Nevada must be sooooo proud of electing this idiot "Dirty" Harry Reid back to the Senate....this guy is nothing but two cents short of a dime....and this is what Obama calls leadership....I guess with the example he is setting Harry Reid might be considered a leader....what a shame...
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thanksgiving....A Capitalist Holiday...
Giving Thanks for the Free Market
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular” that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
As truly an American holiday as Thanksgiving is, it was not actually made a formal federal holiday until 1941. And it wasn’t even routinely celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until after President Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Address in 1863. Still, the holiday does have a strong basis in our nation’s history—a history that is all too often left untold.
As described by Plymouth Colony Governor William Bradford in his diary Of Plymouth Plantation, the first Pilgrim winters in America were tough. The colonists failed to produce adequate food and shelter, and as a result, many did not survive. But eventually the colony rebounded. The Pilgrims did build sufficient homes and did plant enough crops to feed the entire colony. So great was their bounty that they celebrated with a harvest feast that eventually became the Thanksgiving holiday that we celebrate today. But what was the key to the colony’s turnaround? What drove them from poverty to prosperity? The answer may surprise you.
When the first Pilgrims founded the Plymouth Colony, all property was taken away from families and transferred to a “comone wealth.” In other words, the Pilgrims tried to do away with private property. The results were disastrous. According to Bradford, the stronger and younger men resented working for other men’s wives and children “without any recompence.” And the women forced to cook and clean for other men saw their uncompensated service as “a kind of slavery.” The system as a whole bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the Pilgrims’] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” Others tragically perished.
It was not until private property rights were restored and every man was allowed to “set corn for his own particular” that prosperity came to the colony. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”
A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. After witnessing this experiment “amongst godly and sober men,” Bradford concluded that the elimination of private property was incompatible with human nature. He described those who thought they could make men “happy and flourishing” by taking away their property as “vain … as if they were wiser than God.”
Today, as families across America gather to celebrate Thanksgiving, let us give thanks to God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon us. But let us also not forget the Pilgrims’ lesson on private property that all too often is forgot in Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Imagine..."Princess" Pelosi getting groped by TSA agents.....She deserves IT....
I can't wait until Nancy "Princess" Pelosi gets GROPED by one of the TSA goons...maybe she'll start to see what it feel like to be a REAL American....and my guess is despite History, she'll never be majority leader again!
Nancy Pelosi Will Fly Commercial, Too
Subscribe :If you're planning to fly after the new year, you may find a familiar face next to you on your next flight to San Francisco. That's because Speaker Nancy Pelosi will no longer have access to military aircraft and will instead fly commercial to her district after she becomes House minority leader, her office confirmed to Politics Daily.
For the last four years, Pelosi has had access to Air Force planes to jet home to her California district, one of the many perks that come along with being the most powerful member of the House of Representatives and second in line to the presidency after the vice president.
Pelosi's predecessor, former Speaker Dennis Hastert, also used military jets to travel back and forth to his Chicago district, but Rep. John Boehner, the next speaker, announced earlier this month that he will fly commercial home to Ohio, a move meant to avoid the political heat Pelosi has taken for using the ultra-convenient option of skipping commercial flights home.
But if Pelosi's flying experience is anything like Boehner's in the future, she still won't have to worry about pat-downs and security lines. The New York Times reported last week that Boehner skipped the security line at Washington's Reagan National Airport before a trip to Cincinnati because of a Transportation Security Administration regulation that lets congressional leaders or members of Congress with armed security details bypass security check points.
Although she'll lose her military flying privileges, her security detail may be one of the perks (if armed guards can be considered a perk) that Pelosi will likely keep. Her staff does not discuss the security precautions she takes, but Boehner does have security as the minority leader and, as a rule, the Capitol Police provide security for any members of Congress who could have a heightened threat against them.
The other changes that Pelosi and her fellow Democrats in the leadership can expect next year will come in the form of reduced resources, specifically the offices where they'll work in the Capitol and allowances to hire staff. For staffing, the House allocates a lump sum to each party's leadership for salaries and expenses, which the leaders divide among themselves. Based on the current allocations, Pelosi can expect to have her staff allowance cut by about 40 percent to lead the smaller Democratic caucus.
And instead of the elegant suite of offices that Pelosi's team currently occupies, complete with french doors to an outdoor balcony, wood-burning fireplaces, and a majestic view of the National Mall, Pelosi and her staff will squeeze into a significantly smaller set of rooms overlooking the far less glamorous Library of Congress.
If there's any good news for Pelosi, besides the fact that she is still the leader of her party in the House, it's that her move to minority status may not be permanent.
History buffs will remember that Texas Democrat Sam Rayburn, the longest-serving House speaker in history, won and lost the speakership three times, trading power and perks with Republican minority leader and then Speaker Joseph Martin Jr. in the 1940s and 50s. The two swapped roles so many times that Rayburn eventually told Martin to keep the mall-facing speaker's offices, even after Rayburn won back the majority, because he had tired of packing and unpacking his boxes every time he won or lost an election.
The plush office suite remained in the minority's hands until the Republican revolution of 1994, when Newt Gingrich took over as speaker and decided that the prime real estate should belong to the speaker once again.
Nancy Pelosi Will Fly Commercial, Too
Subscribe :If you're planning to fly after the new year, you may find a familiar face next to you on your next flight to San Francisco. That's because Speaker Nancy Pelosi will no longer have access to military aircraft and will instead fly commercial to her district after she becomes House minority leader, her office confirmed to Politics Daily.
For the last four years, Pelosi has had access to Air Force planes to jet home to her California district, one of the many perks that come along with being the most powerful member of the House of Representatives and second in line to the presidency after the vice president.
Pelosi's predecessor, former Speaker Dennis Hastert, also used military jets to travel back and forth to his Chicago district, but Rep. John Boehner, the next speaker, announced earlier this month that he will fly commercial home to Ohio, a move meant to avoid the political heat Pelosi has taken for using the ultra-convenient option of skipping commercial flights home.
But if Pelosi's flying experience is anything like Boehner's in the future, she still won't have to worry about pat-downs and security lines. The New York Times reported last week that Boehner skipped the security line at Washington's Reagan National Airport before a trip to Cincinnati because of a Transportation Security Administration regulation that lets congressional leaders or members of Congress with armed security details bypass security check points.
Although she'll lose her military flying privileges, her security detail may be one of the perks (if armed guards can be considered a perk) that Pelosi will likely keep. Her staff does not discuss the security precautions she takes, but Boehner does have security as the minority leader and, as a rule, the Capitol Police provide security for any members of Congress who could have a heightened threat against them.
The other changes that Pelosi and her fellow Democrats in the leadership can expect next year will come in the form of reduced resources, specifically the offices where they'll work in the Capitol and allowances to hire staff. For staffing, the House allocates a lump sum to each party's leadership for salaries and expenses, which the leaders divide among themselves. Based on the current allocations, Pelosi can expect to have her staff allowance cut by about 40 percent to lead the smaller Democratic caucus.
And instead of the elegant suite of offices that Pelosi's team currently occupies, complete with french doors to an outdoor balcony, wood-burning fireplaces, and a majestic view of the National Mall, Pelosi and her staff will squeeze into a significantly smaller set of rooms overlooking the far less glamorous Library of Congress.
If there's any good news for Pelosi, besides the fact that she is still the leader of her party in the House, it's that her move to minority status may not be permanent.
History buffs will remember that Texas Democrat Sam Rayburn, the longest-serving House speaker in history, won and lost the speakership three times, trading power and perks with Republican minority leader and then Speaker Joseph Martin Jr. in the 1940s and 50s. The two swapped roles so many times that Rayburn eventually told Martin to keep the mall-facing speaker's offices, even after Rayburn won back the majority, because he had tired of packing and unpacking his boxes every time he won or lost an election.
The plush office suite remained in the minority's hands until the Republican revolution of 1994, when Newt Gingrich took over as speaker and decided that the prime real estate should belong to the speaker once again.
Axelrod needs to leave right now if he thinks he can get this BOZO relected...
With the work Axelrod has to get this bozo reelected he ought to leave right now....Obama is just as bad for us now as he was before the election...he continues to show that he will not meet republicans in the middle and will in fact do everything in his power to circumvent the system to get his way and take this nation into socialism....Job # 1....Obama has to GO!
Axelrod Moves Up His Departure From White House
Published November 23, 2010 | FoxNews.com
President Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod is planning to move up his departure to sooner than originally planned, a senior White House official told Fox News on Monday, heading out in late January or early February.
The purpose is "to leave enough time to spend time with family before the next project begins," the official said.
As recently as Nov. 14, Axelrod told "Fox News Sunday" that he'd probably stay about six more months before leaving to work on the president's re-election bid.
Axelrod, who is responsible for White House speech-writing and messaging, will go just after the State of the Union address. As he leaves, for Obama campaign manager David Plouffe will transition in to the White House to reorganize the West Wing, which is likely to have several more post-midterm election departures.
Two other administration officials are also out the door.
Buried in Debt White House National Economic Committee Deputy Director Diana Farrell and Treasury Department Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael Barr are leaving.
Farrell, the White House point person on financial issues, will go by the end of the year, a White House official said, noting she had always planned to stay two years.
She will likely return to the private sector after having Diana led administration efforts in trying to stabilize the financial system, restructuring the U.S. auto industry, responding to the housing crisis and developing the president's agenda on competitiveness and innovation.
In a statement she said she was proud of the administration's progress made "toward rebuilding trust in our financial system and moving our economy closer to recovery."
Her boss, Larry Summers, said Farrell was a "natural talent as a policy maker and her good judgment made her invaluable in setting a course for economic recovery."
Barr, who according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was "a key architect" of the Wall Street bill, will return to his academic career at the University of Michigan and his family, which still lives in Ann Arbor.
"Our country is stronger, our financial system more stable, and our families better protected because of his work," Geithner said.
Axelrod Moves Up His Departure From White House
Published November 23, 2010 | FoxNews.com
President Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod is planning to move up his departure to sooner than originally planned, a senior White House official told Fox News on Monday, heading out in late January or early February.
The purpose is "to leave enough time to spend time with family before the next project begins," the official said.
As recently as Nov. 14, Axelrod told "Fox News Sunday" that he'd probably stay about six more months before leaving to work on the president's re-election bid.
Axelrod, who is responsible for White House speech-writing and messaging, will go just after the State of the Union address. As he leaves, for Obama campaign manager David Plouffe will transition in to the White House to reorganize the West Wing, which is likely to have several more post-midterm election departures.
Two other administration officials are also out the door.
Buried in Debt White House National Economic Committee Deputy Director Diana Farrell and Treasury Department Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Michael Barr are leaving.
Farrell, the White House point person on financial issues, will go by the end of the year, a White House official said, noting she had always planned to stay two years.
She will likely return to the private sector after having Diana led administration efforts in trying to stabilize the financial system, restructuring the U.S. auto industry, responding to the housing crisis and developing the president's agenda on competitiveness and innovation.
In a statement she said she was proud of the administration's progress made "toward rebuilding trust in our financial system and moving our economy closer to recovery."
Her boss, Larry Summers, said Farrell was a "natural talent as a policy maker and her good judgment made her invaluable in setting a course for economic recovery."
Barr, who according to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was "a key architect" of the Wall Street bill, will return to his academic career at the University of Michigan and his family, which still lives in Ann Arbor.
"Our country is stronger, our financial system more stable, and our families better protected because of his work," Geithner said.
Amen to this article from the Heritage Foundation...It time to Act!
Don’t Give In To North Korea Demands
At 2:43 PM local time today, North Korea fired artillery rockets at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong setting dozens of residential homes ablaze, wounding three civilians and fifteen soldiers, and killing two South Korean Marines. South Korea responded with artillery fire of their own but while they placed fighter planes on alert none took off. For hours North Korea offered no explanation for the attack on the island, which is two miles south of the Northern Limit Line and eight miles from shore, but by late in the evening the official North Korean news finally acknowledged the incident claiming that the South had "recklessly fired into our sea area."
This is not the first time the North Koreans have threatened South Korea in the Yellow Sea (also called the West Sea). In August, the North fired 110 artillery shells near Yeonpyeong and another island. And in March, 46 sailors were killed when a North Korean torpedo sunk the Cheonan. Today’s artillery shelling furthers North Korea's tactical objectives of asserting sovereignty over the West Sea Area. But, more importantly, it furthers the North's strategic escalating pattern of provocations designed to force the United States and South Korea to abandon pressure tactics, including sanctions on the regime. The White House must not give into these tactics.
Pyongyang’s actions, including this weekend's revelations of a covert uranium enrichment facility, are designed to weaken U.S. and South Korean resolve and force the U.S. back to Six Party Talks on nuclear negotiations; which is exactly what China called on the U.S. to do after today's incident. So far the U.S. and South Korean governments have properly resisted North Korean demands and they must continue to do so. That the Chinese continue to abet the North Korean’s tactics should also make us think long and hard about the sort of partner/competitor we face with China.
But this incident is also another reminder of the White House's misplaced priorities. While Obama spends every waking second using Chicago-style tactics to press for ratification of the New START nuclear deal with Russia, North Korea is running amok. New START offers the US no new tools to deal with Iran and North Korea which are the clear and present danger. Instead, all New START does is tie our military's hands by limiting our capacity to build the missile defense systems necessary to deal with these regimes. The President should spend less time hawking flawed treaties to justify his Nobel Peace Prize and invest more time in fighting for peace against America's enemies.
At 2:43 PM local time today, North Korea fired artillery rockets at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong setting dozens of residential homes ablaze, wounding three civilians and fifteen soldiers, and killing two South Korean Marines. South Korea responded with artillery fire of their own but while they placed fighter planes on alert none took off. For hours North Korea offered no explanation for the attack on the island, which is two miles south of the Northern Limit Line and eight miles from shore, but by late in the evening the official North Korean news finally acknowledged the incident claiming that the South had "recklessly fired into our sea area."
This is not the first time the North Koreans have threatened South Korea in the Yellow Sea (also called the West Sea). In August, the North fired 110 artillery shells near Yeonpyeong and another island. And in March, 46 sailors were killed when a North Korean torpedo sunk the Cheonan. Today’s artillery shelling furthers North Korea's tactical objectives of asserting sovereignty over the West Sea Area. But, more importantly, it furthers the North's strategic escalating pattern of provocations designed to force the United States and South Korea to abandon pressure tactics, including sanctions on the regime. The White House must not give into these tactics.
Pyongyang’s actions, including this weekend's revelations of a covert uranium enrichment facility, are designed to weaken U.S. and South Korean resolve and force the U.S. back to Six Party Talks on nuclear negotiations; which is exactly what China called on the U.S. to do after today's incident. So far the U.S. and South Korean governments have properly resisted North Korean demands and they must continue to do so. That the Chinese continue to abet the North Korean’s tactics should also make us think long and hard about the sort of partner/competitor we face with China.
