Pages

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Health Care Spending Law - 1 Year Later

Uploaded by  on Mar 22, 2011
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell today unveiled a web video on the one-year anniversary of the health spending law and its impact on all Americans.



From: NFIBSmallBusiness  | Mar 17, 2011  | 376 views
As we near the one year anniversary of President Obama's healthcare law; the nation's small business owners are still waiting for the administration's promises of reform to come true. NFIB recently visited with members to get their take on how the new healthcare law has impacted their businesses. Unfortunately, it seems like Main Street is still waiting for the promise of more affordable and accessible health insurance.






GUEST COMMENTARY: One year of broken promises on Obamacare



By Dan Coats | Posted: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:00 am |
A year ago today, despite the objections of millions of Americans, President Barack Obama signed his health care reform package into law.
In a White House signing ceremony, the president said the law would "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for; it is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy."
A year later, Hoosiers still are waiting to see these promises become a reality.
The president's own chief actuary estimated that the law will increase national health care costs by $311 billion in the first 10 years alone. Hoosier families will be hit with escalating costs as well. Nonpartisan experts from the Congressional Budget Office reported health insurance premiums will increase by an average of $2,100 per family policy as a result of Obamacare.
Additionally, if the law is left in place, 50,000 Hoosiers may be dropped from the Healthy Indiana Plan, a successful state-based, patient-centered health care plan for low-income people.
The health care law also forces states to expand Medicaid, adding more pressure to deeply strained budgets. Indiana will have to absorb an estimated $3.6 billion in new costs over the next decade if the 1.5 million eligible Hoosiers enroll in Medicaid.
To help pay for the $2.6 trillion health care law, Democrats included a 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices, which negatively would affect job creators and a wide range of Hoosier companies, from Cook Medical in Bloomington to Biomet and Zimmer in Warsaw.
Meanwhile, recent polls show a significant majority of Americans want the health care law to be repealed, and they want Congress to start over on a new plan. In the midterm election last fall, Hoosiers and people across the country sent Washington the message that Obamacare's one-size-fits-all system is not the answer to improving health care.
Additionally, more than half the states, including Indiana, have joined in lawsuits challenging provisions and the constitutionality of the law. Even the White House recognizes flaws with its law. The administration has issued more than 1,000 waivers exempting organizations from the mandates included in Obamacare. According to the administration's own estimates, 51 percent of American workers will lose their current health coverage by 2013 without reforms to the law.
By all objective criteria, Obamacare has failed. It has failed to drive down costs, failed to improve access and failed to ease the burden on states and the economy. Obamacare also failed to even include tort reform necessary to reduce lawsuit abuse, a main driver of high costs.
Earlier this year, I voted to repeal Obamacare and will continue to support efforts to defund and delay implementation of the law. Congress needs to overturn Obamacare and start over with real solutions that have the approval of the American people. We need to ensure that our health care system preserves personal freedoms and puts individuals in control of their own health care decisions.
U.S. Sen. Dan Coats, a Republican, represents Indiana. The opinion expressed in this column is the writer's and not necessarily that of The Times.

Rick Santorum said Obama said "any child" born prematurely "can be killed"

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Santorum

"Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed."

Rick Santorum on Monday, March 7th, 2011 in a speech to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition.


It may seem early to some voters, but a few Republicans candidates for the 2012 presidential race are already on the trail in Iowa, the first caucus state. One is Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

Santorum recently spoke at a forum hosted by the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, emphasizing that conservatives need to remain committed to social values, even though many expect the economy to be the most pressing issue of the election cycle.

Opposition to abortion is particularly important, he said. "Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed," Santorum said, according to a column by Dana Milbank in theWashington Post.

That’s a strong charge, so we decided to check it out. We turned to video from the forum to get Santorum’s complete comments.

Part of his comments touched on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a federal law he sponsored in the Senate. "It said that if a child was born out of a, quote, botched abortion, then that child is entitled to medical protection, entitled to treatment," Santorum said.

Several states decided to copy the law. Santorum noted that Barack Obama, then an Illinois state legislator, opposed the state version of the law in Illinois.

Obama "stood up and said that he opposed this bill because it would impinge on a woman’s rights under Roe v. Wade, and said, in fact, that any child prior to nine months of gestation would be able to be killed, otherwise it would impinge on Roe v. Wade," Santorum said. (SeeSantorum’s comments on C-SPAN.)

"Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed," Santorum said. "Now who’s the extremist in the abortion debate?"

We researched Obama’s position on "born alive" legislation extensively during the presidential campaign. Obama favors abortion rights generally, and he opposed the state version of Illinois’ "born alive" measure as a state senator. But he never said that premature children, even those who survived an abortion, could be killed.

