If Leon Panetta were asked these questions it would be interesting if he would answer give how political he is....From Today's Heritage Foundation release -
Ten Questions for Leon Panetta
The war in Afghanistan rages on, as does the conflict in Libya. U.S. troops are still deployed in Iraq. Unrest continues in the Middle East's Arab Spring. Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear efforts are accelerating, and the global war against terrorists remains. And yet despite an aging military, President Barack Obama has called for $400 billion in cuts to national security spending over the next 12 years, in addition to the $400 billion in cuts he has already made.
It is against this backdrop that Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, will go before the Senate tomorrow for questioning on how he would shepherd the department into the future. The American taxpayers deserve some answers from Panetta.
Panetta, who is currently director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has already responded to a 79-page set of answers to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, but his responses largely lacked specifics. He says he expects that "difficult choices will have to be made" on defense spending. "If confirmed, I will work to make disciplined decisions in ways that minimize impacts on our national security." Given what's at stake—U.S. national security—more substantive responses are sorely needed.
Defending Defense—a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute, the Foreign Policy Initiative, and The Heritage Foundation—has issued the following 10 questions for Panetta that go to the heart of how he would address defense spending and the state of the U.S. military.
1. Do you agree with outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's statement that the defense budget "is not the cause of this country's fiscal woes"? If so, what is the logic for cutting defense spending even further than it already has been so far during wartime? Should defense be given higher priority than other areas of federal spending?
2. Do you agree that there is an urgent need to recapitalize large parts of America's forces? If not, why not? How is the modernization challenge to be addressed with a defense budget that is flat or declining?
3. Secretary Gates stated in a speech on May 24 that "a smaller military, no matter how superb, will be able to go to fewer places and be able to do fewer things."
Presuming that President Obama's additional proposed cuts will include a reduction in the size of America's armed forces, what "places" would you recommend that we forgo and what "things" would you recommend that the American military stop doing?
4. Secretary Gates has stated that ill-conceived cuts to defense spending could increase America's vulnerability in a "complex and unpredictable security environment." Do you agree with his assessment of the dangers incurred by cuts in military spending and the role of hard power in keeping the peace?
5. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, recommended that when implementing President Obama's plan to cut $400 billion from security spending, savings should be identified in military pay and benefits before making cuts to "force structure" (i.e., weapons programs, equipment, and the number of personnel in uniform). Do you agree with his recommendations?
6. As a chief architect of the defense budget drawdown in the 1990s, you oversaw major reductions in military procurement spending (including a 13.4 percent decline in fiscal year 1994). How have procurement decisions in the 1990s affected our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere? Given the experience of recent years—and knowing what you know now—would you have supported the same cuts?
7. China has tripled its military's budget over the past 15 years, putting at risk our military's long-standing ability to operate decisively and safely in northeast Asia. How should those developments inform U.S. defense investments?
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is working on a likely nuclear weapons program. How should that inform U.S. missile defense research and development? Is Iran's program relevant to U.S. force structure and strategic posture in the region?
8. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated that the present fleet of 187 F-22 fighters creates a high risk for the U.S. military in meeting its operational demands. Given China's development of a stealth aircraft and Russia's development and sale of air defense systems, would you support reviewing the previous decision to end procurement of the F-22 Raptor at 187? Do you favor creating an export variant of the F-22 for sale to allied air forces?
9. The U.S. Navy has the fewest number of ships since America's entrance into World War I. Yet it is being tasked with arguably more responsibilities than ever before. What steps would you take to bridge the gap between our 285-ship navy today and the 313-ship requirement called for? Do you support a 12-carrier navy today?
10. Current budget plans—even prior to the latest announced defense cuts—were premised upon a complete withdrawal from Iraq and a dramatic drawdown in Afghanistan by 2014. They did not anticipate the prospect of a continued, residual presence in Iraq or the possibility of a requirement for maintaining a sizeable force in Afghanistan. Do you support Secretary Gates's proposals to reduce the end-strength of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps?
The U.S. military is charged with protecting our homeland and defending America's interests around the world, yet it is increasingly asked to do more with less. Given the President's call for significant cuts to an already under-funded military, it is vitally important for the American people to know where Panetta stands on defense spending before he is confirmed. And it is up to the Senate to make sure those questions are asked.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Obamacare needs to be Repealed!!!
Time to CONTINUE to DEMAND the appeal of Obamacare!
1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds
Published June 07, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health benefits to their employees once the main provisions of President Obama's federal health care law go into effect in 2014, a new survey finds.
The research published in the McKinsey Quarterly found that the number rises to 50 percent among employers who are highly aware of the health care law.