But this incident is also another reminder of the White House's misplaced priorities. While Obama spends every waking second using Chicago-style tactics to press for ratification of the New START nuclear deal with Russia, North Korea is running amok. New START offers the US no new tools to deal with Iran and North Korea which are the clear and present danger. Instead, all New START does is tie our military's hands by limiting our capacity to build the missile defense systems necessary to deal with these regimes. The President should spend less time hawking flawed treaties to justify his Nobel Peace Prize and invest more time in fighting for peace against America's enemies.
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Real Truth About the START Agreement!
The REAL truth about the Start Agreement....do NOT believe what Obama is saying...
The New Myths of New START
What do Senators Jon Kyl (R–AZ), Scott Brown (R–MA), and George Voinovich (R-OH) all have in common? One Senator is from a blue state, one from a red state, and the other is retiring from office all together. But last week each of them told the White House that, despite their belief in the need for a nuclear treaty with Russia, this lame duck is not the right time to vote on President Barack Obama’s New START.
Faced with these setbacks, the Obama Administration has gone into campaign mode, throwing out any argument they can think of to browbeat Senators into voting on the treaty now. Their favorite talking point is that none other than President Ronald Reagan himself would have supported this treaty. The President invoked Reagan’s name three times at a White House event last Thursday. And this Saturday he mentioned Reagan’s name five times in his weekly radio address. The problem is that Reagan would never have signed on to President Obama’s New START.
While President Reagan did negotiate and sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, that does not mean he would have signed any agreement that reduced U.S. nuclear weapons. As Heritage Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes notes, Reagan would never sacrifice our missile defense capabilities for treaty concessions: “Why did Ronald Reagan walk away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons if only we gave up the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why did Reagan not take him up on that offer? The reason is that Reagan believed strategic defenses were the essential ingredient in disarmament—the exact opposite of what Gorbachev’s vision was then and President Obama’s vision is today.”
And President Obama’s New START contains at least five sections that limit missile defense, including: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol, and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
Claims that Reagan would have supported New START are not the only myths emanating from the White House. Other false claims include:
(1) Without New START, terrorists would get nukes: There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
(2) Without New START, Israel’s security would be compromised: In their zeal to see the treaty passed as soon as possible, some proponents have proclaimed that New START is “a Jewish issue.” New START is only marginally relevant to Moscow’s policy in the Middle East. And not every foreign and national security issue is a “Jewish issue” because it has some tangential connection to Iran. New START should be considered on its merits.
(3) Without New START, our nuclear arsenal would not be modernized: By threatening to withhold funding unless the treaty is ratified, the White House would be playing crass politics with national security. If funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive military capability in the military’s arsenal, they should never be held hostage to a political deal. To bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis of the appropriate behavior of a commander-in-chief. It would also demonstrate the lack of the President’s real commitment to his responsibility as the steward of America’s nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New START is playing politics with our national security. If the dollars are needed, they should be provided without conditions—period.
(4) Without New START, we can’t verify Russia’s arsenal: The Administration and proponents of the treaty are also arguing for a quick “lame duck” ratification by saying that the U.S. is in danger without New START, because without a verification regime it lacks insight into Russia’s nuclear forces. This is rather amazing, considering that Administration officials have insisted that Russia is not a threat. Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.
(5) Without New START’s inspections, satellites would be diverted from other missions: The New START inspections are not nearly valuable enough to alter our satellite needs. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, told The Washington Times: “Our overall satellite capability is not what it used to be and not what it ought to be. Eighteen spot inspections a year is not going to fill the gap left by inadequate NTM capabilities. If we want better coverage of Russia’s strategic threats, we are going to have to launch more satellites.”
In his weekly address this Saturday, President Obama said about New START: “Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense—it will not.” Forgive us for not taking this President at his word. This is the same President who said Americans could keep their doctor under Obamacare, the same President who promised a net spending cut, and the same President who promised that his economic stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year. The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. And they still have not released the negotiating record. Just like Obamacare, they want votes without legislators knowing what they are voting for. If the case for New START is as strong as the Obama administration claims it is, than the White House should act like it and stop pushing for a lame duck vote.
The New Myths of New START
What do Senators Jon Kyl (R–AZ), Scott Brown (R–MA), and George Voinovich (R-OH) all have in common? One Senator is from a blue state, one from a red state, and the other is retiring from office all together. But last week each of them told the White House that, despite their belief in the need for a nuclear treaty with Russia, this lame duck is not the right time to vote on President Barack Obama’s New START.
Faced with these setbacks, the Obama Administration has gone into campaign mode, throwing out any argument they can think of to browbeat Senators into voting on the treaty now. Their favorite talking point is that none other than President Ronald Reagan himself would have supported this treaty. The President invoked Reagan’s name three times at a White House event last Thursday. And this Saturday he mentioned Reagan’s name five times in his weekly radio address. The problem is that Reagan would never have signed on to President Obama’s New START.
While President Reagan did negotiate and sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, that does not mean he would have signed any agreement that reduced U.S. nuclear weapons. As Heritage Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes notes, Reagan would never sacrifice our missile defense capabilities for treaty concessions: “Why did Ronald Reagan walk away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons if only we gave up the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why did Reagan not take him up on that offer? The reason is that Reagan believed strategic defenses were the essential ingredient in disarmament—the exact opposite of what Gorbachev’s vision was then and President Obama’s vision is today.”
And President Obama’s New START contains at least five sections that limit missile defense, including: (1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2) Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an array of provisions limit and restrict certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission, that could impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX, Part Seven of the Protocol, and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to share telemetric information from missile defense tests. This information could be used to undermine the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
Claims that Reagan would have supported New START are not the only myths emanating from the White House. Other false claims include:
(1) Without New START, terrorists would get nukes: There is a real threat that terrorists could get nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by New START!
(2) Without New START, Israel’s security would be compromised: In their zeal to see the treaty passed as soon as possible, some proponents have proclaimed that New START is “a Jewish issue.” New START is only marginally relevant to Moscow’s policy in the Middle East. And not every foreign and national security issue is a “Jewish issue” because it has some tangential connection to Iran. New START should be considered on its merits.
(3) Without New START, our nuclear arsenal would not be modernized: By threatening to withhold funding unless the treaty is ratified, the White House would be playing crass politics with national security. If funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive military capability in the military’s arsenal, they should never be held hostage to a political deal. To bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis of the appropriate behavior of a commander-in-chief. It would also demonstrate the lack of the President’s real commitment to his responsibility as the steward of America’s nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New START is playing politics with our national security. If the dollars are needed, they should be provided without conditions—period.
(4) Without New START, we can’t verify Russia’s arsenal: The Administration and proponents of the treaty are also arguing for a quick “lame duck” ratification by saying that the U.S. is in danger without New START, because without a verification regime it lacks insight into Russia’s nuclear forces. This is rather amazing, considering that Administration officials have insisted that Russia is not a threat. Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.
(5) Without New START’s inspections, satellites would be diverted from other missions: The New START inspections are not nearly valuable enough to alter our satellite needs. Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation, told The Washington Times: “Our overall satellite capability is not what it used to be and not what it ought to be. Eighteen spot inspections a year is not going to fill the gap left by inadequate NTM capabilities. If we want better coverage of Russia’s strategic threats, we are going to have to launch more satellites.”
In his weekly address this Saturday, President Obama said about New START: “Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense—it will not.” Forgive us for not taking this President at his word. This is the same President who said Americans could keep their doctor under Obamacare, the same President who promised a net spending cut, and the same President who promised that his economic stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8 percent. The Senate considered the original START for nearly a year. The Obama Administration took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but has sought approval from the Senate in less than five. And they still have not released the negotiating record. Just like Obamacare, they want votes without legislators knowing what they are voting for. If the case for New START is as strong as the Obama administration claims it is, than the White House should act like it and stop pushing for a lame duck vote.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The REAL truth about the GM Deal....Not a good deal for the American Taxpayer!
The REAL truth about the GM Deal....it wasn't such a good deal for taxpayers...and it shouldn't be repeated despite the Obama spin that's out there....From the Heritage Foundation!
Our Economy Can't Afford More GM "Success" Stories
Celebrating the company’s Wednesday initial public offering, President Barack Obama last night called his government takeover of General Motors a "success story." "American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM," he said. Left unsaid is the fact that if the Obama Administration keeps selling their GM stock at the IPO price, the U.S. taxpayer will lose $10 billion on the deal, and that does not include the loans GM still owes, cash for clunkers, the Chevy Volt subsidies, or the millions of unseen costs the unprecedented intervention has inflicted on our economy.
No matter what you hear from the President’s defenders, always remember that it did not have to be this way. As late as April 30, GM’s bondholders were willing to take a 58 percent equity stake in the company in exchange for canceling their $27 billion in unsecured GM bonds. But under their deal, the federal government would have had no control over this new company, while the United Auto Workers union would have received a minority share of the company and the taxpayers would have been protected as a secured creditor. An even better outcome would have been for the federal government not to have supplied taxpayer cash at all and let all creditors take their lumps from an unbiased bankruptcy judge. But President Obama just couldn’t keep his government out of it.
So he publicly bullied the GM bondholders into accepting a much worse deal. Under the White House plan, the federal government was awarded a 60 percent stake of GM, the Canadian government got 12.5 percent, and GM’s unions got 17.5 percent while the bondholders walked away with just 10 percent. Defenders of the bailout say all this was worthwhile because the effects of a failure of GM would have been catastrophic. But that ignores both the deal the bondholders first offered the unions and the possibility of an expedited—but non-political—bankruptcy proceeding.
Before this week, taxpayers put $49.5 billion into GM and held a majority stake in the company. The IPO allowed the Treasury to sell about a quarter of this at $33 per share, raising $13.6 billion. That leaves taxpayers, post-IPO, with $35.9 billion "invested" and about a 37 percent stake in the company. At $33 per share, that leaves taxpayers still almost $10 billion in the hole. The shares would have to jump to $51 for taxpayers to break even, a price level considered by most analysts to be unlikely.
But perhaps the biggest danger of all is the prospect of the GM “success” being used to justify future bailouts of other firms. That would be the true catastrophe. As George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux wrote:
The chief economic case against the bailout was not that huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production, thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-dynamic, and more productive industries. The “success” of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but nevertheless real.
The legal and political chicanery used by the White House to produce the GM “success” story is also exactly why the United States fell from the ranks of the economically “free,” as measured by The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom this year. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
Our Economy Can't Afford More GM "Success" Stories
Celebrating the company’s Wednesday initial public offering, President Barack Obama last night called his government takeover of General Motors a "success story." "American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM," he said. Left unsaid is the fact that if the Obama Administration keeps selling their GM stock at the IPO price, the U.S. taxpayer will lose $10 billion on the deal, and that does not include the loans GM still owes, cash for clunkers, the Chevy Volt subsidies, or the millions of unseen costs the unprecedented intervention has inflicted on our economy.
No matter what you hear from the President’s defenders, always remember that it did not have to be this way. As late as April 30, GM’s bondholders were willing to take a 58 percent equity stake in the company in exchange for canceling their $27 billion in unsecured GM bonds. But under their deal, the federal government would have had no control over this new company, while the United Auto Workers union would have received a minority share of the company and the taxpayers would have been protected as a secured creditor. An even better outcome would have been for the federal government not to have supplied taxpayer cash at all and let all creditors take their lumps from an unbiased bankruptcy judge. But President Obama just couldn’t keep his government out of it.
So he publicly bullied the GM bondholders into accepting a much worse deal. Under the White House plan, the federal government was awarded a 60 percent stake of GM, the Canadian government got 12.5 percent, and GM’s unions got 17.5 percent while the bondholders walked away with just 10 percent. Defenders of the bailout say all this was worthwhile because the effects of a failure of GM would have been catastrophic. But that ignores both the deal the bondholders first offered the unions and the possibility of an expedited—but non-political—bankruptcy proceeding.
Before this week, taxpayers put $49.5 billion into GM and held a majority stake in the company. The IPO allowed the Treasury to sell about a quarter of this at $33 per share, raising $13.6 billion. That leaves taxpayers, post-IPO, with $35.9 billion "invested" and about a 37 percent stake in the company. At $33 per share, that leaves taxpayers still almost $10 billion in the hole. The shares would have to jump to $51 for taxpayers to break even, a price level considered by most analysts to be unlikely.
But perhaps the biggest danger of all is the prospect of the GM “success” being used to justify future bailouts of other firms. That would be the true catastrophe. As George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux wrote:
The chief economic case against the bailout was not that huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production, thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-dynamic, and more productive industries. The “success” of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but nevertheless real.
The legal and political chicanery used by the White House to produce the GM “success” story is also exactly why the United States fell from the ranks of the economically “free,” as measured by The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom this year. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Obama....Here he goes again off another tangent...
Here he goes again....not caring about jobs, the economy...just off on another tangent.....The republicans need to push this discussion until next year when they will have time to really review it rather than just pushing it through....
Obama Says Ratifying START Treaty With Russia Is Top Priority for U.S.
Published November 18, 2010 | Associated Press
President Obama says Senate ratification of a pending arms treaty with Russia this year is a national security imperative.
Obama told reporters on Thursday the stakes for America are clear -- and high.
He spoke during a meeting with top aides and key backers of the pact, including former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, and former defense secretaries William Cohen and William Perry.
The New START treaty would slash deployed arsenals on both sides by roughly a third. But its passage has been thrown into doubt by GOP calls to delay consideration until the new Congress convenes in January.
Obama Says Ratifying START Treaty With Russia Is Top Priority for U.S.
Published November 18, 2010 | Associated Press
President Obama says Senate ratification of a pending arms treaty with Russia this year is a national security imperative.
Obama told reporters on Thursday the stakes for America are clear -- and high.
He spoke during a meeting with top aides and key backers of the pact, including former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, and former defense secretaries William Cohen and William Perry.
The New START treaty would slash deployed arsenals on both sides by roughly a third. But its passage has been thrown into doubt by GOP calls to delay consideration until the new Congress convenes in January.
More Big Govenment...Obama, Pelosi and Reid just don't get it!
The Obama, Pelosi and "Dirty" Harry Reid trio are at it again...more big government...more bureaucracy....more spending....this time it's the FDA...Don't the Democrats get the message the American People sent on November 2nd....Where is the action to get the American People employed?...to help private business pull us out of the recession?...where is the action to reduce regulation rather than continuing to increase regulation to the point no one can afford to be in business....THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!!!!!!
