More on Obama's latest SPIN on felxibility.....he's just trying to tempt states to get to single payer which is where he wants to go....Does he think we are all STUPID?????? Repeal Obamacare!!!!....Fight it to the death in the Courts!!!!....
Obama Offers States ‘Flexibility’ . . . to Adopt Single-Payer Instead of Obamacare
February 28, 2011 2:04 P.M. By Michael F. Cannon
The New York Times reports:
Seeking to appease disgruntled governors, President Obama plans to announce on Monday that he supports amending the 2010 health care law to allow states to opt out of its most burdensome requirements three years earlier than currently permitted.
So the president is finally acknowledging that Obamacare is unworkable and will impose enormous burdens on the states. Or is he?
A closer look shows that the president is not lifting the burdensome requirements Obamacare imposes on states. All he’s doing is proposing to move up, from 2017 to 2014, the date when states can apply for federal permission to impose a different but equivalently or more coercive plan to expand health-insurance coverage. Here’s what the Times says about the legislation Obama will reportedly endorse, which was introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Scott Brown (R., Mass.):
The legislation would allow states to opt out earlier from various requirements if they could demonstrate that other methods would allow them to cover as many people, with insurance that is as comprehensive and affordable, as provided by the new law. The changes also must not increase the federal deficit.
If states can meet those standards, they can ask to circumvent minimum benefit levels, structural requirements for insurance exchanges and the mandates that most individuals obtain coverage and that employers provide it. Washington would then help finance a state’s individualized health care system with federal money that would otherwise be spent there on insurance subsidies and tax credits.
So states can “opt out” of Obamacare’s individual mandate if they cover as many people, with as many benefits and as many government subsidies, as Obamacare would. The Times quotes “administration officials” on how states might do that:
The administration officials said the so-called state innovation waivers in the Wyden-Brown bill might allow a state to experiment with ways to entice people to obtain insurance rather than requiring them to buy policies. It also might allow interested states to establish a single-payer system in which the government is the sole insurer. Gov. Peter Shumlin, a newly elected Democrat in Vermont, is pursuing such a proposal.
No such state plan can make a dent in the federal laws that are fueling the relentless growth in the cost of health care (see Medicare, the federal tax treatment of health care, etc.). Therefore, the only way that states could cover as many people as Obamacare does is by using Obamacare’s tactic of forcing people to buy exorbitantly costly health insurance. And if they’re not going to use an individual mandate, the only remaining option is a single-payer health-care system.
President Obama’s move is not about giving states more flexibility. It’s about moving the nation even faster toward his ideal of a Canadian- or British-style single-payer health-care system.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Obama....more Spin that not true!!!!
This is the ULTIMATE in Obama double talk...he tells Governors that they can do their thing in their states on healthcare IF it's more expansive than his plan hoping that at least in the Democrat states he will get a one payer system which is what he really wants nationwide. IF he really thought it was OK for the state to do their own thing why would he have RAMMED Obamacare down our throats last year. This guy is corrupt, unscrupulous, and a major liar. This is just more spin that he's being flexible and bipartisan....but I can tell you his attitude is if it's his program it's right...if it's anyone elses idea he won't let it happen...HE HAS TO GO IN 2012!!!! Here he says one thing in public to Governors and another in a private conference call with his liberal base right after the meeting!
Flexibility OK, but health care law remains Share
By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON – Anxious to ease deepening political tensions with the states, President Barack Obama on Monday told governors he wants to speed up their ability to enforce his signature health care law on their own terms. But his concession goes only so far: He warned he won't allow states to weaken the law.
He also told them not to vilify their own states' public workers while struggling with spending cuts.
Hosting governors of both parties on his own turf, Obama offered them what they often request: more flexibility as they cope with painful budget dilemmas. Declaring that he would "go to bat for whatever works," Obama supported letting states propose their own health care plans by 2014 — three years faster than the current law allows.
Yet this would be no change to the fundamental requirements of a federal law that has divided the nation and prompted about half the states to try to overturn it through lawsuits. To gain new powers, states would first have to convince Washington that their plans would cover as many people, provide equally affordable and comprehensive care and not add to the federal deficit.