'Born Alive' in Illinois

When Obama was a state senator, abortion opponents proposed "born alive" legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The proposals’ intent was to require doctors to provide immediate life-saving care to any infant that survived an intended abortion. The legislation, which included multiple bills, specified that an infant surviving a planned abortion is "born alive" and "shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."

The bills' supporters said it gave added emphasis to laws already on the books, deterring the death of abortion survivors from neglect. (One of the bills' strongest supporters was a nurse who said she had witnessed infants left to die in dirty utility rooms.) Abortion-rights proponents, on the other hand, said the legislation was a back-door attempt to stop legal abortions.

Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive medical care if it survives the abortion. The new laws didn't distinguish between viable and nonviable, meaning that an infant of any age that survived an abortion should receive care.

Obama, along with other Democrats in the Illinois legislature, opposed the "born alive" laws every time they came up. Over the years, Obama offered several reasons he opposed the legislation.

Back in 2001, legislative transcripts show that Obama questioned part of the "born alive" legislation package because he said it would be struck down by the courts for giving legal status to fetuses. In 2002, Obama discussed a different aspect of the legislation, which required a second doctor be present at abortions. Obama said he thought that legislation was intended to make abortion more difficult to obtain, not to provide better care for the "born alive." There is no record of his remarks in 2003 because the bill never made it out of committee, and the committee proceedings were not recorded.

The 'neutrality' clause debated

The federal legislation (the law Santorum sponsored in the Senate) became law in 2002. The federal legislation included a so-called "neutrality clause," which said the law would not change the legal status or legal rights of anyone prior to being "born alive." Abortion rights advocates said the clause was necessary to make sure the bill would not affect current abortion laws.

Obama said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had included a similar neutrality clause. The laws the full Illinois Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story.

The National Right to Life Committee said during the 2008 campaign that the Illinois bill of 2003 did have a neutrality clause. The committee said Obama subsequently misrepresented the bill. Obama responded to that charge in an August 2008 interview.

"I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying," Obama said. "I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion."

Back in 2008, we requested documentation from the Illinois State Archives about the 2003 bill and found that it did have a neutrality clause, as the National Right to Life Committee said. (The clause was added at the committee level, and those records are not available online. But we have posted the documents we received via fax from the State Archives here). But there is an important caveat to add here: We don't know what the discussion was at the 2003 committee meeting because the proceedings weren't recorded, but it seems likely that the federal neutrality clause was not considered sufficient at the state level, because the 2005 Illinois law that eventually passed included a more extensive neutrality clause than the federal legislation. To read more about the differences between the neutrality clauses, read our previous detailed fact-check here.

Obama’s comments

With Santorum reviving the issue of "born alive" legislation, we went back again to check the transcripts from the Illinois legislature. Obama did say he opposed the bill because it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster under Roe v. Wade. But he never said that "any child prior to nine months of gestation would be able to be killed" or that "any child born prematurely …  can be killed," as Santorum said.

In fact, Obama said in 2001 that there were "a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion (who) were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns" raised by supporters of the legislation.

In 2002, Obama said that he thought Illinois already had laws sufficient to ensure that children that survived abortion received care. The proposed law would have required two doctors instead of one in the case of a live birth to ensure that care would be provided. "If these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in the room is going to make sure that they’re looked after," Obama said then.

At no time did Obama say that children born prematurely can be legally killed.

We contacted Santorum’s political action committee, America’s Foundation, for comment. Spokeswoman Virginia Davis said that Obama’s votes against the state measure showed he supported killing children who were born alive.

"By his statements and votes, (fully documented by the lead advocate of this legislation in Illinois and at the federal level), and as verified by Factcheck.org, then-state Senator Barack Obama several times voiced opposition to, and voted against legislation that, protected a child scheduled to be aborted -- and was born alive -- from being killed," David said via e-mail.

We should note that the Factcheck.org report noted Obama’s positions on the Illinois measures but reiterated his support for the federal legislation. "Whether opposing ‘born alive’ legislation is the same as supporting ‘infanticide,’ however, is entirely a matter of interpretation," the report noted.

Our ruling

To reiterate what’s not in dispute: Obama opposed "born alive" legislation in Illinois and gave several reasons for opposing the proposals. But at no time did he make the argument that infants who survived botched abortions should be killed.

Santorum may feel that abortion is tantamount to infanticide, but that does not give him the license to put words in Obama's mouth that he never uttered. Santorum said, "Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed." Obama didn’t say that. In fact, he said that abortion should be legal, but that children that are born should receive medical care. Obama never said that any child born prematurely can be killed or anything like that. Santorum crosses a line with his rhetoric in distinguishing the difference between his position and Obama’s. We rate Santorum’s statement Pants on Fire.

