Federal ethics rules distinguish between specific party matters such as an individual permit or lawsuit and matters that apply generally such as a nationally applicable regulation," said Kevi Minoli, the EPA lawyer who advises Pruitt on ethics issues. High-profile supporters of the deal on Monday urged the U.S. to stay in the Paris accord. In a conference call organized by the liberal Center for American Progress, Brian Deese, a climate adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that "the race is on for which countries are going to be the 21st century clean energy super-powers." Deese said the U.S. must decide whether to "continue to play in that race or step off the field." Mindy Lubber, president of the nonprofit Ceres, which works with companies on sustainability issues, said that investors around the world are "eager to open their wallets to a low-carbon future." "We must stay in Paris, we must pass on a healthy economy and a healthy environment to our children," Lubber said. Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report. Follow Catherine Lucey at http://twitter.com/catherine_lucey and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck


News Article | May 9, 2017
Site: hosted2.ap.org

(AP) — The White House has postponed a Tuesday meeting to discuss whether the United States should withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration. The White House said late Monday that the meeting would be rescheduled. This is the second time a meeting of top aides on the issue has been delayed. Donald Trump pledged during the presidential campaign to renegotiate the accord, but he has wavered on the issue since winning the presidency. His top officials have appeared divided about what to do about the deal, under which the United States pledged to significantly reduce planet-warming carbon emissions in the coming decade. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chief executive of the oil company Exxon, said at his Senate confirmation hearing in January that he supports staying in the deal. But Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the Paris pact "is a bad deal for America" that will cost jobs. Ivanka Trump, who serves as an adviser to her father, was supposed to meet separately Tuesday with Pruitt and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. That meeting is still expected to take place, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss private talks. The Paris accord, signed by nearly 200 nations in 2015, was never ratified by the Senate due to the staunch oppositions of Republicans. It therefore does not have the force of a binding treaty, and the United States could potentially withdraw from the deal without legal penalty. A senior administration official said the president's inclination has been to leave the pact, but Ivanka Trump set up a review process to make sure he received information from experts in the public and private sector before a making a decision. The official requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. As speculation continues about how Trump will handle the agreement, Tillerson is set to travel to Alaska for an Arctic Summit council this week amid concerns from other nations that the Trump administration will undermine global efforts to address climate change in the Arctic, where rising temperatures are having a disproportionate effect. David Balton, a top U.S. diplomat who works on environmental issues, said there would be "no change" in U.S. participation even if Trump ultimately decides to pull out of the Paris pact. "The U.S. will remain engaged in the work that the Arctic Council does on climate change throughout," Balton said Monday. In his prior post as the elected attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt closely aligned himself with the needs of the state's oil and gas industry. He repeatedly sued the EPA over restrictions on extracting and burning fossil fuels. Among the regulations he opposed in court was the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which sought to place new restrictions on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants with the goal of helping the United States meet its commitments under the Paris accord. Like Trump, Pruitt has questioned the consensus of climate scientists that man-made carbon emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Over the weekend, the EPA administrator released a letter stating that under federal ethics standards he is obligated to recuse himself from legal cases he was involved with in his old job. However, in his letter Pruitt said his recusal does not extend to matters of "general applicability," such as making policy decisions involving current or future environmental regulations. The EPA contends, therefore, there is no ethical issue with Pruitt making decisions to roll back carbon limits he previously opposed in court, because those decisions affect the nation as a whole rather than just Oklahoma. "Federal ethics rules distinguish between specific party matters such as an individual permit or lawsuit and matters that apply generally such as a nationally applicable regulation," said Kevi Minoli, the EPA lawyer who advises Pruitt on ethics issues. High-profile supporters of the deal on Monday urged the U.S. to stay in the Paris accord. In a conference call organized by the liberal Center for American Progress, Brian Deese, a climate adviser to former President Barack Obama, said that "the race is on for which countries are going to be the 21st century clean energy super-powers." Deese said the U.S. must decide whether to "continue to play in that race or step off the field." Mindy Lubber, president of the nonprofit Ceres, which works with companies on sustainability issues, said that investors around the world are "eager to open their wallets to a low-carbon future." "We must stay in Paris, we must pass on a healthy economy and a healthy environment to our children," Lubber said. Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report. Follow Catherine Lucey at http://twitter.com/catherine_lucey and Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FOX News Channel (FNC) has signed oncologist and Affordable Care Act architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel as a contributor. In this role, effective immediately, he will offer healthcare and policy analysis across FNC and FOX Business Network’s (FBN) daytime and primetime programming. Emanuel is the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and an op-ed contributor to The New York Times. Before joining the University of Pennsylvania in August 2011, he was the founding chair of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and previously served as an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. From January 2009 until January 2011, Emanuel served as a Special Advisor on Health Policy to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and National Economic Council in former President Barack Obama’s administration, where he was notably one of the designers of the Affordable Care Act. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the chair of the meta-council on the Future of Health Care Committee for the World Economic Forum. Emanuel served on President Clinton’s Health Care Task Force, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and on the bioethics panel of the Pan-American Healthcare Organization. Additionally, he has been a visiting professor at many universities and medical schools, including the Brin Professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School, the Kovitz Professor at Stanford Medical School, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UCLA and a visiting professor at New York University Law School. The recipient of numerous awards, Emanuel was elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Science, the Association of American Physicians and the Royal College of Medicine (UK). He also received the AMA-Burroughs Wellcome Leadership Award, the Public Service Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the John Mendelsohn Award from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, a Fulbright Scholarship (which he declined), the President’s Medal for Social Justice from Roosevelt University and was selected as Hippocrates Magazine’s Doctor of the Year in Ethics. Emanuel developed The Medical Directive, a living will that has been endorsed by Consumer Reports on Health, Harvard Health Letter, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, among other publications. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles on the ethics of clinical research, health care reform, international research ethics, end of life care issues, euthanasia, the ethics of managed care and the physician-patient relationship. Emanuel’s work is featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and JAMA, among other medical journals. Additionally, he has authored six books and co-edited seven books, including “Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act will Improve our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System,” “Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir of an American Family” and “Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America.” Emanuel graduated from Amherst College and later received his M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry. He earned his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University, where his dissertation received the Toppan Award for the finest political science dissertation of the year. Additionally, he was a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government. Emanuel completed his residency in internal medicine at Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital and his oncology fellowship at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where he later joined the faculty. FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most-watched television news channel for 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most-trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.