More broadly, Obama sought to send a message — both cooperative and pointed — as leaders at all levels of government grapple with huge economic pressures. The yearly gathering of the president and the state chief executives came as budget disputes are roiling, most notably in Wisconsin, where dramatic protests have raged for days.
Calling for shared sacrifice, Obama said public workers understand they must absorb their share of budget cuts. But he delivered a sharp message to governors seeking to strip away union protections, saying: "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified, or their rights are infringed upon."
Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker, was not at the White House but rather in his home state as a nationally watched budget showdown rolled on. He called for Democratic lawmakers to return to the state by Tuesday and vote on his bill that would end most collective bargaining rights for public employees as part of a plan to plug a $3.6 billion shortfall.
Governors in Washington responded tepidly to Obama's pledges of flexibility on the health care law, which requires Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014.
"Oklahoma wants to do Oklahoma's own plan," said the state's Republican governor, Mary Fallin. Asked whether Obama's plan was flexible enough, she said: "We'll see."
The closer Republicans look at the details, the less flexibility they will see, said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, leading domestic policy adviser to 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain. "If you can't control eligibility or the benefits package, it's like saying: 'Here's the bill, you go figure out how to pay for it,'" he said.
Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Obama's offer has no more flexibility. "It's a head fake," said Steel.
White House officials said the administration was not backing away from the individual coverage requirement, but that the provision, ultimately, is only a means to an end. If states can show they'll achieve the same goals through a different approach, the administration is willing to sign off. White House officials said they still believe the individual mandate is the best way to meet the law's coverage and affordability targets.
The idea to move up the date for state experimentation did not start with Obama. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown have already proposed it in legislation. But the president gave it a prominent endorsement. "I think that's a reasonable proposal," the president said. "I support it."
Republican governors control most of the 26 states that have sued to stop Obama's health care overhaul, his signature domestic accomplishment. They say it would cost their states too much money. Court rulings so far have been mixed, upholding the law more times than not. Last month in Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the law was unconstitutional.
During the state executives' closed session with Obama, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said she told the president that 29 governors were seeking an expedited Supreme Court handling of the federal health care law challenge, following the Florida decision. "We've got to get answers for these governors," Haley said in an interview with The Associated Press.
For his part, Obama showed no give on the law's core elements. He said was convinced the law would cut costs, end insurance industry abuses and "cover everybody."
"I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress that we've made," Obama told the governors when reporters were in the room. "But I am willing to work with anyone, anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican ... to make this law even better."
Over the next two-and-a-half years, states face an estimated $175 billion more in budget gaps that they have no choice but to fill. Unlike the federal government, states are required to balance their budgets. Their upcoming problems will be caused partly by the loss of money as the nation's 2009 emergency economic stimulus law, or recovery act, dries up.
Obama noted that point and sympathized with the states' budget crunch. Here, too, though, Obama took the governors to task for those who have criticized the costly stimulus law.
"It is undeniable that the recovery act helped every single state represented in this room manage your budgets," he said, "whether you admit it or not."
February 28, 2011
On call, officials stress public options in health care shift
Jennifer Haberkorn reports that President Obama's move to allow states flexibility in spending health care funds is the "most significant change" since the law was enacted, and a potential gesture toward critics.
But a source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.
Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans -- as Vermont seeks to -- and true government-run plans, like Connecticut's Sustinet.
The source on the call summarizes the officials' point -- which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically -- as casting the new "flexibility" language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.
"They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible," the source emails. (This CNN story reflects the public presentation.)
Much of the debate now focuses on the federal government's power, and perhaps health care legislation's critics wouldn't object to single payer -- in Vermont. But the prospect of a backdoor to a single-payer plan anywhere may also sharpen opposition.
UPDATE: An Administration official emails, “Administration official discussed how this legislation would help give states the opportunity to innovate. States have the flexibility to design plans in the way that works for them, so long as they meet the shared goals of reform. That could be any number of proposals from exchanges like the Utah model to other innovations that increase choice and competition.”
Flexibility OK, but health care law remains Share
By BEN FELLER, AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller, Ap White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON – Anxious to ease deepening political tensions with the states, President Barack Obama on Monday told governors he wants to speed up their ability to enforce his signature health care law on their own terms. But his concession goes only so far: He warned he won't allow states to weaken the law.