Supreme Court Declines to Consider Challenge to Campaign Finance Restrictions

TIM SLOAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The Supreme Court handed campaign finance advocates a victory today but they're worried about what Chief Justice John G. Roberts' court might do in the future.
Monday, March 21, 2011 | 1:55 p.m.
The Supreme Court handed a victory to campaign finance watchdogs on Monday, refusing to hear a Republican National Committee challenge to federal campaign spending restrictions.
In the case, Cao v. FEC, lawyers for former Rep. Anh (Joseph) Cao, R-La., and the Republican National Committee sought to overturn legal limits on how much parties are allowed to spend for their candidates. The Supreme Court's decision not to take the case lets stand a lower court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the limits.
James Bopp, Jr., who represented the RNC in the case, said he was "surprised and disappointed" that the justices decided not to hear his appeal.
Current law limits how much money political parties can spend on behalf of their candidates. In the 2010 elections, they were allowed to spend $43,500 on House races and between $87,000 and $2.4 million on Senate candidates depending on the size of a state's population.
Defenders of campaign finance restrictions were heartened by Monday's ruling: Tara Malloy, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief defending the existing law, called it "good news."
Allowing parties to spend unlimited amounts in support of individual candidates would essentially obliterate limits on contributions to candidates, Malloy said, because the law allows individuals to donate more to parties.
The lawsuit was part of an ongoing attack on campaign finance restrictions by conservatives. The Supreme Court ruled last year in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, opening the gates for a flood of outside money in last year's election.
One complaint lawyers from both political parties have had since Citizens United is that outside groups can spend as much as they want, while political parties must abide by federal limits. Malloy admitted that "the system is becoming somewhat unbalanced" toward outside groups, but said that political parties have always raised unique corruption concerns because of how close they are to candidates. She said this was part of the concern groups like hers had with the Citizens Uniteddecision: That, in the words of Justice Stephen Breyer, the decision would make "a hash" out of campaign finance regulation law.
"I can understand the worries of those allied with the political parties that their powers are going to be diminished compared to corporations," said Malloy.
Bopp said that it's unlikely another challenge will be mounted against this portion of campaign finance law, since only the two parties could challenge it and the RNC, "the one most likely to," already tried and failed.
But Malloy warned that challenges to other aspects of the campaign finance law are working their way through the courts, and acknowledged that supporters of campaign spending limits are worried about how the Supreme Court will rule. "The Roberts court hasn't been shy in intervening in campaign finance cases," she said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Wisc. Judge Blocks Controversial Union Law




Uploaded by on Mar 18, 2011
A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday blocking the state's new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect and creating a huge setback for Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to balance the budget. (March 18)

Wisconsin judge blocks bill stripping collective bargaining rights


A county judge in Wisconsin has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the so-called "budget repair bill" that strips collective bargaining rights for public employees.
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees. Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state’s open meetings law.
Sumi said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.
The law was challenged by Ismael Ozanne, the Dane County Disrict Attorney, on the grounds that the way the bill was passed violated the state's open meetings law. Specifically, Wisconsin Republicans passed a heavily altered version of the budget repair bill through committee less than two hours after they announced they were going to do so. However, the state's open meeting law requires 24 hours notice. This is the crux of the two Dane country lawsuits filled against the bill:
[Dane County Executive Kathleen] Falk’s suit argues the bill still contained spending provisions after the committee was done revising it. That means a full quorum was necessary to vote in the Senate. She also argues that the Republicans convened the committee hearing on less than two hours’ notice, even though the state’s open meeting law demands at least 24 hours. Ozanne’s lawsuit alleges the same open meeting violation. He also claims that the Senate parlor was too small to be considered reasonably accessible and police had restricted public access to the state Capitol building to limit protesters.
The simple fact is that they passed the bill with far less than 24 hours notice. Republicans are in some serious legal trouble on this one.