McKinsey and Company, which identifies itself as a management consultant that aims to help businesses run more productively and competitively, conducted the survey of more than 1,300 employers earlier this year. It said the survey spanned industries, geographies and employer sizes.
According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
The research notes among the new provisions that could spur employers to drop coverage is a requirement of all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Those benefits must also be equal between highly compensated executives and hourly employees – requirements that will increase medical costs for many companies.
The findings are distinct from a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees who currently get health coverage through their jobs would have to switch to subsidized-exchange polices in 2014.
The group said its variance is so wide because shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance "will be economically rational not only for many of them but also for their lower-income employees, given the law's incentives."
The research found that contrary to what many employers feared, most employees -- more than 85 percent -- would stay at jobs that no longer offered health benefits. But 60 percent of employees would expect higher compensation.
1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds
Published June 07, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health benefits to their employees once the main provisions of President Obama's federal health care law go into effect in 2014, a new survey finds.
The research published in the McKinsey Quarterly found that the number rises to 50 percent among employers who are highly aware of the health care law.
McKinsey and Company, which identifies itself as a management consultant that aims to help businesses run more productively and competitively, conducted the survey of more than 1,300 employers earlier this year. It said the survey spanned industries, geographies and employer sizes.
According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
The research notes among the new provisions that could spur employers to drop coverage is a requirement of all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Those benefits must also be equal between highly compensated executives and hourly employees – requirements that will increase medical costs for many companies.
The findings are distinct from a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees who currently get health coverage through their jobs would have to switch to subsidized-exchange polices in 2014.
The group said its variance is so wide because shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance "will be economically rational not only for many of them but also for their lower-income employees, given the law's incentives."
The research found that contrary to what many employers feared, most employees -- more than 85 percent -- would stay at jobs that no longer offered health benefits. But 60 percent of employees would expect higher compensation.
MSNBC gets it All Wrong Again....They don't care about the facts...they just protect their liberal buddies and spew their liberal viewpoints...
It's obvious NOW that MSNBC is willing to change the facts to protect their liberal buddies even if that means reporting their viewpoint rather than the facts...No wonder NO ONE watches MSNBC.....Where's MSNBC's apoligy to Breitbart and CNN?
Weiner offered PR help to porn star: This Sleazeball needs to resign immediately!
This story gets worse and worse by the minute...he needs to go NOW! And put a sex offender list!
Weiner offered PR help to porn star: TMZ - World - Canoe.ca
Weiner offered PR help to porn star: TMZ - World - Canoe.ca
Obama - Incompetent and Uninterested....
This Incompetent President doesn't have a clue how to fix the economy and frankly his actions don't make me believe he really wants to address it....Now we hear today that he's stopped his daily updates on the economy....I guess these meetings must have interferred with his golf game....what an embarassment he is...
Obama's Jobless America
The economic news keeps getting worse for America. Last month, the unemployment rate went up to 9.1 percent, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the average length of unemployment rose to more than nine months, the longest since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1948. But despite all the writing on the wall, President Barack Obama wants you and the 13.9 million unemployed Americans to hang on for the ride.
In his weekly address on Friday, President Obama played down May's terrible unemployment numbers as mere "bumps on the road to recovery" and blamed America's latest economic woes on high gas prices (which he can do something about, but hasn't), the earthquake in Japan, and "unease about the European fiscal situation." Meanwhile, his chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, parroted his boss's "bumps on the road" line and, on Sunday, told America not to worry about the jobs report, remarking, "Don't bank too much of any one month's jobs report. You want to look at a little bit of a trend to get a more accurate barometer." Goolsbee announced his resignation yesterday.
No matter the barometer you look at, things aren't looking good for the economy. On top of May's jobs numbers, America's economic growth is likewise depressing. The Wall Street Journal compares today's measly 2 percent economic growth with that of the Reagan recovery following the 1981-82 recession, which saw a 7 percent growth rate and a plunging unemployment rate.
And it looks like even if Americans are hearing President Obama's message, they're not buying it. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, they're not happy with where America is headed, they see the economy as a major problem, and they think President Obama is doing a terrible job managing the problem:
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak . . .
Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.
Americans are right to be worried about the economy, and they're placing the blame in the correct spot. Heritage's Rea Hederman, Jr., and James Sherk write that the state of the economy is, indeed, depressing, and that President's policies have done nothing to lift the economy out of its flat spin:
The Obama Administration’s economic policy has been a total failure with its complete disregard for businesses and job creation in the private sector. The Administration’s reliance on government spending and government experts to manage the economy has resulted in a labor market that is not recovering and a national debt that is at a crisis point. Congress needs to unshackle entrepreneurs and businesses from the stifling regulations and burdens that have been created in the past two years.