He also told them not to vilify their own states' public workers while struggling with spending cuts.
Hosting governors of both parties on his own turf, Obama offered them what they often request: more flexibility as they cope with painful budget dilemmas. Declaring that he would "go to bat for whatever works," Obama supported letting states propose their own health care plans by 2014 — three years faster than the current law allows.
Yet this would be no change to the fundamental requirements of a federal law that has divided the nation and prompted about half the states to try to overturn it through lawsuits. To gain new powers, states would first have to convince Washington that their plans would cover as many people, provide equally affordable and comprehensive care and not add to the federal deficit.
More broadly, Obama sought to send a message — both cooperative and pointed — as leaders at all levels of government grapple with huge economic pressures. The yearly gathering of the president and the state chief executives came as budget disputes are roiling, most notably in Wisconsin, where dramatic protests have raged for days.
Calling for shared sacrifice, Obama said public workers understand they must absorb their share of budget cuts. But he delivered a sharp message to governors seeking to strip away union protections, saying: "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified, or their rights are infringed upon."
Wisconsin's governor, Scott Walker, was not at the White House but rather in his home state as a nationally watched budget showdown rolled on. He called for Democratic lawmakers to return to the state by Tuesday and vote on his bill that would end most collective bargaining rights for public employees as part of a plan to plug a $3.6 billion shortfall.
Governors in Washington responded tepidly to Obama's pledges of flexibility on the health care law, which requires Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014.
"Oklahoma wants to do Oklahoma's own plan," said the state's Republican governor, Mary Fallin. Asked whether Obama's plan was flexible enough, she said: "We'll see."
The closer Republicans look at the details, the less flexibility they will see, said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, leading domestic policy adviser to 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain. "If you can't control eligibility or the benefits package, it's like saying: 'Here's the bill, you go figure out how to pay for it,'" he said.
Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Obama's offer has no more flexibility. "It's a head fake," said Steel.
White House officials said the administration was not backing away from the individual coverage requirement, but that the provision, ultimately, is only a means to an end. If states can show they'll achieve the same goals through a different approach, the administration is willing to sign off. White House officials said they still believe the individual mandate is the best way to meet the law's coverage and affordability targets.
The idea to move up the date for state experimentation did not start with Obama. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown have already proposed it in legislation. But the president gave it a prominent endorsement. "I think that's a reasonable proposal," the president said. "I support it."
Republican governors control most of the 26 states that have sued to stop Obama's health care overhaul, his signature domestic accomplishment. They say it would cost their states too much money. Court rulings so far have been mixed, upholding the law more times than not. Last month in Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the law was unconstitutional.
During the state executives' closed session with Obama, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said she told the president that 29 governors were seeking an expedited Supreme Court handling of the federal health care law challenge, following the Florida decision. "We've got to get answers for these governors," Haley said in an interview with The Associated Press.
For his part, Obama showed no give on the law's core elements. He said was convinced the law would cut costs, end insurance industry abuses and "cover everybody."
"I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress that we've made," Obama told the governors when reporters were in the room. "But I am willing to work with anyone, anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican ... to make this law even better."
Over the next two-and-a-half years, states face an estimated $175 billion more in budget gaps that they have no choice but to fill. Unlike the federal government, states are required to balance their budgets. Their upcoming problems will be caused partly by the loss of money as the nation's 2009 emergency economic stimulus law, or recovery act, dries up.
Obama noted that point and sympathized with the states' budget crunch. Here, too, though, Obama took the governors to task for those who have criticized the costly stimulus law.
"It is undeniable that the recovery act helped every single state represented in this room manage your budgets," he said, "whether you admit it or not."
February 28, 2011
On call, officials stress public options in health care shift
Jennifer Haberkorn reports that President Obama's move to allow states flexibility in spending health care funds is the "most significant change" since the law was enacted, and a potential gesture toward critics.
But a source on a White House conference call with liberal allies this morning says the Administration is presenting it to Democrats as an opportunity to offer more expansive health care plans than the one Congress passed.
Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans -- as Vermont seeks to -- and true government-run plans, like Connecticut's Sustinet.