Obama Condemns Jerusalem Attack



Wednesday, March 23, 2011 | 1:29 p.m.
President Obama condemned “in the strongest possible terms” on Wednesday a bombing that killed a woman and injured more than 20 other people at a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem. He also expressed condolences for civilians harmed in recent Israeli operations in Gaza, urging an end to the violence.
“Together with the American people, I offer my deepest condolences for those injured or killed,” Obama said in a statement Wednesday. “There is never any possible justification for terrorism. The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense.”
The bombing, which Israeli authorities said was the first significant Palestinian militant attack in Jerusalem in the last few years, was “a terror attack,” police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told the Associated Press. One 60-year-old woman died from her injuries and 24 others were wounded, with three in critical condition, authorities said. The bomb was planted in a small backpack placed near the central bus station, a location in Jerusalem that is constantly bustling with people.
Israeli-Palestinian tension has been heightened in recent weeks. Earlier this month, five Jewish settlers—including a 3-month-old child-- were stabbed to death while they slept in their home in Itamar, in the West Bank, an act that prompted serious condemnation from both the U.S. and Israel.
Israel has also launched what it called “widespread retaliations” in Gaza for an increase in rocket and mortar fire over the border with Israel that killed several civilians. The Israeli air force struck two smuggling tunnels, weapons-development facilities, and other “terror centers,” according to an Israeli Defense Forces release. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized on Tuesday for the deaths of “innocent civilians” who were “were unintentionally hit as a result of IDF shelling.”
Obama also expressed his “deepest condolences for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza,” stressing the “importance of calm and [urging] all parties to do everything in their power to prevent further violence and civilian casualties."
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat called on the Israeli public to be alert. “It's important to return to our regular routines as quickly as possible. When terror attempts to disrupt our way of life, the best solution is to get back to normal as quickly as possible. Events in Jerusalem will not be cancelled and Jerusalem will not stop running,” he said in a statement

PICTURES: Enforcing the Libyan No-Fly Zone

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 | 10:13 a.m.
There are other pictures i did not put in because i thought they were too graphic.  I did put the one with the 5 yr old because he is the one we are trying to protect...

U.S., British, and French forces launched fighter jets and missiles over the weekend, attacking air defense facilities and troops loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi near the rebel-held town of Benghazi. Rebel fighters attempted to retake the town of Ajdabiya from Qaddafi's forces Monday but were driven back by heavy fire. Meanwhile, conflicting reports emerged from the country: Rebels claim that Qaddafi's men continue to attack, despite their stated cease-fire; and Qaddafi loyalists claim that there were massive civilian casualties from the Allied bombardment this weekend, while Western forces deny these claims.

An F-16 jet fighter flies over the NATO airbase in Aviano, Italy, Sunday, March 20, 2011. (AP Photo/Luca Bruno)

An aerial view of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, seen in this photo released on March 20, 2011 by French Defense communication and audiovisual production agency, after leaving the naval base of Toulon March on 20, 2011. The carrier, carrying a crew of around 1,800 and some 20 aircraft, was accompanied by an attack submarine, several frigates and a refueling ship defense officials said. (Reuters/ECPAD/Handout)
A Libyan rebel fighter smiles as he gathers with comrades prior to a failed attempt to take the town of Ajdabiya from Muammar Qaddafi's forces on March 21, 2011 as news reports said Libyan government forces pulled back 100 kilometers (60 miles) from rebel-held Benghazi but showed they still had plenty of fight as they beat off an insurgent advance. The forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi retreated to the key town of Ajdabiya, south of the city of Benghazi, after Western-led air strikes destroyed much of their armor, leaving dozens of wrecked tanks along the road. (Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images)

A Libyan jet bomber crashes after being hit over Benghazi on March 19, 2011 as Libya's rebel stronghold came under attack, with at least two air strikes and sustained shelling of the city's south sending thick smoke into the sky. There were conflicting reports about who was flying the plane and who shot it down. (Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images) 


Five-year-old Libyan boy Mohammed Achmed is treated by a doctor in the Jalaa hospital in Benghazi, eastern Libya, Saturday, March 19, 2011. Mohammed received bullet wounds to his chest early Saturday as fighting broke out in Benghazi. He was with his mother who also received bullet wounds. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus) 


Seen through night-vision lenses aboard amphibious transport dock USS Ponce (LPD 15), guided missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) fires Tomahawk cruise missiles in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the Mediterranean Sea on March 19, 2011. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya's Mediterranean coast. (Reuters/Nathanael Miller/U.S. Navy photo) 


Tracer fire is seen in the sky from anti-aircraft rounds fired above the hotel where foreign media and government officials are staying, in Tripoli, Libya, as explosions rocked the city Sunday March 20, 2011. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay) 


The dead bodies of teenage African members of Muammar Qaddafi's forces lie among debris in al-Wayfiyah, west of Benghazi, after being hit by French warplanes on March 20, 2011. (Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images) 


Vehicles belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi explode after an air strike by coalition forces, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011.