Does The FDA Really Need More Power?
Our long national nightmare is over. Phusion Projects, the makers of Four Loko brand caffeinated malt beverages, announced yesterday that it will remove the caffeine from its products. Phusion’s decisions came just one day after Senator Chuck Schumer (D–NY) pushed the Food and Drug Administration to ban “these dangerous and toxic drinks.”
Unfortunately Schumer never explained what exactly makes these drinks “dangerous and toxic.” For now, Americans are still free to buy malt beverages. And for a limited time they are also still free to buy caffeinated drinks like coffee and Red Bull. So please, nobody tell Schumer how easy it is to buy alcohol and caffeine and mix them together. Because then Schumer might pressure the FDA to take away your morning coffee and table wine, too.
The reality is that there is little known medical evidence that caffeinated malt beverages are less safe than other alcoholic drinks. But that fact is no defense against current FDA power to ban products it deems unsafe for the American people. And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) wants to grant the FDA even more unaccountable administrative authority. Specifically, he is pushing for passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act in the lame duck session that opened this week.
Representative John Dingell (D–MI), who sponsored the companion bill approved by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) House in July 2009, hailed the proposed act as “a monumental piece of bipartisan legislation that will grant FDA the authorities and resources needed to effectively oversee an increasingly global food marketplace.” And it is true: Our food marketplace is increasingly global. But that does not mean it is any less safe. In fact, the data show that just the opposite is true: Between 1996 and 2009 the rate of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination has fallen by a third. But science has never been FDA’s strong suit. According to a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, only 36 percent of FDA managers believe the agency is keeping pace with scientific advances.
So just how big an expansion of government does Dingell, Pelosi, and Reid want to inflict on the American people to combat a non-existent food safety crisis? Well, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would require 50,000 domestic and foreign inspections in 2015, compared to just 7,400 in 2009. That is a sevenfold increase in government inspections. And the government would be reaching into a lot of new places as well. The act requires that all food “facilities”—including those home-based businesses that make jam, bread, and cheese for local markets—would be required to undertake periodic hazard analyses and produce “risk-based preventive controls.”
And then there is the wasteful spending that accompanies every liberal expansion of government: grants to schools for allergy management ($107 million); food safety training, education, outreach, and technical assistance ($21 million); and food safety participation grants for states and tribes ($83 million). Heritage Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Diane Katz writes: “The Reid bill clearly contradicts the message sent by voters just two weeks ago: Americans do not want and cannot afford yet more unnecessary regulation and expansion of government. This proposal constitutes a costly and ineffective answer to a manufactured crisis.”
Does The FDA Really Need More Power?
Our long national nightmare is over. Phusion Projects, the makers of Four Loko brand caffeinated malt beverages, announced yesterday that it will remove the caffeine from its products. Phusion’s decisions came just one day after Senator Chuck Schumer (D–NY) pushed the Food and Drug Administration to ban “these dangerous and toxic drinks.”
Unfortunately Schumer never explained what exactly makes these drinks “dangerous and toxic.” For now, Americans are still free to buy malt beverages. And for a limited time they are also still free to buy caffeinated drinks like coffee and Red Bull. So please, nobody tell Schumer how easy it is to buy alcohol and caffeine and mix them together. Because then Schumer might pressure the FDA to take away your morning coffee and table wine, too.
The reality is that there is little known medical evidence that caffeinated malt beverages are less safe than other alcoholic drinks. But that fact is no defense against current FDA power to ban products it deems unsafe for the American people. And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) wants to grant the FDA even more unaccountable administrative authority. Specifically, he is pushing for passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act in the lame duck session that opened this week.
Representative John Dingell (D–MI), who sponsored the companion bill approved by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) House in July 2009, hailed the proposed act as “a monumental piece of bipartisan legislation that will grant FDA the authorities and resources needed to effectively oversee an increasingly global food marketplace.” And it is true: Our food marketplace is increasingly global. But that does not mean it is any less safe. In fact, the data show that just the opposite is true: Between 1996 and 2009 the rate of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination has fallen by a third. But science has never been FDA’s strong suit. According to a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, only 36 percent of FDA managers believe the agency is keeping pace with scientific advances.
So just how big an expansion of government does Dingell, Pelosi, and Reid want to inflict on the American people to combat a non-existent food safety crisis? Well, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would require 50,000 domestic and foreign inspections in 2015, compared to just 7,400 in 2009. That is a sevenfold increase in government inspections. And the government would be reaching into a lot of new places as well. The act requires that all food “facilities”—including those home-based businesses that make jam, bread, and cheese for local markets—would be required to undertake periodic hazard analyses and produce “risk-based preventive controls.”
And then there is the wasteful spending that accompanies every liberal expansion of government: grants to schools for allergy management ($107 million); food safety training, education, outreach, and technical assistance ($21 million); and food safety participation grants for states and tribes ($83 million). Heritage Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Diane Katz writes: “The Reid bill clearly contradicts the message sent by voters just two weeks ago: Americans do not want and cannot afford yet more unnecessary regulation and expansion of government. This proposal constitutes a costly and ineffective answer to a manufactured crisis.”
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
More Evidence that Obama's DOJ is absolutely partisan and corrupt!
More evidence about just how corrupt, partisan Obama's Department of Justice is under the direct leadership of Eric Holder....the whole bunch is just corrupt and that's pretty disgusting to have to say about America's DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
Author of DOJ report targeting NJ Governor Chris Christie has history of using position for political purposes, sources say
By Amanda Carey - The Daily Caller | Published: 12:28 AM 11/16/2010
The Daily Caller has learned that the author behind the recent report from the Department of Justice that targeted five former U.S. attorneys for excessive travel expenses has had, according to our sources, a troubled history in the DOJ and attempted in the past to use her position to smear conservatives.
When the report surfaced last week, the investigation’s timing and targeting especially of New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who has steadily been raising his national profile, raised red flags.
According to the DOJ report, Christie — favored by many conservatives to run against President Obama in 2012 — spent a total of about $2,000 more than his budget allowed on 23 trips he took between 2007 and 2009. Almost immediately after the report’s release, conservative media and the blogosphere lit up with accusations that the report was politically motivated and meant to malign a rising star in the Republican Party.
Tom Fitton, the president of DOJ watchdog organization Judicial Watch, agreed with that sentiment, telling TheDC that his first instinct was that the report was nothing more than a hit job from an “ideological and hostile Justice Department that leaked the report.”
New information obtained by TheDC shows that that narrative may be true.
The report’s author, Maura Lee, began her DOJ career in the civil rights division, but now works in the DOJ Office of Inspector General. Hans von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, supervised Lee and told TheDC that he was “astonished” when he found out she was the author of the report.
According to von Spakovsky, Lee was “one of the most belligerent, unprofessional lawyers” he encountered during his time at the DOJ. “Because of her,” he said, “we had to completely change our security protocol.”
Another former senior DOJ official who asked not to be named confirmed Lee’s involvement in strategizing to leak information to the Washington Post, saying that she was not a trustworthy person and had major political motivations.
Von Spakovsky described one case where Lee was caught breaking into the e-mail of a colleague, Joshua Rogers, specifically because Rogers was conservative and Christian. “Lee was radically left. She made it plain that she didn’t like Rogers,” von Spakovsky said.
He went on to call Lee’s efforts at DOJ a “major security breach.”
“She was one of the most partisan career people I ever met,” von Spakovsky told TheDC. So partisan, in fact, that he describes Lee as someone who would encourage other DOJ lawyers not to pursue cases so that the Bush administration would not be able to take credit for being progressive on voter and civil rights issues.
When asked, von Spakovsky said Lee is “so biased, there is no way she could investigate and write an objective report. I can’t imagine anyone more inappropriate to be working on this kind of report in the IG office.”
According to another former DOJ employee who worked closely with Lee, Lee first got into trouble while working in the Voters Rights Division during the Bush administration. There, according to the former coworker, Lee was caught breaking into other employees’ e-mail accounts and spreading around personal information.
The former coworker also alleges that Lee sent out e-mails to the more “left-leaning DOJ employees,” suggesting that they leak sensitive information to the Washington Post. According to this former DOJ employee, once Lee was found out, the entire security system within the Voters Rights Division had to be revamped.
Not only that, but according to this source, Lee’s superiors – including von Spakovsky – were authorized by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to search her e-mails. They found evidence of Lee’s attempts to leak information to the Washington Post on, among other things, the Texas redistricting issue in 2005 when a handful of DOJ attorneys argued the new plan was unconstitutional because it unfairly favored Republicans.
Shortly thereafter, Lee moved to the Inspector General’s office, where she authored this latest report. Although the report did not mention Christie by name, it mirrored accusations made in 2009 about Christie’s travel expenses that nearly derailed his gubernatorial campaign.
When contacted by TheDC, Lee refused to comment.
Both von Spakovsky and the former DOJ employee are of the opinion that considering the history of its author, the recent report targeting Chris Christie is absolutely politically motivated. Moreover, both said that another IG report was also done on internal travel expenses of DOJ employees that, in some cases, exceeded the budget limit by tens of thousands of dollars. That report, however, was never released.
“There is absolutely no logical explanation for why this report [for the five attorneys general] would get leaked and the one about internal employees was kept confidential,” said von Spakovsky.
Christie’s office has not yet returned TheDC’s request for comment.
Author of DOJ report targeting NJ Governor Chris Christie has history of using position for political purposes, sources say
By Amanda Carey - The Daily Caller | Published: 12:28 AM 11/16/2010
The Daily Caller has learned that the author behind the recent report from the Department of Justice that targeted five former U.S. attorneys for excessive travel expenses has had, according to our sources, a troubled history in the DOJ and attempted in the past to use her position to smear conservatives.
When the report surfaced last week, the investigation’s timing and targeting especially of New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who has steadily been raising his national profile, raised red flags.
According to the DOJ report, Christie — favored by many conservatives to run against President Obama in 2012 — spent a total of about $2,000 more than his budget allowed on 23 trips he took between 2007 and 2009. Almost immediately after the report’s release, conservative media and the blogosphere lit up with accusations that the report was politically motivated and meant to malign a rising star in the Republican Party.
Tom Fitton, the president of DOJ watchdog organization Judicial Watch, agreed with that sentiment, telling TheDC that his first instinct was that the report was nothing more than a hit job from an “ideological and hostile Justice Department that leaked the report.”
New information obtained by TheDC shows that that narrative may be true.
The report’s author, Maura Lee, began her DOJ career in the civil rights division, but now works in the DOJ Office of Inspector General. Hans von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights, supervised Lee and told TheDC that he was “astonished” when he found out she was the author of the report.
According to von Spakovsky, Lee was “one of the most belligerent, unprofessional lawyers” he encountered during his time at the DOJ. “Because of her,” he said, “we had to completely change our security protocol.”
Another former senior DOJ official who asked not to be named confirmed Lee’s involvement in strategizing to leak information to the Washington Post, saying that she was not a trustworthy person and had major political motivations.
Von Spakovsky described one case where Lee was caught breaking into the e-mail of a colleague, Joshua Rogers, specifically because Rogers was conservative and Christian. “Lee was radically left. She made it plain that she didn’t like Rogers,” von Spakovsky said.
He went on to call Lee’s efforts at DOJ a “major security breach.”
“She was one of the most partisan career people I ever met,” von Spakovsky told TheDC. So partisan, in fact, that he describes Lee as someone who would encourage other DOJ lawyers not to pursue cases so that the Bush administration would not be able to take credit for being progressive on voter and civil rights issues.
When asked, von Spakovsky said Lee is “so biased, there is no way she could investigate and write an objective report. I can’t imagine anyone more inappropriate to be working on this kind of report in the IG office.”
According to another former DOJ employee who worked closely with Lee, Lee first got into trouble while working in the Voters Rights Division during the Bush administration. There, according to the former coworker, Lee was caught breaking into other employees’ e-mail accounts and spreading around personal information.
The former coworker also alleges that Lee sent out e-mails to the more “left-leaning DOJ employees,” suggesting that they leak sensitive information to the Washington Post. According to this former DOJ employee, once Lee was found out, the entire security system within the Voters Rights Division had to be revamped.
Not only that, but according to this source, Lee’s superiors – including von Spakovsky – were authorized by the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to search her e-mails. They found evidence of Lee’s attempts to leak information to the Washington Post on, among other things, the Texas redistricting issue in 2005 when a handful of DOJ attorneys argued the new plan was unconstitutional because it unfairly favored Republicans.
Shortly thereafter, Lee moved to the Inspector General’s office, where she authored this latest report. Although the report did not mention Christie by name, it mirrored accusations made in 2009 about Christie’s travel expenses that nearly derailed his gubernatorial campaign.
When contacted by TheDC, Lee refused to comment.
Both von Spakovsky and the former DOJ employee are of the opinion that considering the history of its author, the recent report targeting Chris Christie is absolutely politically motivated. Moreover, both said that another IG report was also done on internal travel expenses of DOJ employees that, in some cases, exceeded the budget limit by tens of thousands of dollars. That report, however, was never released.
“There is absolutely no logical explanation for why this report [for the five attorneys general] would get leaked and the one about internal employees was kept confidential,” said von Spakovsky.
Christie’s office has not yet returned TheDC’s request for comment.
Obama....Dirty Backroom Dealing Again!
More Dirty Dealing by the Obama Administration to try to BUY ratification of the START Treaty....and now they are trying to buy Republican Votes....We'll see how committed republicans are to doing the right thing and standing up for what ir RIGHT not what is BOUGHT!
National Security Shouldn't Be For Sale
The Washington Post reports this morning that the fate of a lame duck vote on New START rests on just one man: Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ). According to the Post’s sources, other Republicans in Congress have “kind of delegated” New START to Kyl, meaning that if the Obama Administration wins his vote, the nine total Republican votes needed to reach 67 votes would be easy to find. That is why the White House dispatched General Kevin Chilton to Arizona last Friday, and it is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to meet with Kyl later this week.
In what the Post describes as a “high-octane lobbying” campaign, Gates has already offered Kyl an extra $4 billion in spending on nuclear programs in exchange for his vote. This is on top of the existing $10 billion Administration pledge. This deal is bad policy and deplorable politics.
First of all, the White House has no standing to make this offer. Most of the proposed spending is in the out years beyond President Obama’s term, and the White House does not pass budgets; Congress does. How can any conservative take a White House promise for future funding on faith before the 2012 budget has been written? Instead, the White House has demanded a vote in the lame duck—before even the 2011 budget is approved. Second, the Obama Administration is not drawing this $4 billion from their own domestic priorities; they are shifting it from other defense priorities. The bottom line is that this deal, even if followed through, would just weaken the military elsewhere.