The source on the call summarizes the officials' point -- which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically -- as casting the new "flexibility" language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.
"They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible," the source emails. (This CNN story reflects the public presentation.)
Much of the debate now focuses on the federal government's power, and perhaps health care legislation's critics wouldn't object to single payer -- in Vermont. But the prospect of a backdoor to a single-payer plan anywhere may also sharpen opposition.
UPDATE: An Administration official emails, “Administration official discussed how this legislation would help give states the opportunity to innovate. States have the flexibility to design plans in the way that works for them, so long as they meet the shared goals of reform. That could be any number of proposals from exchanges like the Utah model to other innovations that increase choice and competition.”
Obama - the Pro-Business Spin ISN'T Working!
American Business ISN'T buying Obama's pro-business spin...
3M chief warns Obama over business regulation
By Hal Weitzman in Chicago Published: February 27 2011 19:27 | Last updated: February 27 2011 19:27
The head of one of the US’s biggest industrial groups has launched a scathing attack on Barack Obama’s attempts to repair relations with companies, dubbing him “anti-business”.
Manufacturers could shift production out of the US to Canada or Mexico as a result, warned George Buckley, chief executive and chairman of 3M.
“I judge people by their feet, not their mouth,” he told the Financial Times. “We know what his instincts are – they are Robin Hood-esque. He is anti-business.”
The Obama administration has struck a more conciliatory tone towards business since the Democratic defeat in November’s midterm elections.
Last month, the president created a jobs and competitiveness council, chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of GE, and including chief executives such as American Express’s Kenneth Chenault, DuPont’s Ellen Kullman, Antonio Perez of Kodak and Southwest Airlines’ Gary Kelly. Mr Obama also convened a meeting this month with technology chief executives, including Steve Jobs of Apple, Google’s Eric Schmidt, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.
Mr Buckley, who has run the diversified manufacturer since 2005, said: “There is a sense among companies that this is a difficult place to do business. It is about regulation, taxation, seemingly anti-business policies in Washington, attitudes towards science.”
He added: “Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. If it’s hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico – which tend to be pro-business – or America.”
The 3M chief also criticised US immigration policy, saying the difficulty of obtaining visas was forcing companies to move research and development overseas. “About 68 per cent of our science PhD candidates are from outside the US,” he said. “Many want to stay here afterwards but we’re not allowed as many visas as we would like.”
“We are now exporting science overseas to China, India, Germany, building labs there. There’s a good strategic reason for it, but we also have no choice – if we can’t get the people here and we’re competing with the people there, we have no choice but to do it locally.”
Mr Buckley struck a gloomy note on the US economy. “The macro numbers seem to be improving but when we look at the micro numbers – at what’s going on in housing, automotive, in manufacturing in general – it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it,” he said.
3M chief warns Obama over business regulation
By Hal Weitzman in Chicago Published: February 27 2011 19:27 | Last updated: February 27 2011 19:27
The head of one of the US’s biggest industrial groups has launched a scathing attack on Barack Obama’s attempts to repair relations with companies, dubbing him “anti-business”.
Manufacturers could shift production out of the US to Canada or Mexico as a result, warned George Buckley, chief executive and chairman of 3M.
“I judge people by their feet, not their mouth,” he told the Financial Times. “We know what his instincts are – they are Robin Hood-esque. He is anti-business.”
The Obama administration has struck a more conciliatory tone towards business since the Democratic defeat in November’s midterm elections.
Last month, the president created a jobs and competitiveness council, chaired by Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of GE, and including chief executives such as American Express’s Kenneth Chenault, DuPont’s Ellen Kullman, Antonio Perez of Kodak and Southwest Airlines’ Gary Kelly. Mr Obama also convened a meeting this month with technology chief executives, including Steve Jobs of Apple, Google’s Eric Schmidt, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.
Mr Buckley, who has run the diversified manufacturer since 2005, said: “There is a sense among companies that this is a difficult place to do business. It is about regulation, taxation, seemingly anti-business policies in Washington, attitudes towards science.”
He added: “Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. If it’s hostile, incrementally, things will slip away. We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada and Mexico – which tend to be pro-business – or America.”