A rebel fighter lies on the side of a road, watching burning vehicles belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 20, 2011. (Reuters/Goran Tomasevic)

Remarks by President Obama on Latin America in Santiago, Chile

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary


Palacio de La Moneda Cultural Center, Santiago, Chile

4:27 P.M. CT
       PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Muchas gracias.  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Please, please, everyone be seated.
      Thank you.  Buenas tardes.  It is a wonderful honor to be here in Santiago, Chile.  And I want to, first of all, thank your President, President Pinera, for his outstanding leadership and the hospitality that he’s extended not only to me but also to my wife, my daughters, and, most importantly, my mother-in-law.  (Laughter.)
      To the people of Santiago, to the people of Chile, thank you so much for your wonderful welcome.  And on behalf of the people of the United States, let me thank you for your friendship and the strong bonds between our people.
       There are several people that I just want to acknowledge very briefly.  We have the President of the Inter-American Development Bank, Luis Alberto Moreno, who is here.  (Applause.)  We also have Alicia Bárcena, who is the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.  (Applause.)
       Throughout our history, this land has been called “el fin de la tierra” -- the end of the world.  But I’ve come here today because in the 21st century this nation is a vital part of our interconnected world.  In an age when peoples are intertwined like never before, Chile shows that we need not be divided by race or religion or ethnic conflict.  You’ve welcomed immigrants from every corner of the globe, even as you celebrate a proud indigenous heritage.
      At a time when people around the world are reaching for their freedoms, Chile shows that, yes, it is possible to transition from dictatorship to democracy -- and to do so peacefully.  Indeed, our marvelous surroundings today, just steps from where Chile lost its democracy decades ago, is a testament to Chile’s progress and its undying democratic spirit.
      Despite barriers of distance and geography, you’ve integrated Chile into the global economy, trading with countries all over the world and, in this Internet age, becoming the most digitally connected country in Latin America.
      And in a world of sometimes wrenching pain -- as we’re seeing today in Japan -- it is the character of this country that inspires.  “Our original guiding stars,” said Pablo Neruda, “are struggle and hope.”  But, he added, “there is no such thing as a lone struggle, no such thing as a lone hope.”  The Chilean people have shown this time and again, including your recovery from the terrible earthquake here one year ago.
      Credit for Chile’s success belongs to the Chilean people, whose courage, sacrifices and perseverance built this nation into the leader that it is.  And we are very honored to be joined today by four leaders who have guided this nation through years of great progress -- Presidents Aylwin, Frei, Lagos, and of course your current President Pinera.  Thank you all, to the former Presidents, for being here, as well as President Pinera.  (Applause.)
      So I could not imagine a more fitting place to discuss the new era of partnership that the United States is pursuing not only with Chile, but across the Americas.  And I’m grateful that we’re joined by leaders and members of the diplomatic corps from across the region. 
      Within my first 100 days in office, one of my first foreign trips as President, I traveled to Trinidad and Tobago to meet with leaders from across the hemisphere at the Summit of the Americas.  And there, I pledged to seek partnerships of equality and shared responsibility, based on mutual interest and mutual respect, but also on shared values.
      Now, I know I’m not the first president from the United States to pledge a new spirit of partnership with our Latin American neighbors.  Words are easy, and I know that there have been times where perhaps the United States took this region for granted.
      Even now, I know our headlines are often dominated by events in other parts of the world.  But let’s never forget:  Every day, the future is being forged by the countries and peoples of Latin America.  For Latin America is not the old stereotype of a region of -- in perpetual conflict or trapped in endless cycles of poverty.  The world must now recognize Latin America for the dynamic and growing region that it truly is.
   