Lest we forget history, Hederman and Sherk remind us what the President has done to allow the weak business climate to fester. It all comes down to Obama's single-minded drive to grow government at all costs under the delusion that mighty Washington can stimulate the economy into putting bread and butter on America's tables. There was his $787 billion stimulus, Obamacare and its bevy of costly regulations, an ongoing attempt to foist unionization on private industry, opposition to domestic energy production, and a refusal to approve trade agreements, leaving new business opportunities and tens of thousands of jobs on the table. It didn't work.
Those policies all satisfy the President's hunger to put up points on his ideological scoreboard, but Americans are losing out as a result.
The National Journal's Charlie Cook points out: "Within the first six months or even a year of a new administration, it's fair game to blame predecessors for any problems . . . But such arguments get much less convincing as the second year comes to an end. Once into the third year, such claims sound downright silly. Gradually, any president and any administration take ownership of the problems facing the country."
President Obama owns this economy and America's joblessness. Now it's time to focus on fixing it.
Obama's Jobless America
The economic news keeps getting worse for America. Last month, the unemployment rate went up to 9.1 percent, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the average length of unemployment rose to more than nine months, the longest since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1948. But despite all the writing on the wall, President Barack Obama wants you and the 13.9 million unemployed Americans to hang on for the ride.
In his weekly address on Friday, President Obama played down May's terrible unemployment numbers as mere "bumps on the road to recovery" and blamed America's latest economic woes on high gas prices (which he can do something about, but hasn't), the earthquake in Japan, and "unease about the European fiscal situation." Meanwhile, his chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, parroted his boss's "bumps on the road" line and, on Sunday, told America not to worry about the jobs report, remarking, "Don't bank too much of any one month's jobs report. You want to look at a little bit of a trend to get a more accurate barometer." Goolsbee announced his resignation yesterday.
No matter the barometer you look at, things aren't looking good for the economy. On top of May's jobs numbers, America's economic growth is likewise depressing. The Wall Street Journal compares today's measly 2 percent economic growth with that of the Reagan recovery following the 1981-82 recession, which saw a 7 percent growth rate and a plunging unemployment rate.
And it looks like even if Americans are hearing President Obama's message, they're not buying it. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, they're not happy with where America is headed, they see the economy as a major problem, and they think President Obama is doing a terrible job managing the problem:
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak . . .
Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.
Americans are right to be worried about the economy, and they're placing the blame in the correct spot. Heritage's Rea Hederman, Jr., and James Sherk write that the state of the economy is, indeed, depressing, and that President's policies have done nothing to lift the economy out of its flat spin:
The Obama Administration’s economic policy has been a total failure with its complete disregard for businesses and job creation in the private sector. The Administration’s reliance on government spending and government experts to manage the economy has resulted in a labor market that is not recovering and a national debt that is at a crisis point. Congress needs to unshackle entrepreneurs and businesses from the stifling regulations and burdens that have been created in the past two years.
Lest we forget history, Hederman and Sherk remind us what the President has done to allow the weak business climate to fester. It all comes down to Obama's single-minded drive to grow government at all costs under the delusion that mighty Washington can stimulate the economy into putting bread and butter on America's tables. There was his $787 billion stimulus, Obamacare and its bevy of costly regulations, an ongoing attempt to foist unionization on private industry, opposition to domestic energy production, and a refusal to approve trade agreements, leaving new business opportunities and tens of thousands of jobs on the table. It didn't work.
Those policies all satisfy the President's hunger to put up points on his ideological scoreboard, but Americans are losing out as a result.
The National Journal's Charlie Cook points out: "Within the first six months or even a year of a new administration, it's fair game to blame predecessors for any problems . . . But such arguments get much less convincing as the second year comes to an end. Once into the third year, such claims sound downright silly. Gradually, any president and any administration take ownership of the problems facing the country."
President Obama owns this economy and America's joblessness. Now it's time to focus on fixing it.
Sex Offender - Anthony Weiner...Time to Resign!
I told you he was guilty....now he need to take responsibility and resign...he was sending pictures unsolicited to women he didn't even know the age of...they very well might have been underage....He should be considered a sex offender and should be banned from serving in Congress...Had he Sext'ed to a minor he would have been guilty of child pornography....this guy is nothing but a sleazeball....
They talk about this as cheating...this is sending in appropriate pictures unsolicited to women...and then he went on to LIE to the American People for over a week.....
They talk about this as cheating...this is sending in appropriate pictures unsolicited to women...and then he went on to LIE to the American People for over a week.....
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)