And all this money isn’t going to real nuclear modernization. Remember, President Obama’s goal is to reduce the number of our nuclear weapons to zero, not build new ones. That is why the billions in “modernization” are actually being dumped into federal labs and universities without spelling out a clear military mission for their activities. And there are other problems with the treaty as well. The verification measures are completely inadequate, and the treaty places restrictions on U.S. missile defense options in at least five areas.
Treaties such as New START require more scrutiny than others. The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and, specifically, how the Russians interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the rushed process the White House is seeking.
But most importantly, if this $4 billion is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal, then it is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for an effective nuclear deterrent on New START is playing politics with our national security. Earlier this month the American people sent an unequivocal message to Washington that business as usual must stop. Ratifying New START in a lame duck session on the back of a $4 billion payout would be a clear rejection of that message.
National Security Shouldn't Be For Sale
The Washington Post reports this morning that the fate of a lame duck vote on New START rests on just one man: Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ). According to the Post’s sources, other Republicans in Congress have “kind of delegated” New START to Kyl, meaning that if the Obama Administration wins his vote, the nine total Republican votes needed to reach 67 votes would be easy to find. That is why the White House dispatched General Kevin Chilton to Arizona last Friday, and it is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates is scheduled to meet with Kyl later this week.
In what the Post describes as a “high-octane lobbying” campaign, Gates has already offered Kyl an extra $4 billion in spending on nuclear programs in exchange for his vote. This is on top of the existing $10 billion Administration pledge. This deal is bad policy and deplorable politics.
First of all, the White House has no standing to make this offer. Most of the proposed spending is in the out years beyond President Obama’s term, and the White House does not pass budgets; Congress does. How can any conservative take a White House promise for future funding on faith before the 2012 budget has been written? Instead, the White House has demanded a vote in the lame duck—before even the 2011 budget is approved. Second, the Obama Administration is not drawing this $4 billion from their own domestic priorities; they are shifting it from other defense priorities. The bottom line is that this deal, even if followed through, would just weaken the military elsewhere.
And all this money isn’t going to real nuclear modernization. Remember, President Obama’s goal is to reduce the number of our nuclear weapons to zero, not build new ones. That is why the billions in “modernization” are actually being dumped into federal labs and universities without spelling out a clear military mission for their activities. And there are other problems with the treaty as well. The verification measures are completely inadequate, and the treaty places restrictions on U.S. missile defense options in at least five areas.
Treaties such as New START require more scrutiny than others. The Senate needs access to the negotiating record that includes all draft versions of New START, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. This record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and, specifically, how the Russians interpret them. The Senate is constitutionally mandated to give due diligence in its consideration of New START. This responsibility is not consistent with the rushed process the White House is seeking.
But most importantly, if this $4 billion is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal, then it is needed to maintain our nuclear arsenal. Conditioning funding for an effective nuclear deterrent on New START is playing politics with our national security. Earlier this month the American people sent an unequivocal message to Washington that business as usual must stop. Ratifying New START in a lame duck session on the back of a $4 billion payout would be a clear rejection of that message.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Rangel Needs to Be Sent Home From Congress...PERMANENTLY!
Ethics panel begins deliberations in Rangel case
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Larry Margasak, Associated Press –
WASHINGTON – Shortly after veteran Rep. Charles Rangel of New York walked out of his ethics trial in protest, a House panel began closed-door deliberations Monday on 13 counts of alleged financial and fundraising misconduct that could bring formal condemnation.
Only recently one of the most powerful members of Congress, Rangel was reduced to pleading in vain for colleagues to give him time to raise money for a lawyer before taking up the charges. The 80-year-old congressman left when they said no, and the rare proceeding — only the second for this type of hearing in two decades — went on without him.
An ethics committee panel of four Democrats and four Republicans was sitting as a jury in the case late Monday. The official acting as prosecutor said the facts were so clear there was no need to call witnesses, and panel members apparently agreed.
If the panel members decide Rangel violated any House rules, the full committee will hold a hearing on how he should be punished. The most likely sanction would be a House vote deploring his conduct.
Rangel, a 20-term congressman representing New York's famed Harlem neighborhood, implored the ethics panel for further delay, saying that "50 years of public service is on the line." But the panel basically decided that the 2 1/2-year-old case had gone on long enough — and Congress had little time left to deal with it in the lame duck session that commenced Monday.
Rangel said he had run out of money after paying his previous attorneys some $2 million and needed time to set up a legal defense fund to raise an additional $1 million.
Until last spring, Rangel had wielded great influence as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a gravelly voiced, outgoing figure who raised millions for fellow lawmakers' campaigns. He relinquished that chairmanship in March after being admonished by an ethics panel for taking corporate trips to the Caribbean in violation of House rules. There was no further punishment for that, but the current charges are another matter.
After Rangel left Monday's hearing, House ethics committee chief counsel Blake Chisam pushed for a decision on the 13 counts of fundraising and financial conduct that allegedly violated House rules. Chisam, assuming the role of prosecutor, played a video of Rangel's speech on the House floor in August in which the congressman acknowledged that he'd used House stationery to raise money for a college center named after him, and that he'd been tardy in filing taxes and financial disclosure statements.
He said then that he never intended to break any rules.
Chisam told the panel of four Republicans and four Democrats that there were no questions "as to any material facts in this case. As a result the case is ripe for a decision."
Chisam also said, "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel. Rather, he suggested, the congressman was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."
Chisam said Rangel could have legally raised money for the Charles B. Rangel Center at City College of New York by asking the ethics committee for permission to solicit nonprofit organizations. However, he would not have been able to use congressional letterheads or employees in the fundraising, as he is charged with doing.
The counsel also said Rangel used a subsidized apartment in New York City as a campaign office when the lease required that it be for residential use only.
"At the same time, the landlord was evicting other tenants at an increased rate" for failing to follow the same lease terms, Chisam said.
Several members of the panel criticized Rangel's lawyers for leaving the case just weeks before the hearing.
Vermont Democratic Rep. Peter Welch said that no law firm should be "taking the money ... and kicking their client by the side of the road."
Rangel's former lawyer, Leslie Berger Kiernan, did not immediately respond.
If the ethic panel finds that Rangel broke the rules, the House ethics committee could recommend that the full House vote to condemn his conduct.
"My family has caught hell" in the investigation, Rangel said in asking for more time. Earlier this fall, he had pleaded for a quick decision before the November elections. He won re-election.
The ethics committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told Rangel that time was an issue since this Congress will soon adjourn. He responded that his fate should not depend on the congressional calendar.
"I truly believe I am not being treated fairly," Rangel said.
The ethics investigation goes back to at least July 2008. Only former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, who was expelled from the House after a criminal conviction, has faced a similar trial since current House ethics procedures were adopted two decades ago.
Key charges portray Rangel as a veteran congressman who thought he could ignore rules on disclosing his assets, and improperly used official resources to raise money for a college center that was a monument to his career.
Another allegation that caught the public's eye was his failure to declare rental income to the IRS from a resort unit he owned in the Dominican Republic.
The charges allege violations of:
_A House gift ban and restrictions on solicitations. Rangel is accused of using congressional staff, letterhead and workspace to seek donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The requests usually went to charitable arms of businesses with issues before Congress, including Rangel's Ways and Means Committee.
_A U.S. government code of ethics. Several allegations fall under this code, among them: accepting favors (the Rangel Center donations) that could be construed as influencing Rangel's congressional duties; acceptance of a rent-subsidized New York apartment used as a campaign office, when the lease said it was for residential use only, and failure to report taxable income.
_The Ethics in Government Act and a companion House rule requiring "full and complete" public reports of a congressman's income, assets and liabilities each year. Rangel is charged with a pattern of submitting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure statements. He filed amended reports covering 1998 to 2007 only after the investigative ethics panel began looking into his disclosures. He belatedly reported at least $600,000 in assets.
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Larry Margasak, Associated Press –
WASHINGTON – Shortly after veteran Rep. Charles Rangel of New York walked out of his ethics trial in protest, a House panel began closed-door deliberations Monday on 13 counts of alleged financial and fundraising misconduct that could bring formal condemnation.
Only recently one of the most powerful members of Congress, Rangel was reduced to pleading in vain for colleagues to give him time to raise money for a lawyer before taking up the charges. The 80-year-old congressman left when they said no, and the rare proceeding — only the second for this type of hearing in two decades — went on without him.
An ethics committee panel of four Democrats and four Republicans was sitting as a jury in the case late Monday. The official acting as prosecutor said the facts were so clear there was no need to call witnesses, and panel members apparently agreed.
If the panel members decide Rangel violated any House rules, the full committee will hold a hearing on how he should be punished. The most likely sanction would be a House vote deploring his conduct.
Rangel, a 20-term congressman representing New York's famed Harlem neighborhood, implored the ethics panel for further delay, saying that "50 years of public service is on the line." But the panel basically decided that the 2 1/2-year-old case had gone on long enough — and Congress had little time left to deal with it in the lame duck session that commenced Monday.
Rangel said he had run out of money after paying his previous attorneys some $2 million and needed time to set up a legal defense fund to raise an additional $1 million.
Until last spring, Rangel had wielded great influence as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a gravelly voiced, outgoing figure who raised millions for fellow lawmakers' campaigns. He relinquished that chairmanship in March after being admonished by an ethics panel for taking corporate trips to the Caribbean in violation of House rules. There was no further punishment for that, but the current charges are another matter.
After Rangel left Monday's hearing, House ethics committee chief counsel Blake Chisam pushed for a decision on the 13 counts of fundraising and financial conduct that allegedly violated House rules. Chisam, assuming the role of prosecutor, played a video of Rangel's speech on the House floor in August in which the congressman acknowledged that he'd used House stationery to raise money for a college center named after him, and that he'd been tardy in filing taxes and financial disclosure statements.
He said then that he never intended to break any rules.
Chisam told the panel of four Republicans and four Democrats that there were no questions "as to any material facts in this case. As a result the case is ripe for a decision."
Chisam also said, "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel. Rather, he suggested, the congressman was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."
Chisam said Rangel could have legally raised money for the Charles B. Rangel Center at City College of New York by asking the ethics committee for permission to solicit nonprofit organizations. However, he would not have been able to use congressional letterheads or employees in the fundraising, as he is charged with doing.
The counsel also said Rangel used a subsidized apartment in New York City as a campaign office when the lease required that it be for residential use only.
"At the same time, the landlord was evicting other tenants at an increased rate" for failing to follow the same lease terms, Chisam said.
Several members of the panel criticized Rangel's lawyers for leaving the case just weeks before the hearing.
Vermont Democratic Rep. Peter Welch said that no law firm should be "taking the money ... and kicking their client by the side of the road."
Rangel's former lawyer, Leslie Berger Kiernan, did not immediately respond.
If the ethic panel finds that Rangel broke the rules, the House ethics committee could recommend that the full House vote to condemn his conduct.
"My family has caught hell" in the investigation, Rangel said in asking for more time. Earlier this fall, he had pleaded for a quick decision before the November elections. He won re-election.
The ethics committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told Rangel that time was an issue since this Congress will soon adjourn. He responded that his fate should not depend on the congressional calendar.
"I truly believe I am not being treated fairly," Rangel said.
The ethics investigation goes back to at least July 2008. Only former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, who was expelled from the House after a criminal conviction, has faced a similar trial since current House ethics procedures were adopted two decades ago.
Key charges portray Rangel as a veteran congressman who thought he could ignore rules on disclosing his assets, and improperly used official resources to raise money for a college center that was a monument to his career.
Another allegation that caught the public's eye was his failure to declare rental income to the IRS from a resort unit he owned in the Dominican Republic.
The charges allege violations of:
_A House gift ban and restrictions on solicitations. Rangel is accused of using congressional staff, letterhead and workspace to seek donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The requests usually went to charitable arms of businesses with issues before Congress, including Rangel's Ways and Means Committee.
_A U.S. government code of ethics. Several allegations fall under this code, among them: accepting favors (the Rangel Center donations) that could be construed as influencing Rangel's congressional duties; acceptance of a rent-subsidized New York apartment used as a campaign office, when the lease said it was for residential use only, and failure to report taxable income.
_The Ethics in Government Act and a companion House rule requiring "full and complete" public reports of a congressman's income, assets and liabilities each year. Rangel is charged with a pattern of submitting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure statements. He filed amended reports covering 1998 to 2007 only after the investigative ethics panel began looking into his disclosures. He belatedly reported at least $600,000 in assets.
More Evidence of Obama's Incompetency....
From today's Heritage Foundation ----
A Failing Agenda Fails
President Barack Obama returned from Asia yesterday, and the headlines greeting him home are not kind. “Obama’s economic view is rejected on world stage,” reads The New York Times; “Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal,” says The Washington Post; and ABC News declares, “President Obama Falls Short on G-20 Goals: Failure to Deliver on Key Trade Goals Reveals Limits of American Influence.” These headlines are only half-right: Yes, President Obama did fail to deliver on his agenda in Asia, but the culprit is not declining American influence. The problem is a losing agenda set by the President himself.
Let’s start with the South Korea–U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS). Typical among media outlets, The Washington Post referred to KORUS as “the nearly complete South Korea deal, which Obama inherited from the George W. Bush administration.” This is just plain false. KORUS was completed and signed three years ago. All the agreement needs is leadership from President Obama to get it approved in the Senate. But free trade is not a priority of President Obama. Instead, he unilaterally reopened negotiations on two items: beef and autos.
Yes, South Korea did temporarily close its market to U.S. beef after a mad cow scare, American beef has been back in South Korea for two years, and sales are rapidly climbing. The major U.S. beef exporter groups have publicly declared they are satisfied with the existing KORUS agreement, but President Obama is demanding more changes anyway.
While there is pressure from domestic automakers for more concessions from South Korea, their demands keep changing. In 2007, U.S. automakers were demanding that South Korea adopt stricter environmental standards on their cars. But now, three years later, President Obama is demanding the opposite: that U.S. cars be exempt from Korea’s more stringent emissions standards. The only consistent principle here is hostility to free trade.
And hostility to trade will cost an already ailing U.S. economy. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports would increase $10–11 billion annually if KORUS passed, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that KORUS would lead to an increase of 250,000 jobs. Meanwhile, failure to enact the agreement would lead to a loss of $35 billion in exports and 345,000 jobs.
After he failed to get a new deal with South Korea on trade, President Obama then failed to get the G-20 to take any action limiting trade imbalances. Again, policy was the problem: Efforts to limit global imbalances run headlong into huge American budget deficits and extremely loose money that are explicitly intended to increase American demand, which is the single biggest factor in imbalances in the first place.