      Latin America is at peace.  Civil wars have ended.  Insurgencies have been pushed back.  Old border disputes have been resolved.  In Colombia, great sacrifices by citizens and security forces have restored a level of security not seen in decades.
      And just as old conflicts have receded, so too have the ideological battles that often fueled them -- the old stale debates between state-run economies and unbridled capitalism; between the abuses of right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing insurgents; between those who believe that the United States causes all the region’s problems and those who believe that the United States ignores all the problems.  Those are false choices, and they don’t reflect today’s realities.
      Today, Latin America is democratic.  Virtually all the people of Latin America have gone from living under dictatorships to living in democracies.  Across the region, we see vibrant democracies, from Mexico to Chile to Costa Rica.  We’ve seen historic peaceful transfers of power, from El Salvador to Uruguay to Paraguay.  The work of perfecting our democracies, of course, is never truly done, but this is the outstanding progress that’s been made here in the Americas.
      Today, Latin America is growing.   Having made tough but necessary reforms, nations like Peru and Brazil are seeing impressive growth.  As a result, Latin America weathered the global economic downturn better than other regions.  Across the region, tens of millions of people have been lifted from extreme poverty.  From Guadalajara to Santiago to Sao Paolo, a new middle class is demanding more of themselves and more of their governments.
      Latin America is coming together to address shared challenges.  Chile, Colombia and Mexico are sharing their expertise in security with nations in Central America.  When a coup in Honduras threatened democratic progress, the nations of the hemisphere unanimously invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, helping to lay the foundation for the return to the rule of law.  The contributions of Latin American countries have been critical in Haiti, as has Latin American diplomacy in the lead up to yesterday’s election in Haiti.
      And increasingly, Latin America is contributing to global prosperity and security.  As longtime contributors to United Nations peacekeeping missions, Latin American nations have helped to prevent conflicts from Africa to Asia.  At the G20, nations like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina now have a greater voice in global economic decision-making.  Under Mexican leadership, the world made progress at Cancun in our efforts to combat climate change.  Nations like Chile have played a leading role in strengthening civil society groups around the world.
      So this is the Latin America that I see today -- a region on the move, proud of its progress, and ready to assume a greater role in world affairs.  And for all these reasons, I believe that Latin America is more important to the prosperity and security of the United States than ever before.  With no other region does the United States have so many connections.  And nowhere do we see that more than in the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans across the United States, who enrich our society, grow our economy and strengthen our nation every single day.      
      And I believe Latin America is only going to become more important to the United States, especially to our economy.  Trade between the United States and Latin America has surged.  We buy more of your products, more of your goods than any other country, and we invest more in this region than any other country.
      For instance, we export more than three times as much to Latin America as we do to China.  Our exports to this region -- which are growing faster than our exports to the rest of the world -- will soon support more than 2 million U.S. jobs.  In other words, when Latin America is more prosperous, the United States is more prosperous.
      But even more than interests, we’re bound by shared values.  In each other’s journey we see reflections of our own.  Colonists who broke free from empires.  Pioneers who opened new frontiers.  Citizens who have struggled to expand our nations’ promise to all people -- men and women, white, black and brown.  We’re people of faith who must remember that all of us -- especially the most fortunate among us -- must do our part, especially for the least among us.  We’re citizens who know that ensuring that democracies deliver for our people must be the work of all.
      This is our common history.  This is our common heritage.  We are all Americans.  Todos somos Americanos.
      Across the Americas, parents want their children to be able to run and play and know that they’ll come home safely.  Young people all desperately want an education.  Fathers want the dignity that comes from work, and women want the same opportunities as their husbands.  Entrepreneurs want the chance to start that new business.  And people everywhere want to be treated with the respect to which every human being is entitled.  These are the hopes -- simple yet profound -- that beat in the hearts of millions across the Americas.
      But if we’re honest, we’ll also admit that that these dreams are still beyond the reach of too many; that progress in the Americas has not come fast enough.  Not for the millions who endure the injustice of extreme poverty.  Not for the children in shantytowns and the favelas who just want the same chance as everybody else.  Not for the communities that are caught in the brutal grips of cartels and gangs, where the police are outgunned and too many people live in fear.
      And despite this region’s democratic progress, stark inequalities endure.  In political and economic power that is too often concentrated in the hands of the few, instead of serving the many.  In the corruption that too often still stifles economic growth and development, innovation and entrepreneurship.  And in some leaders who cling to bankrupt ideologies to justify their own power and who seek to silence their opponents because those opponents have the audacity to demand their universal rights.  These, too, are realities that we must face.
      Of course, we are not the first generation to face these challenges.  Fifty years ago this month, President John F. Kennedy proposed an ambitious Alliance for Progress.  It was, even by today’s standards, a massive investment -- billions of U.S. dollars to meet the basic needs of people across the region.  Such a program was right -- it was appropriate for that era.  But the realities of our time -- and the new capabilities and confidence of Latin America -- demand something different.
      President Kennedy’s challenge endures -- “to build a hemisphere where all people can hope for a sustainable, suitable standard of living, and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom.”  But half a century later, we must give meaning to this work in our own way, in a new way.