The 3M chief also criticised US immigration policy, saying the difficulty of obtaining visas was forcing companies to move research and development overseas. “About 68 per cent of our science PhD candidates are from outside the US,” he said. “Many want to stay here afterwards but we’re not allowed as many visas as we would like.”
“We are now exporting science overseas to China, India, Germany, building labs there. There’s a good strategic reason for it, but we also have no choice – if we can’t get the people here and we’re competing with the people there, we have no choice but to do it locally.”
Mr Buckley struck a gloomy note on the US economy. “The macro numbers seem to be improving but when we look at the micro numbers – at what’s going on in housing, automotive, in manufacturing in general – it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it,” he said.
Trumka - What an Embarassment to America and Labor!
Trumka is an embarassing example to the American People...and certinly to the people that he supposedly represents...and REMEMBER he's a close associate and friend of Obama's.....What happened to civility on the Left/Democrat side?...Where's Obama, Pelosi and Reid speaking out against this incivility?....What hypocrites!
Union Chief Doesn't Condemn Comparisons of Wisconsin's Walker to Hitler
Published February 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The head of one of the nation's most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.
On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations "wrong" or "inappropriate."
Trumka did not answer, instead saying, "We should be sitting down trying to create jobs. ... In Wisconsin, a vast majority of the people think this governor has overreached. His popularity has gone down. They're saying to him, sit down and negotiate; don't do what you've been doing. So he's losing."
Turning to Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a staunch Walker defender and potential Republican presidential candidate in 2012, Trumka added, "If that's the argument you're going to do this year and next year, it's a loser."
Barbour, who was then challenged by another panelist on the show as fearing democracy, responded that the 2010 election showed that Wisconsin voters wanted a Republican legislature and executive branch that pledged to get the budget in check. He then described a similar effort in Indiana.
"In Indiana, this was done six years ago by the governor. It has been very popular. Nobody put (Gov.) Mitch Daniels' picture with a crosshair over his face like they're doing in Wisconsin. You know, if Sarah Palin did that, it would be the world coming to an end," Barbour said, referring to the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate who has become a lightning rod for Democratic criticism.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who also appeared on the show, said he rejected the allusions to Hitler and violence as inappropriate.
"Absolutely. It's inappropriate. It should be condemned, not only by people close to the governor but by those of us who are observers. I think that's something that we've got to squash in this country. We've come to a point in this government discussion where, you know, one side says anything goes to get my point across. And I think it would be certainly something that I would condemn," Cleaver said.
But immediately following those remarks, Cleaver,, who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Walker's position that Democrats come home from Illinois in order to cast a losing vote is not acceptable and suggested the Wisconsin governor was leading more like Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi than an elected official.
"When the lion and the lamb lie down, if you look closely, when the lion gets up, the lamb is missing. ... The governor was just elected. He'll still be governor in a year. And, you know, the agreements that we have were not made by Qaddafi. They were made by people who sat down in a room and worked out an agreement.
"And I think labor unions are saying, and public-sector employees are saying, 'OK, you know, maybe things have gotten out of balance; we'll -- we'll reduce some things.' The governor is saying, 'I don't care -- you know, I want to crush the union.'"
Union Chief Doesn't Condemn Comparisons of Wisconsin's Walker to Hitler
Published February 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The head of one of the nation's most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.
On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations "wrong" or "inappropriate."
Trumka did not answer, instead saying, "We should be sitting down trying to create jobs. ... In Wisconsin, a vast majority of the people think this governor has overreached. His popularity has gone down. They're saying to him, sit down and negotiate; don't do what you've been doing. So he's losing."
Turning to Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a staunch Walker defender and potential Republican presidential candidate in 2012, Trumka added, "If that's the argument you're going to do this year and next year, it's a loser."
Barbour, who was then challenged by another panelist on the show as fearing democracy, responded that the 2010 election showed that Wisconsin voters wanted a Republican legislature and executive branch that pledged to get the budget in check. He then described a similar effort in Indiana.