Heritage Foundation analyst Bruce Klingner comments: “Obama’s decision to allow the talks to collapse—and make no mistake, the decision was made at the presidential level—was a colossal blunder. It reflects serious shortcomings in his strategic thinking since it will have dramatic repercussions for U.S. foreign policy. Not only does it show the emperor has no clothes when claiming he favors free trade, but unless he can get this back in the very quick order he referenced in Seoul, the U.S. will lose all credibility in pushing other trade issues, such as the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Walking away from the KORUS will hurt U.S. economic recovery, strain relations with a key U.S. ally, and undermine American trade objectives—a true trifecta of failure.”
A Failing Agenda Fails
President Barack Obama returned from Asia yesterday, and the headlines greeting him home are not kind. “Obama’s economic view is rejected on world stage,” reads The New York Times; “Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal,” says The Washington Post; and ABC News declares, “President Obama Falls Short on G-20 Goals: Failure to Deliver on Key Trade Goals Reveals Limits of American Influence.” These headlines are only half-right: Yes, President Obama did fail to deliver on his agenda in Asia, but the culprit is not declining American influence. The problem is a losing agenda set by the President himself.
Let’s start with the South Korea–U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS). Typical among media outlets, The Washington Post referred to KORUS as “the nearly complete South Korea deal, which Obama inherited from the George W. Bush administration.” This is just plain false. KORUS was completed and signed three years ago. All the agreement needs is leadership from President Obama to get it approved in the Senate. But free trade is not a priority of President Obama. Instead, he unilaterally reopened negotiations on two items: beef and autos.
Yes, South Korea did temporarily close its market to U.S. beef after a mad cow scare, American beef has been back in South Korea for two years, and sales are rapidly climbing. The major U.S. beef exporter groups have publicly declared they are satisfied with the existing KORUS agreement, but President Obama is demanding more changes anyway.
While there is pressure from domestic automakers for more concessions from South Korea, their demands keep changing. In 2007, U.S. automakers were demanding that South Korea adopt stricter environmental standards on their cars. But now, three years later, President Obama is demanding the opposite: that U.S. cars be exempt from Korea’s more stringent emissions standards. The only consistent principle here is hostility to free trade.
And hostility to trade will cost an already ailing U.S. economy. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports would increase $10–11 billion annually if KORUS passed, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that KORUS would lead to an increase of 250,000 jobs. Meanwhile, failure to enact the agreement would lead to a loss of $35 billion in exports and 345,000 jobs.
After he failed to get a new deal with South Korea on trade, President Obama then failed to get the G-20 to take any action limiting trade imbalances. Again, policy was the problem: Efforts to limit global imbalances run headlong into huge American budget deficits and extremely loose money that are explicitly intended to increase American demand, which is the single biggest factor in imbalances in the first place.
Heritage Foundation analyst Bruce Klingner comments: “Obama’s decision to allow the talks to collapse—and make no mistake, the decision was made at the presidential level—was a colossal blunder. It reflects serious shortcomings in his strategic thinking since it will have dramatic repercussions for U.S. foreign policy. Not only does it show the emperor has no clothes when claiming he favors free trade, but unless he can get this back in the very quick order he referenced in Seoul, the U.S. will lose all credibility in pushing other trade issues, such as the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Walking away from the KORUS will hurt U.S. economic recovery, strain relations with a key U.S. ally, and undermine American trade objectives—a true trifecta of failure.”
More Evidence that Obamacare Must be REPEALED!
More evidence that Obama MUST be REPEALED....it just gets more unfair and more unfair.....111 Waivers to some of the nation's biggest businesses and unions...AND no news covering this....more corrupt back room dealing under Obama, Pelosi and Reid...
Good News IF it's True.....
Democrats' agenda for lame duck session shrinking quickly
By: Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional Correspondent
November 15, 2010
Just before they adjourned in October, Democratic lawmakers talked about returning to a "lame duck" session after the election with an ambitious to-do list.
The list included spending bills, tax-cut legislation, a Dream Act to carve out a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants, and a measure that would require corporations and unions to disclose their campaign contributions.
Democrats even suggested the lame duck session could include a repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military and an attempt to merge House and Senate energy bills to incorporate provisions that address climate change, such as a renewable energy standard.
But after losing at least 60 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the Democrats' lame duck ambitions appear to have fizzled.
While Senate Democrats have not ruled out action on big-ticket items like the Dream Act, Senate Republicans are warning they have the votes to block it with a filibuster.
In the House, the lame-duck list is small and includes only critical items that must be addressed by year's end.
Here are the bills Congress is most likely to take up when they return this week:
» Expiring tax cuts: If Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire Dec. 31, everyone's taxes will go up. Republicans want to extend all of the tax cuts and make them permanent. Democrats want to extend the cuts only to individuals earning less than $200,000 a year and families earning less than $250,000 and may only extend them temporarily. If the two sides can't reach agreement, the issue could be delayed until the new Congress convenes in January, a move that would cause everyone's taxes to rise temporarily.
This bill could also incorporate other tax issues, including a measure to extend tax breaks to small businesses, language creating a new rate for the estate tax and a provision to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of middle-income earners.
» Unemployment insurance: Federal unemployment benefits expire Nov. 30. If Congress does nothing,as many as 2 million people will lose benefits that average $310 per week. It has become increasingly difficult for lawmakers to extend unemployment benefits because Republicans and a growing chorus of Democrats are demanding that the cost of such extensions be financed through budget cuts.
» Medicare: Under a government formula, the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors is scheduled to shrink every year. Congress passes legislation each year to avoid the cut. The latest "fix" expires Dec. 1, and Democrats are eager to pass legislation extending it into 2013. More likely, the two parties will settle on a much shorter extension. If Congress does nothing, reimbursement rates will plummet 23 percent.
» Omnibus spending bill: Fiscal 2011 has begun, but Congress has yet to pass a single spending bill. Instead, the government has been operating under a special measure that keeps spending mostly at 2010 levels. Democrats say they will attempt to pass all the spending bills together, though it is also likely the two parties will not reach agreement and will have to put off the issue until January, keeping the 2010 spending levels in place until then.
By: Susan Ferrechio Chief Congressional Correspondent
November 15, 2010
Just before they adjourned in October, Democratic lawmakers talked about returning to a "lame duck" session after the election with an ambitious to-do list.
The list included spending bills, tax-cut legislation, a Dream Act to carve out a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants, and a measure that would require corporations and unions to disclose their campaign contributions.
Democrats even suggested the lame duck session could include a repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military and an attempt to merge House and Senate energy bills to incorporate provisions that address climate change, such as a renewable energy standard.
But after losing at least 60 seats in the House and six in the Senate, the Democrats' lame duck ambitions appear to have fizzled.
While Senate Democrats have not ruled out action on big-ticket items like the Dream Act, Senate Republicans are warning they have the votes to block it with a filibuster.
In the House, the lame-duck list is small and includes only critical items that must be addressed by year's end.
Here are the bills Congress is most likely to take up when they return this week:
» Expiring tax cuts: If Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire Dec. 31, everyone's taxes will go up. Republicans want to extend all of the tax cuts and make them permanent. Democrats want to extend the cuts only to individuals earning less than $200,000 a year and families earning less than $250,000 and may only extend them temporarily. If the two sides can't reach agreement, the issue could be delayed until the new Congress convenes in January, a move that would cause everyone's taxes to rise temporarily.
This bill could also incorporate other tax issues, including a measure to extend tax breaks to small businesses, language creating a new rate for the estate tax and a provision to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of middle-income earners.
» Unemployment insurance: Federal unemployment benefits expire Nov. 30. If Congress does nothing,as many as 2 million people will lose benefits that average $310 per week. It has become increasingly difficult for lawmakers to extend unemployment benefits because Republicans and a growing chorus of Democrats are demanding that the cost of such extensions be financed through budget cuts.
» Medicare: Under a government formula, the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors is scheduled to shrink every year. Congress passes legislation each year to avoid the cut. The latest "fix" expires Dec. 1, and Democrats are eager to pass legislation extending it into 2013. More likely, the two parties will settle on a much shorter extension. If Congress does nothing, reimbursement rates will plummet 23 percent.
» Omnibus spending bill: Fiscal 2011 has begun, but Congress has yet to pass a single spending bill. Instead, the government has been operating under a special measure that keeps spending mostly at 2010 levels. Democrats say they will attempt to pass all the spending bills together, though it is also likely the two parties will not reach agreement and will have to put off the issue until January, keeping the 2010 spending levels in place until then.
Interesting Advice from Democrat Pollsters....Don't run in 2012 Mr Obama!
Good Advice for Obama, but he will never take it...his ego is too big....
Opinion | One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010
President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.
In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."
It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.
This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.
To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.
If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.
We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.
The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.
Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.
Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in America and to change the way Washington works. This was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate.
Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.
Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.
And for Democrats such as current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) - who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival - the president's new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. Given the influence of special interests on the Democratic Party, Obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. Challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you're not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.
Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway. If they didn't, they would look intransigent, as the GOP did in 1995 and 1996, when Bill Clinton first advocated a balanced budget. Obama could then go to the Democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the Republicans for difficult cuts on defense.
On foreign policy, Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground.
If the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. The alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. While we believe that Obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided Americans in ways that still plague us.
Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.
Should the president do that, he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public.
It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.
We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.
Patrick H. Caddell, who was a pollster and senior adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is a political commentator. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System." They will be online Monday, Nov. 15, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions before or during the discussion.
Opinion | One and done: To be a great president, Obama should not seek reelection in 2012
By Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell
Sunday, November 14, 2010
President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.
In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."
It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.
This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.
To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.
If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.
We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.
The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.
Quite simply, given our political divisions and economic problems, governing and campaigning have become incompatible. Obama can and should dispense with the pollsters, the advisers, the consultants and the strategists who dissect all decisions and judgments in terms of their impact on the president's political prospects.
Obama himself once said to Diane Sawyer: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He now has the chance to deliver on that idea.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama spoke repeatedly of his desire to end the red-state-blue-state divisions in America and to change the way Washington works. This was a central reason he was elected; such aspirations struck a deep chord with the polarized electorate.
Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, welcoming business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.
Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.
And for Democrats such as current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) - who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival - the president's new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. Given the influence of special interests on the Democratic Party, Obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. Challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you're not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and unions.
Moreover, if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway. If they didn't, they would look intransigent, as the GOP did in 1995 and 1996, when Bill Clinton first advocated a balanced budget. Obama could then go to the Democrats for tough cuts to entitlements and look to the Republicans for difficult cuts on defense.
On foreign policy, Obama could better make hard decisions about Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan based on what is reasonable and responsible for the United States, without the political constraints of a looming election. He would be able to deal with a Democratic constituency that wants to get out of Afghanistan immediately and a Republican constituency that is committed to the war, forging a course that responds not to the electoral calendar but to the facts on the ground.
If the president adopts our suggestion, both sides will be forced to compromise. The alternative, we fear, will put the nation at greater risk. While we believe that Obama can be reelected, to do so he will have to embark on a scorched-earth campaign of the type that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election, which divided Americans in ways that still plague us.
Obama owes his election in large measure to the fact that he rejected this approach during his historic campaign. Indeed, we were among those millions of Democrats, Republicans and independents who were genuinely moved by his rhetoric and purpose. Now, the only way he can make real progress is to return to those values and to say that for the good of the country, he will not be a candidate in 2012.
Should the president do that, he - and the country - would face virtually no bad outcomes. The worst-case scenario for Obama? In January 2013, he walks away from the White House having been transformative in two ways: as the first black president, yes, but also as a man who governed in a manner unmatched by any modern leader. He will have reconciled the nation, continued the economic recovery, gained a measure of control over the fiscal problems that threaten our future, and forged critical solutions to our international challenges. He will, at last, be the figure globally he has sought to be, and will almost certainly leave a better regarded president than he is today. History will look upon him kindly - and so will the public.
It is no secret that we have been openly critical of the president in recent days, but we make this proposal with the deepest sincerity and hope for him and for the country.
We have both advised presidents facing great national crises and have seen challenges from inside the Oval Office. We are convinced that if Obama immediately declares his intention not to run for reelection, he will be able to unite the country, provide national and international leadership, escape the hold of the left, isolate the right and achieve results that would be otherwise unachievable.
Patrick H. Caddell, who was a pollster and senior adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is a political commentator. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System." They will be online Monday, Nov. 15, at 11 a.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions before or during the discussion.
Rangel...an example of Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress....CORRUPT!
Another Corrupt Democrat that Nancy Pelosi didn't drain....He deserves to get the book thrown at him and get kicked out of Congress at the very least....Obviously he has no respect for the rules....Throw the Bum Out!
Rangel Used PAC Money for Legal Defense
Published November 15, 2010 | New York Post
July 22: Rep. Charlie Rangel answers questions from the media on Capitol Hill in Washington.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense, The New York Post reported Sunday.
Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis. Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules. "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said.
Washington, D.C., political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses." Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.
But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said. "The only campaign funds that a member may use to pay for congressional expenses are funds of his or her principal campaign committee -- not the funds of a leadership PAC or a multicandidate committee," according to the House Ethics Manual.
Legal fees tied to a campaign, election or performance of official duties are considered congressional expenses. "Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said. The Ethics Committee had no comment.
Rangel's office refused to comment on the PAC money. On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis' firm.
He also spent $147,577 for Washington, D.C., lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services.
An eight-member ethics subcommittee of four Democrats and four Republicans will convene at 9 a.m. to hear the 13 charges. They include failure to disclose and pay taxes on his vacation home in the Dominican Republic; his use of a rent-regulated Harlem apartment as a campaign office; and using congressional stationery to raise money for the Rangel Center at City College.
Rangel Used PAC Money for Legal Defense
Published November 15, 2010 | New York Post
July 22: Rep. Charlie Rangel answers questions from the media on Capitol Hill in Washington.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense, The New York Post reported Sunday.
Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis. Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules. "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said.
Washington, D.C., political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses." Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.
But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said. "The only campaign funds that a member may use to pay for congressional expenses are funds of his or her principal campaign committee -- not the funds of a leadership PAC or a multicandidate committee," according to the House Ethics Manual.
Legal fees tied to a campaign, election or performance of official duties are considered congressional expenses. "Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said. The Ethics Committee had no comment.
Rangel's office refused to comment on the PAC money. On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis' firm.
He also spent $147,577 for Washington, D.C., lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services.
An eight-member ethics subcommittee of four Democrats and four Republicans will convene at 9 a.m. to hear the 13 charges. They include failure to disclose and pay taxes on his vacation home in the Dominican Republic; his use of a rent-regulated Harlem apartment as a campaign office; and using congressional stationery to raise money for the Rangel Center at City College.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Defrund NPR and start saving some money....