      I believe that in the Americas today, there are no senior partners and there are no junior partners, there are only equal partners.  Of course, equal partnerships, in turn, demands a sense of shared responsibility.  We have obligations to each other.  And today, the United States is working with the nations of this hemisphere to meet our responsibilities in several key areas.
      First, we’re partnering to address the concerns that people across the Americas say they worry about the most -- and that's the security of their families and communities.  Criminal gangs and narco-traffickers are not only a threat to the security of our citizens.  They’re a threat to development, because they scare away investment that economies need to prosper.  And they are a direct threat to democracy, because they fuel the corruption that rots institutions from within.
      So with our partners from Colombia to Mexico and new regional initiatives in Central America and the Caribbean, we’re confronting this challenge, together, from every direction.  We’ve increased our support -- the equipment, training and technologies -- that security forces, border security and police need to keep communities safe.  We’re improving coordination and sharing more information so that those who traffic in drugs and in human beings have fewer places to hide.  And we’re putting unprecedented pressure on cartel finances, including in the United States.
      But we’ll never break the grip of the cartels and the gangs unless we also address the social and economic forces that fuel criminality.  We need to reach at-risk youth before they turn to drugs and crime.  So we’re joining with partners across the Americas to expand community-based policing, strengthen juvenile justice systems, and invest in crime and drug prevention programs.
      As the nations of Central American develop a new regional security strategy, the United States stands ready to do our part through a new partnership that puts the focus where it should be -- on the security of citizens.  And with regional and international partners, we’ll make sure our support is not just well-intentioned, but is well-coordinated and well-spent. 
      I’ve said before and I will repeat, as President I’ve made it clear that the United States shares and accepts our share of responsibility for drug violence.  After all, the demand for drugs, including in the United States, drives this crisis.  And that’s why we’ve developed a new drug control strategy that focused on reducing the demand for drugs through education and prevention and treatment.   And I would point out that even during difficult fiscal times in the United States, we’ve proposed increasing our commitment to these efforts by some $10 billion this year alone.
      We’re also doing more to stem the southbound flow of guns into the region.  We’re screening all southbound rail cargo.  We’re seizing many more guns bound for Mexico and we’re putting more gunrunners behind bars.  And every gun or gunrunner that we take off the streets is one less threat to the families and communities of the Americas.
      As we work to ensure the security of our citizens, we’re partnering in a second area -- and that's promoting prosperity and opportunity.  I’ve been so impressed with President Pinera’s pledge to lift everyone out of extreme poverty by 2020.  That's an ambitious goal and an appropriate goal.  And with this trip, I’m working to expand some of the trade and investment that might help achieve this goal.
      Across the region, we’re moving ahead with “open skies” agreements to bring our people and businesses closer together.  We’re moving forward with our Trans-Pacific Partnership -- which includes Chile and Peru -- to create new trade opportunities in the fast-growing markets of the Asia-Pacific.  And as I’ve directed, my administration has intensified our efforts to move forward on trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, consistent with our values and with our interests.
      We’re also encouraging the next generation of businesses and entrepreneurs.  So we’ll work with the Inter-American Development bank to increase lending.  We’ve expanded credit under a new Microfinance Growth Fund for the Americas.  We’re supporting reforms to tax systems, which are critical for economic growth and public investment.  We’re creating new “Pathways to Prosperity” -- microcredit, entrepreneurship training -- for those who must share in economic growth, including women and members of Afro-Caribbean and indigenous communities.
      And we’re coming together, as a hemisphere, to create clean energy jobs and pursue more secure and sustainable energy futures.  And if anybody doubts the urgency of climate change, they look -- they should look no further than the Americas -- from the stronger storms in the Caribbean, to glacier melt in the Andes, to the loss of forests and farmland across the region.
      Under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas that I proposed, countries have stepped forward, each providing leadership and expertise.  Brazil has expertise in biofuels.  Chile in geothermal.  Mexico on energy efficiency.  El Salvador is connecting grids in Central America to make electricity more reliable.  These are exactly the kind of partnerships that we need -- neighbors joining with neighbors to unleash the progress that none of us can achieve alone.
      It’s the same philosophy behind two additional initiatives that I’m announcing today, which will help our countries educate and innovate for the future.  First, we’re launching a new initiative to harness the power of social media and online networks to help students, scientists, academics and entrepreneurs collaborate and develop the new ideas and products that will keep America -- the Americas competitive in a global economy.
      And I’m proud to announce that the United States will work with partners in this region, including the private sector, to increase the number of U.S. students studying in Latin America to 100,000, and the number of Latin America students studying in the United States to 100,000.
      Staying competitive also, of course, demands that we address immigration -- an issue that evokes great passions in the United States as well as in the Americas.  As President, I’ve made it clear that immigration strengthens the United States.  We are a nation of immigrants, which is why I have consistently spoken out against anti-immigrant sentiment.  We’re also a nation of laws, which is why I will not waver in my determination to fix our broken immigration system.  I’m committed to comprehensive reform that secures our borders, enforces our laws and addresses the millions of undocumented workers who are living in the shadows of the United States.
      I believe, though, that this challenge will be with us for a very long time so long as people believe that the only way to provide for their families is to leave their families and head north.