News Article | February 23, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

The 89th Academy Awards will be celebrated this weekend, which means it’s also time to announce the winner of the 2016 National Education Policy Center Bunkum Award. We invite you to enjoy our 11th annual tongue-in-cheek “salute” to the shoddiest think tank report reviewed in 2016. This year’s Bunkum winner is the Center for American Progress (CAP), for its report, Lessons From State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better Than Others. To learn who our editors judged to be Bunkum Award-worthy, be sure to watch the 2016 Bunkum Award video presentation, read the Bunkum-worthy report and the review, and learn about past Bunkum winners and the National Education Policy Center’s Think Twice Think Tank Review project: http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank/bunkum-awards/2016 About the Think Twice Think Tank Review Project: Many organizations publish reports they call research – but are they? These reports often are published without having first been reviewed by independent experts – the “peer review” process commonly used for academic research. Even worse, many think tank reports subordinate research to the goal of making arguments for policies that reflect the ideology of the sponsoring organization. Yet, while they may provide little or no value as research, advocacy reports can be very effective for a different purpose: they can influence policy because they are often aggressively promoted to the media and policymakers. To help the public determine which elements of think tank reports are based on sound social science, NEPC’s “Think Twice” Think Tank Review Project has, every year since 2006, asked independent experts to assess strengths and weaknesses of reports published by think tanks. Few of the think tank reports have been found by experts to be sound and useful; most, however, are found to have little, if any, scientific merit. At the end of each year NEPC editors sift through the reviewed reports to identify the worst offender. We then award the organization publishing that report NEPC’s Bunkum Award for shoddy research. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) Think Twice Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org) provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu


Daschle T.A.,Center for American Progress
Academic Medicine | Year: 2015

Public policy and technology are having and will continue to have an extraordinary impact on virtually every aspect of academic medicine. The effects of this combination of policy and technology transformations can hardly be overstated. It is critical to recognize these transformative forces and work to accept and even embrace them enthusiastically. The author examines five major transformative forces affecting academic medicine today: big data, greater transparency, new payment models, emphasis on wellness, and scope of practice. He discusses each of these transformative forces within the context of the current U.S. health care environment and offers suggestions for academic medicine to leverage them. It will take resiliency, innovation, collaboration, engagement in public policy debates, and strong leadership for this country to make the U.S. health care system the success it should be.


Boushey H.,Center for American Progress
Future of Children | Year: 2011

The foundations of the major federal policies that govern today's workplace were put in place during the 1930s, when most families had a stay-at-home caregiver who could tend to the needs of children, the aged, and the sick. Seven decades later, many of the nation's workplace policies are in need of major updates to reflect the realities of the modern workforce. American workers, for example, typically have little or no control over their work hours and schedules; few have a right to job-protected access to paid leave to care for a family member. examines three types of work-family policies that affect work-family conflict and that are in serious need of repair-those that govern hours worked and workplace equity, those that affect the ability of workers to take time off from work because their families need care, and those that govern the outsourcing of family care when necessary. In each case Boushey surveys new programs currently on the policy agenda, assesses their effectiveness, and considers the extent to which they can be used as models for a broader federal program. Boushey looks, for example, at a variety of pilot and experimental programs that have been implemented both by private employers and by federal, state, and local governments to provide workers with flexible working hours. Careful evaluations of these programs show that several can increase scheduling flexibility without adversely affecting employers. Although few Americans have access to paid family and medical leave to attend to family needs, most believe that businesses should be required to provide paid leave to all workers. Boushey notes that several states are moving in that direction. Again, careful evaluations show that these experimental programs are successful for both employers and employees. National programs to address child and elder care do not yet exist. The most comprehensive solution on the horizon is the universal prekindergarten programs offered by a few states, most often free of charge, for children aged three and four.

Loading Center for American Progress collaborators
Loading Center for American Progress collaborators