Here's one place to start saving some money.....
Taxpayers Provide More Than 25 Percent of NPR's Funding, Analyst Says
Published November 13, 2010 | FoxNews.com
NPR President Vivian Schiller says her organization only gets up to 3 percent of taxpayer dollars. But an analyst argues that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars. (AP)
As Republican lawmakers lead the charge to cut off public funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month, the network insists it gets no more than 3 percent of its total budget from taxpayers.
But one analyst has argued that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars and that its member stations across the country haul in another 40 percent of public funds.
Mark Browning of the American Thinker, a conservative online publication, made his calculations based on publicly available information on NPR's website.
But an NPR spokeswoman said Browning's "figures and assumptions are simply inaccurate."
A report by Congress' research arm, released late last month, could only identify about 4 percent in public funding to NPR. That's because NPR's financial structure is so complex and opaque, an aide to Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., told FoxNews.com.
You Should Avoid Lamborn's legislation to end taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR, which didn't get far this year, will likely gain more support next year now that Republicans have captured the House.
Browning starts his analysis with NPR's roughly 900 member stations across the country, which provide 40 percent of the organization's annual revenues. Browning says that money amounts to 20 percent of taxpayer dollars for the Washington-based NPR.
Revenues for the local NPR affiliates stem from a number of sources, including 5.8 percent from federal, state and local governments, 13.6 percent from universities, and 10.1 percent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.
But Browning noted that the federal government provides 99 percent of CPB's funding and asserted that more than 10 percent of the university funding is fueled by tax dollars based on the assumption that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded.
That adds up to 25 percent of taxpayer money for the NPR member stations.
Anna Christopher, a spokeswoman for NPR, told FoxNews.com in an e-mail that to conclude that any more funds in addition to the 10.1 percent from CPB and the 5.8 percent from governments come from taxpayers "is entirely speculative."
But Browning didn't stop there. He contends that because donations from individuals, businesses and foundations are tax-deductible, they are subsidized by the government.
Member stations get 32.1 percent from individual contributions, 21.1 percent from business donations and 9.6 percent from foundations.
Browning estimated that the gifts on average result in deductions at the 25 percent tax bracket and argued that 16 percent of the money from those categories, which add up to 64 percent of station funds, is subsidized by the tax code.
"In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41 percent of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly," he wrote.
Because half of NPR's budget is comprised of local station money that is 40 percent derived from taxes, then 20 percent of NPR's budget comes indirectly from taxpayers, Browning concluded.
Browning also argued that at least 3 percent of the 10 percent funding that comes from grants and contributions category comes from taxes via deductions or taxpayer gifting.
All told, Browning says "it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25 percent of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers."
"That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from 2 to 3 percent," he wrote.
But Christopher, the NPR spokeswoman, said Browning's analysis isn't reasonable.
"Forty percent of NPR's budget comes from station programming fees," she said. "As station budgets consist of some federal and state support, and stations in turn pay NPR, you could argue that a small – unquantifiable – percentage of that support filters indirectly to NPR."
"Quantifying that amount is imperfect, and impossible math," she said.
Taxpayers Provide More Than 25 Percent of NPR's Funding, Analyst Says
Published November 13, 2010 | FoxNews.com
NPR President Vivian Schiller says her organization only gets up to 3 percent of taxpayer dollars. But an analyst argues that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars. (AP)
As Republican lawmakers lead the charge to cut off public funding to National Public Radio, which has been under fire ever since it sacked Juan Williams last month, the network insists it gets no more than 3 percent of its total budget from taxpayers.
But one analyst has argued that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars and that its member stations across the country haul in another 40 percent of public funds.
Mark Browning of the American Thinker, a conservative online publication, made his calculations based on publicly available information on NPR's website.
But an NPR spokeswoman said Browning's "figures and assumptions are simply inaccurate."
A report by Congress' research arm, released late last month, could only identify about 4 percent in public funding to NPR. That's because NPR's financial structure is so complex and opaque, an aide to Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., told FoxNews.com.
You Should Avoid Lamborn's legislation to end taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR, which didn't get far this year, will likely gain more support next year now that Republicans have captured the House.
Browning starts his analysis with NPR's roughly 900 member stations across the country, which provide 40 percent of the organization's annual revenues. Browning says that money amounts to 20 percent of taxpayer dollars for the Washington-based NPR.
Revenues for the local NPR affiliates stem from a number of sources, including 5.8 percent from federal, state and local governments, 13.6 percent from universities, and 10.1 percent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.
But Browning noted that the federal government provides 99 percent of CPB's funding and asserted that more than 10 percent of the university funding is fueled by tax dollars based on the assumption that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded.
That adds up to 25 percent of taxpayer money for the NPR member stations.
Anna Christopher, a spokeswoman for NPR, told FoxNews.com in an e-mail that to conclude that any more funds in addition to the 10.1 percent from CPB and the 5.8 percent from governments come from taxpayers "is entirely speculative."
But Browning didn't stop there. He contends that because donations from individuals, businesses and foundations are tax-deductible, they are subsidized by the government.
Member stations get 32.1 percent from individual contributions, 21.1 percent from business donations and 9.6 percent from foundations.
Browning estimated that the gifts on average result in deductions at the 25 percent tax bracket and argued that 16 percent of the money from those categories, which add up to 64 percent of station funds, is subsidized by the tax code.
"In the end, then, local NPR affiliates derive something like 41 percent of their funding from taxes, either directly or indirectly," he wrote.
Because half of NPR's budget is comprised of local station money that is 40 percent derived from taxes, then 20 percent of NPR's budget comes indirectly from taxpayers, Browning concluded.
Browning also argued that at least 3 percent of the 10 percent funding that comes from grants and contributions category comes from taxes via deductions or taxpayer gifting.
All told, Browning says "it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25 percent of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers."
"That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from 2 to 3 percent," he wrote.
But Christopher, the NPR spokeswoman, said Browning's analysis isn't reasonable.
"Forty percent of NPR's budget comes from station programming fees," she said. "As station budgets consist of some federal and state support, and stations in turn pay NPR, you could argue that a small – unquantifiable – percentage of that support filters indirectly to NPR."
"Quantifying that amount is imperfect, and impossible math," she said.
Another Obama "embarassing disappointment"
Another Obama "embarassing disappointment"....this time it's CBS news talking about Obama's G-20 performance!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Pelosi is Nuts!
Nancy Pelosi is in TOTAL DENIAL....And she certainly doesn't understand the message sent by the voters in November 2nd's election.....But who would expect her to listen to anyone....she hasn't listened to the American People for the past four years.
Nancy Pelosi: 'It isn't about me'
By MEREDITH SHINER | 11/12/10 12:32 PM EST Updated: 11/12/10 12:37 PM EST
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims to have the “overwhelming support” of the Democratic Caucus in her bid to be minority leader in the new Congress.
Her support is not unanimous, she says, but most members believe she’s not the cause of her party’s historic losses in the midterm elections.
In an interview with National Public Radio that aired Friday, Pelosi pointed to the high levels of unemployment as the driving factor behind the Democratic losses. By continuing as her party’s top leader in the House in the wake of the new Republican majority, she asserted, she can put it in the “strongest possible position” to create jobs and generally boost the nation’s still faltering economy.
“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Pelosi said. “Under any circumstance, when you have 9.5 percent unemployment, any party that cannot turn that into political gain, should hang up the gloves. I said that before the election.”
Pelosi also blasted Republican intentions to roll back the new health care law, privatize Social Security and resist some of the major initiatives she pushed through the House. The new session beginning in January could paint an even starker difference between the two parties, she said. With Republicans controlling the House, she added, they might prove themselves to be a less satisfactory choice and better position Democrats for the 2012 elections.
“It isn’t about me. Maybe the Republicans will take a course of action that will solve problems — God bless them if they do. But, maybe, they will pursue what they have said,” Pelosi said. “The opportunity that is there is to have clarity. Maybe, they will be more eloquent in defining themselves than we could have ever been in defining them.”
The California congresswomen, however, did stand with President Barack Obama in expressing a willingness to re-examine some aspects of the health care law, citing the 1099 provision that deals with small businesses and taxation as a point of possible compromise. The president had mentioned the provision as open to debate in his White House press conference the day after the elections.
Still, Pelosi broke with the recent White House message on the Bush-era tax cuts, declaring her position has always been – and remains – that additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are fiscally irresponsible.
“Our position in the House is that we support the tax cut for everyone – but not an additional tax cut at the high end. It’s too costly,” Pelosi said. “Those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time. They did not create jobs.”
Nancy Pelosi: 'It isn't about me'
By MEREDITH SHINER | 11/12/10 12:32 PM EST Updated: 11/12/10 12:37 PM EST
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims to have the “overwhelming support” of the Democratic Caucus in her bid to be minority leader in the new Congress.
Her support is not unanimous, she says, but most members believe she’s not the cause of her party’s historic losses in the midterm elections.
In an interview with National Public Radio that aired Friday, Pelosi pointed to the high levels of unemployment as the driving factor behind the Democratic losses. By continuing as her party’s top leader in the House in the wake of the new Republican majority, she asserted, she can put it in the “strongest possible position” to create jobs and generally boost the nation’s still faltering economy.
“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Pelosi said. “Under any circumstance, when you have 9.5 percent unemployment, any party that cannot turn that into political gain, should hang up the gloves. I said that before the election.”
Pelosi also blasted Republican intentions to roll back the new health care law, privatize Social Security and resist some of the major initiatives she pushed through the House. The new session beginning in January could paint an even starker difference between the two parties, she said. With Republicans controlling the House, she added, they might prove themselves to be a less satisfactory choice and better position Democrats for the 2012 elections.
“It isn’t about me. Maybe the Republicans will take a course of action that will solve problems — God bless them if they do. But, maybe, they will pursue what they have said,” Pelosi said. “The opportunity that is there is to have clarity. Maybe, they will be more eloquent in defining themselves than we could have ever been in defining them.”
The California congresswomen, however, did stand with President Barack Obama in expressing a willingness to re-examine some aspects of the health care law, citing the 1099 provision that deals with small businesses and taxation as a point of possible compromise. The president had mentioned the provision as open to debate in his White House press conference the day after the elections.
Still, Pelosi broke with the recent White House message on the Bush-era tax cuts, declaring her position has always been – and remains – that additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are fiscally irresponsible.
“Our position in the House is that we support the tax cut for everyone – but not an additional tax cut at the high end. It’s too costly,” Pelosi said. “Those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time. They did not create jobs.”
More Good Reasons to REPEAL Obamcare.....
More Good Reasons to REPEAL Obamacare....From the Heritage Foundation...
The Obamacare Burden To Your State Budget
Facing a $25 billion deficit for their next two-year budget cycle, Texas lawmakers are considering closing the gap by dropping out of Medicaid. “This system is bankrupting our state,” State Representative Warren Chisum told The New York Times. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year,” he said.
And Texas is not alone. American Legislative Exchange Council director of the health and human services Christie Herrera tells NYT: “States feel like their backs are against the wall, so this is the nuclear option for them. I’m hearing below-the-radar chatter from legislators around the country from states considering this option.”
Medicaid already eats up a huge share of state budgets. In Texas, for example, more than 20 percent of the state budget is spent on Medicaid. The crisis facing states across the country is that Obamacare forces states to massively expand their already burdensome Medicaid rolls. Starting in 2014 states must expand Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals with family incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. At first, Obamacare picks up the first three years of benefit costs for expansion. But in 2017 states begin to shoulder a larger and larger share of these benefit costs, maxing out at 10 percent by 2020.
But that is just the benefit costs. Obamacare does not pay for any of the costs necessary to administer the expansion of the Medicaid rolls, rolls that are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent in states like Nevada, Oregon, and Texas. The Heritage Foundation’s Ed Haislmaier and Brian Blase found that just the administrative costs of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion will cost almost $12 billion by 2020. As Heritage visiting fellow Lanhee Chen details, some states are beginning to add the benefit and administrative costs together, and the picture isn’t pretty:
Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in “the low billions of dollars.”
Mississippi, Indiana, and Nebraska each retained Milliman, Inc., a national health care econometrics firm, to perform a fiscal analysis of the Medicaid expansion on their states’ budgets. For Mississippi, Milliman estimates that between 206,000 and 415,000 people will be added to Medicaid, with a 10-year impact on the state budget of between $858 million and $1.66 billion. The seven-year cost of the Medicaid expansion in Indiana is estimated to be between $2.59 billion and $3.11 billion, with 388,000 to 522,000 people joining the state’s Medicaid rolls. Finally, Milliman estimates that Obamacare will result in nearly one of five Nebraskans being covered by Medicaid at a cost of $526 million to $766 million over the next decade.
Obamacare’s unfunded mandates are a fiscal time bomb set to explode state balance sheets across the country starting in 2014. States can prepare for the worst by slashing discretionary spending where possible and lowering existing health care costs by repealing their own burdensome health benefit mandates. But the only real solution is full repeal of Obamacare.
The Obamacare Burden To Your State Budget
Facing a $25 billion deficit for their next two-year budget cycle, Texas lawmakers are considering closing the gap by dropping out of Medicaid. “This system is bankrupting our state,” State Representative Warren Chisum told The New York Times. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year,” he said.
And Texas is not alone. American Legislative Exchange Council director of the health and human services Christie Herrera tells NYT: “States feel like their backs are against the wall, so this is the nuclear option for them. I’m hearing below-the-radar chatter from legislators around the country from states considering this option.”
Medicaid already eats up a huge share of state budgets. In Texas, for example, more than 20 percent of the state budget is spent on Medicaid. The crisis facing states across the country is that Obamacare forces states to massively expand their already burdensome Medicaid rolls. Starting in 2014 states must expand Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals with family incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty level. At first, Obamacare picks up the first three years of benefit costs for expansion. But in 2017 states begin to shoulder a larger and larger share of these benefit costs, maxing out at 10 percent by 2020.
But that is just the benefit costs. Obamacare does not pay for any of the costs necessary to administer the expansion of the Medicaid rolls, rolls that are expected to increase by approximately 50 percent in states like Nevada, Oregon, and Texas. The Heritage Foundation’s Ed Haislmaier and Brian Blase found that just the administrative costs of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion will cost almost $12 billion by 2020. As Heritage visiting fellow Lanhee Chen details, some states are beginning to add the benefit and administrative costs together, and the picture isn’t pretty:
Texas recently concluded that the Medicaid expansion may add more than 2 million people to the program and cost the state up to $27 billion in a single decade. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration estimated in April that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would require an additional $5.2 billion in spending between 2013 and 2019 and more than $1 billion a year beginning in 2017. In California, the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion will likely add annual costs to the state budget in “the low billions of dollars.”