      And that’s why the United States has to continue to partner with countries that pursue the broad-based economic growth that gives people and nations a path out of poverty.  And that’s what we’re seeing here in Chile.  As part of our new approach to development, we’re working with partners, like Guatemala and El Salvador, who are committed to building their own capacity -- from helping farmers improve crop yields to helping health care systems to deliver better care.
      Which leads me to the final area where we must continue to partner, and that’s strengthening democracy and human rights.  More than 60 years ago, our nations came together in an Organization of American States and declared -- and I quote -- that “representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace and development of the region.”  A decade ago, we reaffirmed this principle, with an Inter-American Democratic Charter that stated -- and I quote -- “the people of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.”
      Across the Americas, generations, including generations of Chileans, have struggled and sacrificed to give meaning to these words -- ordinary men and women who dared to speak their mind; activists who organized new movements; faith leaders who preached social justice; the mothers of the disappeared who demanded the truth; political prisoners who rose to become presidents; and, even now, Las Damas de Blanco, who march in quiet dignity.
      The people of the Americas have shown that there is no substitute for democracy.  As governments, we have then an obligation to defend what has been won.  So as we mark the 10th anniversary of the Inter-American Democratic Charter this year, let’s reaffirm the principles that we know to be true.
      Let’s recommit to defending democracy and human rights in our own countries by strengthening the institutions that democracy needs to flourish -- free and fair elections in which people choose their own leaders; vibrant legislatures that provide oversight; independent judiciaries that uphold the rule of law; a free press that promotes open debate; professional militaries under civilian control; strong civil societies that hold governments accountable; and governments that are transparent and responsive to their citizens.  This is what makes a democracy.
      And just as we defend democracy and human rights within our borders, let’s recommit to defending them across our hemisphere.  I understand, every nation will follow its own path.  No nation should impose its will on another.  But surely we can agree that democracy is about more than majority rule, that simply holding power does not give a leader the right to suppress the rights of others, and that leaders must maintain power through consent, and not coercion.  We have to speak out when we see those principles violated.
      Let’s never waver in our support for the rights of people to determine their own future -- and, yes, that includes the people of Cuba.  Since taking office, I’ve announced the most significant changes to my nation’s policy towards Cuba in decades.  I’ve made it possible for Cuban Americans to visit and support their families in Cuba.  We’re allowing Americans to send remittances that bring some economic hope for people across Cuba, as well as more independence from Cuban authorities.
      Going forward, we’ll continue to seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people, who I believe are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere.  I will make this effort to try to break out of this history that’s now lasted for longer than I’ve been alive.
      But Cuban authorities must take some meaningful actions to respect the basic rights of their own people -- not because the United States insists upon it, but because the people of Cuba deserve it, no less than the people of the United States or Chile or Brazil or any other country deserve it.
      The lessons of Latin America, I believe, can be a guide -- a guide for people around the world who are beginning their own journeys toward democracy.  There is no one model for democratic transitions.  But as this region knows, successful transitions do have certain ingredients.  The moral force of nonviolence.  Dialogue that’s open and inclusive.  The protection of basic rights, such as peaceful expression and assembly.  Accountability for past wrongs.  And matching political reform with economic reform, because democracy must meet the basic needs and aspirations of people.
      With decades of experience, there’s so much Latin America can now share -- how to build political parties and organize free elections; how to ensure peaceful transfers of power; how to navigate the winding paths of reform and reconciliation.  And when the inevitable setbacks occur, you can remind people to never lose sight of those guiding stars of which Pablo Neruda spoke -- struggle, but also hope.
      Security for our citizens.  Trade and development that creates jobs, prosperity and a clean energy future.  Standing up for democracy and human rights.  These are the partnerships that we can forge together -- here in the Americas but also around the world.  And if anyone doubts whether this region has the capacity to meet these challenges, they need to only remember what happened here in Chile only a few months ago.
      Their resolve and faith inspired the world -- “Los Treinta y Tres.”  I don’t need to tell you the story.  You know it well.  But it’s worth remembering how this entire nation came together, across government, civilian and military, national and local; across the private sector, with large companies and small shopkeepers donating supplies; and across every segment of Chilean society, people came together to sustain those men down below and their families up at Camp Esperanza.  It was a miraculous rescue.  It was a tribute to Chilean leadership.  And when, finally, Luis Urzua emerged, he spoke for an entire nation when he said, “I am proud to be Chilean.”
      Yet something else happened in those two months.  The people and governments of Latin America came together to stand with a neighbor in need.  And with a Latin American country in the lead, the world was proud to play a supporting role -- sending workers from the United States and Canada, rescue equipment from Europe, communications gear from Asia.  And as the miners were lifted to safety, for those joyous reunions, it was a truly global movement, watched and celebrated by more than a billion people.
      If ever we needed a reminder of the humanity and the hopes that we share, that moment in the desert was such.  When a country like Chile puts its mind to it, there’s nothing you can’t do.  When countries across Latin America come together and focus on a common goal, when the United States and others in the world do our part, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish together.
      And that is our vision of the Americas.  This is the progress we can achieve together.  This is the spirit of partnership and equality to which the United States is committed.  I am confident that, working together, there is nothing we cannot achieve.  Thank you very much.  Muchas gracias.