Mississippi, Indiana, and Nebraska each retained Milliman, Inc., a national health care econometrics firm, to perform a fiscal analysis of the Medicaid expansion on their states’ budgets. For Mississippi, Milliman estimates that between 206,000 and 415,000 people will be added to Medicaid, with a 10-year impact on the state budget of between $858 million and $1.66 billion. The seven-year cost of the Medicaid expansion in Indiana is estimated to be between $2.59 billion and $3.11 billion, with 388,000 to 522,000 people joining the state’s Medicaid rolls. Finally, Milliman estimates that Obamacare will result in nearly one of five Nebraskans being covered by Medicaid at a cost of $526 million to $766 million over the next decade.
Obamacare’s unfunded mandates are a fiscal time bomb set to explode state balance sheets across the country starting in 2014. States can prepare for the worst by slashing discretionary spending where possible and lowering existing health care costs by repealing their own burdensome health benefit mandates. But the only real solution is full repeal of Obamacare.
Left Leaning CNN!
Here's the reason that Spitzer and Parker shouldn't be on the air....to pretend that they are fair and balanced is just a joke....in fact to allow Elliot Spitzer to do anything after his behavior while in office is a disgrace...and for Parker she has changed her "opinion" significantly after being on CNN....maybe that's part of the reason that noone watches CNN any more!
More Waste while Trying to Prevent Waste!
Obama and Government Beaurocrats just don't get it....
Obama panel probes stimulus waste -- at Ritz Carlton
By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
11/11/10 10:10 AM EST
Members of a key panel created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill, have scheduled a meeting on November 22 to consider ways to prevent "fraud, waste, and abuse of Recovery Act funds." The meeting will be held at the super-luxe Ritz Carlton Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona.
The group is the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, a sub-committee of the larger Recovery Accountability and Transparency board (sometimes known as the RAT board). The stimulus bill set up the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, or RIAP, to make recommendations to identify and prevent waste of the bill's $814 billion in stimulus spending.
"The purpose of the November 22, 2010 meeting is to allow the RIAP to have an open dialogue, with input from the public, on issues relating to fraud, waste, and abuse of Recovery Act funds," says a notice in the Federal Register. Specifically, participants in the meeting will discuss various techniques to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as larger issues of transparency and public awareness. Portions of the meeting will be open to the public, while other parts will be closed.
The Ritz-Carlton is located "in the midst of the picturesque Camelback Corridor, the city's premier shopping, dining and financial district," according the hotel's website. Hungry waste-and-abuse hunters can dine in the "casual elegance, relaxed atmosphere and uniquely inviting ambiance of the European-inspired bistro 24." Or they can enjoy Afternoon Tea in the "uniquely warm and inviting" Lobby Lounge. And at any time, waste-and-abuse watchdogs who also enjoy golf will be "just minutes from some of the best courses in the world," including the Tournament Players Club, the Arizona Biltmore, and several others.
And of course, there's one other element to the story: The board is holding a meeting in Arizona, home of the immigration law that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have condemned and are challenging in court, and a state that is also the target of boycotts by a number of left-leaning groups and local governments around the country.
According to the Federal Register notice, members of the public who want to attend are instructed to send their comments to panel@ratb.gov and write "November 22, 2010 RIAP public comment" in the subject line.
Obama panel probes stimulus waste -- at Ritz Carlton
By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent
11/11/10 10:10 AM EST
Members of a key panel created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill, have scheduled a meeting on November 22 to consider ways to prevent "fraud, waste, and abuse of Recovery Act funds." The meeting will be held at the super-luxe Ritz Carlton Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona.
The group is the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, a sub-committee of the larger Recovery Accountability and Transparency board (sometimes known as the RAT board). The stimulus bill set up the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, or RIAP, to make recommendations to identify and prevent waste of the bill's $814 billion in stimulus spending.
"The purpose of the November 22, 2010 meeting is to allow the RIAP to have an open dialogue, with input from the public, on issues relating to fraud, waste, and abuse of Recovery Act funds," says a notice in the Federal Register. Specifically, participants in the meeting will discuss various techniques to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as larger issues of transparency and public awareness. Portions of the meeting will be open to the public, while other parts will be closed.
The Ritz-Carlton is located "in the midst of the picturesque Camelback Corridor, the city's premier shopping, dining and financial district," according the hotel's website. Hungry waste-and-abuse hunters can dine in the "casual elegance, relaxed atmosphere and uniquely inviting ambiance of the European-inspired bistro 24." Or they can enjoy Afternoon Tea in the "uniquely warm and inviting" Lobby Lounge. And at any time, waste-and-abuse watchdogs who also enjoy golf will be "just minutes from some of the best courses in the world," including the Tournament Players Club, the Arizona Biltmore, and several others.
And of course, there's one other element to the story: The board is holding a meeting in Arizona, home of the immigration law that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have condemned and are challenging in court, and a state that is also the target of boycotts by a number of left-leaning groups and local governments around the country.
According to the Federal Register notice, members of the public who want to attend are instructed to send their comments to panel@ratb.gov and write "November 22, 2010 RIAP public comment" in the subject line.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Truth About Earmarks.....And Why They Need to be Done Away With!
Here's a good piece on earmarks....It cuts through a lot of the political rhetoric out there today....we need to push Congress to eliminate these Earmarks as well as eliminating the "slush funds" created by the Executive Branch and the Administration. This type of spending should simply not be allowed!!! Written by Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma.
Earmark Myths and Realities
November 10, 2010 4:39 P.M. By Sen. Tom Coburn
As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.
Myths of the earmark debate:
1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money
This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.
2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit
It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.
Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.
3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?
It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.
An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.
4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.
Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”
Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.
Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.
Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?
Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.
Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.
1. Earmarks are a major distraction
Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable — by out-porking the president — but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.
2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP
If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.
3. Earmarking is bad policy
In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus — GOP earmarks — is very effective at creating jobs.
Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.
“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.
Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.
4. Earmarking is bad politics
If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.
— Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.
Earmark Myths and Realities
November 10, 2010 4:39 P.M. By Sen. Tom Coburn
As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.
Myths of the earmark debate:
1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money
This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.
2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit
It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.
Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control.
3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?
It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.
An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up.
4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork.
Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” They also refer to James Madison’s power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the “power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”
Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders’ clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not.
Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. “[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest.” Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand.
Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress?
Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can’t be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process.
Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.
1. Earmarks are a major distraction
Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable — by out-porking the president — but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed.
2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP
If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.
3. Earmarking is bad policy
In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus — GOP earmarks — is very effective at creating jobs.
Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.
“It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending,” said Joshua Coval, one of the study’s authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies.
Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending.
4. Earmarking is bad politics
If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.
— Sen. Tom Coburn represents the state of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Federal Government Under Obama and the Democrats is Simply Out of Control!
From the Heritage Foundation...
Get to Work Getting Control of Government
Remember when Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) was asked to identify what part of the Constitution empowers the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance, and he replied: "I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest." Remember when Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) told his Hayward, Calif., constituents that "The Federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country." And remember when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), famously said of Obamacare: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
The progressives that controlled the 111th Congress simply had no respect for the limitations on federal government power that the Founders placed in the U.S. Constitution. That is why 56% of last week's voters told the national exit poll that "government is doing too much." That is why progressives no longer control the House. But there are still progressives in the White House. In just the past year, the federal agencies under President Barack Obama's control have already promulgated 43 new rules which the Obama administration itself estimated will cost the U.S. economy $26.5 billion a year. And President Obama is just getting warmed up. The 2,319 page financial regulation bill requires 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. The 2,700 page Obamacare bill contains more than 1,000 instances where Congress instructed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to regulate the health care industry. And the Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing, for the first time in the history of the Internet, "net neutrality" regulations that will undermine investment incentives, thereby robbing the nation of much-needed broadband upgrades.
The federal government is out of control. Congress must immediately reestablish legislative accountability by posting complete legislation, ending earmarks, reviewing all unauthorized programs and respecting constitutional limits on government. Congress must check executive branch overreach with aggressive oversight, roll back recent government interventions, stop unnecessary administrative regulations and sunset new ones, restrict bureaucrats' rulemaking authority and override expansive executive orders. Specifically, Congress must:
Provide Legislative Text: Each House of Congress must adopt a rule requiring the public posting of the text of each bill and major amendment not less than 72 hours before floor debate on that bill or amendment.
Stop Earmarks: Congress must permanently end the earmarking process which favors local pork projects over the national interest.
End Automatic Funding: Any program (other than for physical protection of Americans) that Congress has not reauthorized must be suspended for review. Committees must not be permitted to create new programs with automatic funding or that specify minimum funding levels to circumvent the appropriations process.
Reassert Constitutional Limits: Rather than deferring to courts, Congress must promptly repeal any unconstitutional legislation enacted by previous Congresses, consider the constitutionality of pending bills and assert constitutional limits on the size and scope of government.
Stop Unnecessary Regulations: Congress must use the Congressional Review Act to stop new and unnecessary regulations. If the President blocks such action, Congress must use appropriations riders to prohibit agencies from adopting such rules.
Get to Work Getting Control of Government
Remember when Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) was asked to identify what part of the Constitution empowers the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance, and he replied: "I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest." Remember when Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) told his Hayward, Calif., constituents that "The Federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country." And remember when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), famously said of Obamacare: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
The progressives that controlled the 111th Congress simply had no respect for the limitations on federal government power that the Founders placed in the U.S. Constitution. That is why 56% of last week's voters told the national exit poll that "government is doing too much." That is why progressives no longer control the House. But there are still progressives in the White House. In just the past year, the federal agencies under President Barack Obama's control have already promulgated 43 new rules which the Obama administration itself estimated will cost the U.S. economy $26.5 billion a year. And President Obama is just getting warmed up. The 2,319 page financial regulation bill requires 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. The 2,700 page Obamacare bill contains more than 1,000 instances where Congress instructed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to regulate the health care industry. And the Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing, for the first time in the history of the Internet, "net neutrality" regulations that will undermine investment incentives, thereby robbing the nation of much-needed broadband upgrades.
The federal government is out of control. Congress must immediately reestablish legislative accountability by posting complete legislation, ending earmarks, reviewing all unauthorized programs and respecting constitutional limits on government. Congress must check executive branch overreach with aggressive oversight, roll back recent government interventions, stop unnecessary administrative regulations and sunset new ones, restrict bureaucrats' rulemaking authority and override expansive executive orders. Specifically, Congress must:
Provide Legislative Text: Each House of Congress must adopt a rule requiring the public posting of the text of each bill and major amendment not less than 72 hours before floor debate on that bill or amendment.
Stop Earmarks: Congress must permanently end the earmarking process which favors local pork projects over the national interest.
End Automatic Funding: Any program (other than for physical protection of Americans) that Congress has not reauthorized must be suspended for review. Committees must not be permitted to create new programs with automatic funding or that specify minimum funding levels to circumvent the appropriations process.
Reassert Constitutional Limits: Rather than deferring to courts, Congress must promptly repeal any unconstitutional legislation enacted by previous Congresses, consider the constitutionality of pending bills and assert constitutional limits on the size and scope of government.
Stop Unnecessary Regulations: Congress must use the Congressional Review Act to stop new and unnecessary regulations. If the President blocks such action, Congress must use appropriations riders to prohibit agencies from adopting such rules.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Blatant Arrogance of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats!
This just show the blatant arrogance of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats...the have NOT gotten the message from the election and will not get it.....They have spend money like drunken sailors and now they're spending more money throwing a party to celebrate NOT what they've done for the American People, but what they've done TO the American People......Just another Disgrace...and another reason why the American people have to keep the fight up against the democrats from now til 2012 when we can get control of the Senate AND get Obama out of Office!
Pelosi to Throw Party for Congress After Last Week's 'Shellacking' of House Dems
Published November 09, 2010 | FoxNews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., shown here at an election night party, is throwing a party Nov. 10 to 'honor the accomplishments of the 11th Congress.'
Just one week after House Democrats were swept out of power, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hosting a reception Wednesday "honoring the accomplishments of the 111th Congress."
"Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building," reads the invitation sent to advocates who worked on the legislative agenda.
"It's just a thank you for the advocates," a spokesman for Pelosi told FoxNews.com, adding that the reception is not for lawmakers. "No taxpayer funds are being spent."
The celebration comes as Democrats wage a battle over leadership positions in the next Congress in which Republicans will control the House and have a larger presence in the Senate.
Pelosi is running for minority leader while outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn battle for minority whip in the next Congress, which will be the No.2 position for Dems. Usually, leaders take a step down after their party loses power, which would make Clyburn the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Pelosi's party could prove awkward as she celebrates, among other accomplishments, the passing of President Obama's health care law that several moderate Democrats had campaigned against.
Democrats also passed other controversial bills such as an overhaul of the financial regulatory system and a massive financial stimulus package that made Pelosi the symbol of government excess.
Many moderate Democrats also have publicly opposed Pelosi's bid to remain in leadership although she is likely to prevail.
Pelosi's reception won't be open to the press and it's not clear whether Democratic lawmakers, especially those who lost last week, will attend.
Republicans recorded their largest gains in the House in more than 70 years by capturing more than 60 seats. They also won six seats in the Senate, leaving Democrats with a slim majority. Obama said he and his party took a "shellacking" at the polls.
Pelosi to Throw Party for Congress After Last Week's 'Shellacking' of House Dems
Published November 09, 2010 | FoxNews.com
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., shown here at an election night party, is throwing a party Nov. 10 to 'honor the accomplishments of the 11th Congress.'
Just one week after House Democrats were swept out of power, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hosting a reception Wednesday "honoring the accomplishments of the 111th Congress."
"Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building," reads the invitation sent to advocates who worked on the legislative agenda.
"It's just a thank you for the advocates," a spokesman for Pelosi told FoxNews.com, adding that the reception is not for lawmakers. "No taxpayer funds are being spent."
The celebration comes as Democrats wage a battle over leadership positions in the next Congress in which Republicans will control the House and have a larger presence in the Senate.
Pelosi is running for minority leader while outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Whip Jim Clyburn battle for minority whip in the next Congress, which will be the No.2 position for Dems. Usually, leaders take a step down after their party loses power, which would make Clyburn the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Pelosi's party could prove awkward as she celebrates, among other accomplishments, the passing of President Obama's health care law that several moderate Democrats had campaigned against.
Democrats also passed other controversial bills such as an overhaul of the financial regulatory system and a massive financial stimulus package that made Pelosi the symbol of government excess.
Many moderate Democrats also have publicly opposed Pelosi's bid to remain in leadership although she is likely to prevail.
Pelosi's reception won't be open to the press and it's not clear whether Democratic lawmakers, especially those who lost last week, will attend.
Republicans recorded their largest gains in the House in more than 70 years by capturing more than 60 seats. They also won six seats in the Senate, leaving Democrats with a slim majority. Obama said he and his party took a "shellacking" at the polls.
A 1948 Cartoon that seemed far fetched then, but not so much so now!
A Cartoon from 1948 that seemed far fetched at the time it was first made, but now it doesn't seem so far fetched and is the very reason the American People have sent a strong signal to Washington that they do NOT like the direction the Obama Administration and the Democrats are taking our country....
Monday, November 8, 2010
Obama getting Hammered by His Party, America and even His Own Staff....But he won't change!
This is a long article, but it is worth reading...It's from the Politico which as we all know is a liberal outlet....and they are Killing Obama!...But he certainly doesn't seem to be getting this message OR the message from the American People last Tuesday.
President Obama isolated ahead of 2012
By MIKE ALLEN & JIM VANDEHEI | 11/8/10 4:30 AM EST Updated: 11/8/10 10:12 AM EST
President Barack Obama has performed his act of contrition. Now comes the hard part, according to Democrats around the country: reckoning with the simple fact that he’s isolated himself from virtually every group that matters in American politics.
Congressional Democrats consider him distant and blame him for their historic defeat on Tuesday. Democratic state party leaders scoff at what they see as an inattentive and hapless political operation. Democratic lobbyists feel maligned by his holier-than-thou take on their profession. His own Cabinet — with only a few exceptions — has been marginalized.
His relations with business leaders could hardly be worse. Obama has suggested it’s a PR problem, but several Democratic officials said CEOs friendly with the president walk away feeling he’s indifferent at best to their concerns. Add in his icy relations with Republicans, the media and, most important, most voters, and it’s easy to understand why his own staff leaked word to POLITICO that it wants Obama to shake up his staff and change his political approach.
It should be a no-brainer for a humbled Obama to move quickly after Tuesday’s thumping to try to repair these damaged relations, and indeed, in India on Sunday, he acknowledged the need for “midcourse corrections.”
But many Democrats privately say they are skeptical that Obama is self-aware enough to make the sort of dramatic changes they feel are needed — in his relations with other Democrats or in his very approach to the job.
In his effort to change Washington, Obama has failed to engage Washington and its institutions and customs, leaving him estranged from the capital’s permanent power structure — right at the moment when Democrats say he must rethink his strategy for cultivating and nurturing relations with key constituencies ahead of 2012.
“This guy swept to power on a wave of adulation, and he learned the wrong lessons from that,” said a Democratic official who deals frequently with the White House. “He’s more of a movement leader than a politician. He needs someone to kick his ass on things large and small and teach him to be a politician.”
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) expressed a much deeper frustration to POLITICO: that the president never had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s back — and it cost both of them. “They not only failed to defend her and her accomplishments on their behalf,” said Miller of the White House, “they failed to defend themselves.”
Tuesday’s losses have left high-level Democrats feeling freer to open up about White House missteps over the past two years — complaints that were repressed when Obama was strong but now are being aired as clues to his team’s isolation as he tries to regain command of the capital after his midterm thrashing.
Consider state party leaders. Many feel slighted by a president they helped elect. The slights are both big and small. In July, Obama was visiting GM and Chrysler plans in the Detroit area and invited the local House member — but other Democratic lawmakers who stood to benefit from the exposure were left in the cold.
"President Obama has done a lot for the people of Michigan, including rescuing state services and saving GM and Chrysler,” said former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard, a Democrat and Obama supporter. “We'd like to see a political operation in Michigan commensurate with his achievements."
Other Democrats are fuming at Obama’s decision not to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor of Rhode Island — and shun conventional political interactions, including refusing to meet with a group of black ministers at a campaign event this fall.
This is problematic because in a 50-50 country, political infrastructure matters — and the consensus among Democratic consultants is that Obama has allowed theirs to atrophy by neglect.
Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink took it further, hitting a “tone-deaf” Obama White House to explain why she narrowly lost her campaign, saying the administration mishandled the BP oil spill and hasn’t fully grasped the political damage done by Obama’s health care reform push. “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics,” Sink told POLITICO.
On their own, some gripes about Obama look like little more than trivial violations of Politics 101. But they have had the cumulative effect of leaving the president and his team isolated from many of the constituencies required for success in Washington:
— When Obama was giving the commencement address in the University of Michigan’s “Big House” stadium last May, he mingled in the home-team locker room with university deans and regents. Across the tunnel, in the visitors' locker room, several members of Michigan’s Democratic congressional delegation — including Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. — waited patiently.
Some had brought grandchildren so they could get their picture taken with the president. But they never got to see him. Obama didn’t cross the tunnel to see the lawmakers.
— In June, during an East Room reception for top supporters at Ford’s Theatre, several of the attendees were disappointed that they didn’t get to shake the president’s hand and take a photo, as they had in the past. Instead, Obama greeted a few people down front, reaching over a rope line.
“People thought they were going to a reception with the president, not a campaign event,” one attendee recalled.
— One veteran Democrat recalled a group of Obama donors who were chatting at last December’s State Department holiday party, hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Half of them were upset because they had not been invited to a White House party,” this Democrat recalled. “The [other] half was upset because they had been invited to the White House and were kept behind a rope line instead of getting to greet the president.”
— The president invited Senate chairmen and ranking members over for dinner in March 2009 but came in after they were seated and went back to the residence without shaking hands or visiting each table.
One well-known Democrat summed up the cost of the slights and the seeming indifference to basic political courtesies this way: “These are little things that are not going to affect public perceptions. But it affects the infrastructure of how you put together a campaign. These are the people that you need to raise money, to give money, to organize, to show up, to speak out.”
Several top Democrats explained that Obama’s unorthodox ascent in 2008 left him with little appreciation for the conventional machinery that most ambitious natural politicians nurture obsessively.
“Because Hillary had all the institutional support [in the primaries], he came here without a support structure,” said one Democratic lobbyist. “They made a decision that was a good thing and tried to go around all those institutional players. But as a president, you can co-opt a lot of those constituencies. You don't have to be captured by them."
The problems run deeper. Big-dollar donors and liberal special interests feel used, and only in the past month has the White House made an effort to play nicer with them. Some donors contend the White House should have encouraged its own counterpart to the outside GOP groups like American Crossroads, rather than griping about the new competition.
Democratic lobbyists say they’re upset that the president had not only vilified their profession but frozen them out of discussions on key issues. By one light, this is precisely what Obama promised to do in an effort to restore faith in government. By another, it simply enhanced the Congress-K Street power nexus because most of the horse-trading was done on Capitol Hill with White House control.
While the lobbying community is usually covered by the media like a crime beat, most lobbyists are policy experts who often provide input on commissions and other advisory boards. So lobbyists argue that the White House shunning has cost the president valuable advice, political intelligence and institutional backup.
And business leaders, even the few who continue to be Obama-friendly, say they are convinced he is hostile to free markets and the private sector. Some of these executives have balance sheets flush with cash but are reluctant to add jobs or expand in part because they don't trust Obama’s instincts for growth.
“He used anti-corporate, confrontational rhetoric too for legislative gain and kept doing it after folks found it gratuitous,” a top executive said. “During health reform, it was the bad, evil hospitals. . . Same with financial regulation: It was fat cats, greed, corruption.”
Other executives complained that Obama did not do enough outreach, even after the friction became clear. And executives who did get an audience complain that he is too often behind a podium, not doing the off-the-record question-and-answer sessions that would make them feel more involved and maybe promote understanding between the two sides.
“The thing they’re most proud of is that during the campaign, they had a game plan they believed in and they stuck to it, even when everyone told them they were going to lose,” said a well-known Democratic official, summing up a widely held view of the White House. “They didn’t believe what outside people said. So they have this siege mentality, and it’s closed the door.”
President Obama isolated ahead of 2012
By MIKE ALLEN & JIM VANDEHEI | 11/8/10 4:30 AM EST Updated: 11/8/10 10:12 AM EST
President Barack Obama has performed his act of contrition. Now comes the hard part, according to Democrats around the country: reckoning with the simple fact that he’s isolated himself from virtually every group that matters in American politics.
Congressional Democrats consider him distant and blame him for their historic defeat on Tuesday. Democratic state party leaders scoff at what they see as an inattentive and hapless political operation. Democratic lobbyists feel maligned by his holier-than-thou take on their profession. His own Cabinet — with only a few exceptions — has been marginalized.
His relations with business leaders could hardly be worse. Obama has suggested it’s a PR problem, but several Democratic officials said CEOs friendly with the president walk away feeling he’s indifferent at best to their concerns. Add in his icy relations with Republicans, the media and, most important, most voters, and it’s easy to understand why his own staff leaked word to POLITICO that it wants Obama to shake up his staff and change his political approach.
It should be a no-brainer for a humbled Obama to move quickly after Tuesday’s thumping to try to repair these damaged relations, and indeed, in India on Sunday, he acknowledged the need for “midcourse corrections.”
But many Democrats privately say they are skeptical that Obama is self-aware enough to make the sort of dramatic changes they feel are needed — in his relations with other Democrats or in his very approach to the job.
In his effort to change Washington, Obama has failed to engage Washington and its institutions and customs, leaving him estranged from the capital’s permanent power structure — right at the moment when Democrats say he must rethink his strategy for cultivating and nurturing relations with key constituencies ahead of 2012.
“This guy swept to power on a wave of adulation, and he learned the wrong lessons from that,” said a Democratic official who deals frequently with the White House. “He’s more of a movement leader than a politician. He needs someone to kick his ass on things large and small and teach him to be a politician.”
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) expressed a much deeper frustration to POLITICO: that the president never had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s back — and it cost both of them. “They not only failed to defend her and her accomplishments on their behalf,” said Miller of the White House, “they failed to defend themselves.”
Tuesday’s losses have left high-level Democrats feeling freer to open up about White House missteps over the past two years — complaints that were repressed when Obama was strong but now are being aired as clues to his team’s isolation as he tries to regain command of the capital after his midterm thrashing.
Consider state party leaders. Many feel slighted by a president they helped elect. The slights are both big and small. In July, Obama was visiting GM and Chrysler plans in the Detroit area and invited the local House member — but other Democratic lawmakers who stood to benefit from the exposure were left in the cold.
"President Obama has done a lot for the people of Michigan, including rescuing state services and saving GM and Chrysler,” said former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard, a Democrat and Obama supporter. “We'd like to see a political operation in Michigan commensurate with his achievements."
Other Democrats are fuming at Obama’s decision not to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor of Rhode Island — and shun conventional political interactions, including refusing to meet with a group of black ministers at a campaign event this fall.
This is problematic because in a 50-50 country, political infrastructure matters — and the consensus among Democratic consultants is that Obama has allowed theirs to atrophy by neglect.
Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink took it further, hitting a “tone-deaf” Obama White House to explain why she narrowly lost her campaign, saying the administration mishandled the BP oil spill and hasn’t fully grasped the political damage done by Obama’s health care reform push. “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics,” Sink told POLITICO.
On their own, some gripes about Obama look like little more than trivial violations of Politics 101. But they have had the cumulative effect of leaving the president and his team isolated from many of the constituencies required for success in Washington:
— When Obama was giving the commencement address in the University of Michigan’s “Big House” stadium last May, he mingled in the home-team locker room with university deans and regents. Across the tunnel, in the visitors' locker room, several members of Michigan’s Democratic congressional delegation — including Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. — waited patiently.
Some had brought grandchildren so they could get their picture taken with the president. But they never got to see him. Obama didn’t cross the tunnel to see the lawmakers.
— In June, during an East Room reception for top supporters at Ford’s Theatre, several of the attendees were disappointed that they didn’t get to shake the president’s hand and take a photo, as they had in the past. Instead, Obama greeted a few people down front, reaching over a rope line.
“People thought they were going to a reception with the president, not a campaign event,” one attendee recalled.
— One veteran Democrat recalled a group of Obama donors who were chatting at last December’s State Department holiday party, hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Half of them were upset because they had not been invited to a White House party,” this Democrat recalled. “The [other] half was upset because they had been invited to the White House and were kept behind a rope line instead of getting to greet the president.”
— The president invited Senate chairmen and ranking members over for dinner in March 2009 but came in after they were seated and went back to the residence without shaking hands or visiting each table.
One well-known Democrat summed up the cost of the slights and the seeming indifference to basic political courtesies this way: “These are little things that are not going to affect public perceptions. But it affects the infrastructure of how you put together a campaign. These are the people that you need to raise money, to give money, to organize, to show up, to speak out.”
Several top Democrats explained that Obama’s unorthodox ascent in 2008 left him with little appreciation for the conventional machinery that most ambitious natural politicians nurture obsessively.
“Because Hillary had all the institutional support [in the primaries], he came here without a support structure,” said one Democratic lobbyist. “They made a decision that was a good thing and tried to go around all those institutional players. But as a president, you can co-opt a lot of those constituencies. You don't have to be captured by them."
The problems run deeper. Big-dollar donors and liberal special interests feel used, and only in the past month has the White House made an effort to play nicer with them. Some donors contend the White House should have encouraged its own counterpart to the outside GOP groups like American Crossroads, rather than griping about the new competition.
Democratic lobbyists say they’re upset that the president had not only vilified their profession but frozen them out of discussions on key issues. By one light, this is precisely what Obama promised to do in an effort to restore faith in government. By another, it simply enhanced the Congress-K Street power nexus because most of the horse-trading was done on Capitol Hill with White House control.
While the lobbying community is usually covered by the media like a crime beat, most lobbyists are policy experts who often provide input on commissions and other advisory boards. So lobbyists argue that the White House shunning has cost the president valuable advice, political intelligence and institutional backup.
And business leaders, even the few who continue to be Obama-friendly, say they are convinced he is hostile to free markets and the private sector. Some of these executives have balance sheets flush with cash but are reluctant to add jobs or expand in part because they don't trust Obama’s instincts for growth.
“He used anti-corporate, confrontational rhetoric too for legislative gain and kept doing it after folks found it gratuitous,” a top executive said. “During health reform, it was the bad, evil hospitals. . . Same with financial regulation: It was fat cats, greed, corruption.”
Other executives complained that Obama did not do enough outreach, even after the friction became clear. And executives who did get an audience complain that he is too often behind a podium, not doing the off-the-record question-and-answer sessions that would make them feel more involved and maybe promote understanding between the two sides.
“The thing they’re most proud of is that during the campaign, they had a game plan they believed in and they stuck to it, even when everyone told them they were going to lose,” said a well-known Democratic official, summing up a widely held view of the White House. “They didn’t believe what outside people said. So they have this siege mentality, and it’s closed the door.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)