"In Indiana, this was done six years ago by the governor. It has been very popular. Nobody put (Gov.) Mitch Daniels' picture with a crosshair over his face like they're doing in Wisconsin. You know, if Sarah Palin did that, it would be the world coming to an end," Barbour said, referring to the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate who has become a lightning rod for Democratic criticism.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., who also appeared on the show, said he rejected the allusions to Hitler and violence as inappropriate.
"Absolutely. It's inappropriate. It should be condemned, not only by people close to the governor but by those of us who are observers. I think that's something that we've got to squash in this country. We've come to a point in this government discussion where, you know, one side says anything goes to get my point across. And I think it would be certainly something that I would condemn," Cleaver said.
But immediately following those remarks, Cleaver,, who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Walker's position that Democrats come home from Illinois in order to cast a losing vote is not acceptable and suggested the Wisconsin governor was leading more like Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi than an elected official.
"When the lion and the lamb lie down, if you look closely, when the lion gets up, the lamb is missing. ... The governor was just elected. He'll still be governor in a year. And, you know, the agreements that we have were not made by Qaddafi. They were made by people who sat down in a room and worked out an agreement.
"And I think labor unions are saying, and public-sector employees are saying, 'OK, you know, maybe things have gotten out of balance; we'll -- we'll reduce some things.' The governor is saying, 'I don't care -- you know, I want to crush the union.'"
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Obama....Always a Day Late and a Dollar Short
Obama will go down in history as a worse President than Jimmy Carter....
Friday, February 25, 2011
Weak Obama....buying minority votes again!
Sounds like more from the weak President that is trying to buy minority votes for 2012...this is probably as loaded with fraud as the Pigford settlement...Anyone with backbone in this economy would blow this kind of stuff off....
USDA Announces $1.3B Fund for Female, Hispanic Farmers Claiming Discrimination
Published February 25, 2011
The Obama administration plans to distribute $1.3 billion to female and Hispanic farmers who claim they were discriminated against by the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a process for distributing the money Friday. The move comes after Congress approved a separate $4.6 billion settlement for black and Native American farmers who claimed discrimination.
Though some lawmakers alleged the claims process for black farmers was rife with fraud, the administration has pushed to extend settlement money to other minority groups.
"The Obama administration has made it a priority to resolve all claims of past discrimination at USDA, and we are committed to closing this sad chapter in USDA's history," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement Friday. "Women and Hispanic farmers and ranchers who allege past discrimination can now come forward to participate in a claims process in which they have the opportunity to receive compensation."
The administration first offered that settlement in May.
The farmers and ranchers in all these cases claim they were discriminated against over a period of decades when trying to obtain USDA farm loans. The Hispanic and female farmers have been seeking restitution in court since shortly after the black-farmers case was filed more than a decade ago.
The USDA-announced claims process would provide at least $1.33 billion, plus another $160 million for debt relief. The USDA said the system would provide up to $50,000 to any Hispanic or female farmer "who can show that USDA denied them a loan or loan servicing for discriminatory reasons" between 1981 and 2000.
But critics say that, in the case of the settlement process for black farmers, some of the claimants didn't have to prove much in order to receive the payments. Lawmakers who raised concern said whistleblowers from the Department of Agriculture had come to them in confidence to warn that the money is going to claimants who don't deserve it -- a charge the USDA denies.
The $4.6 billion settlement approved late last year marked the second round of payments for black farmers who claimed they were discriminated against. The government had paid out about $1 billion before that.
USDA Announces $1.3B Fund for Female, Hispanic Farmers Claiming Discrimination
Published February 25, 2011
The Obama administration plans to distribute $1.3 billion to female and Hispanic farmers who claim they were discriminated against by the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a process for distributing the money Friday. The move comes after Congress approved a separate $4.6 billion settlement for black and Native American farmers who claimed discrimination.
Though some lawmakers alleged the claims process for black farmers was rife with fraud, the administration has pushed to extend settlement money to other minority groups.
"The Obama administration has made it a priority to resolve all claims of past discrimination at USDA, and we are committed to closing this sad chapter in USDA's history," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement Friday. "Women and Hispanic farmers and ranchers who allege past discrimination can now come forward to participate in a claims process in which they have the opportunity to receive compensation."
The administration first offered that settlement in May.
The farmers and ranchers in all these cases claim they were discriminated against over a period of decades when trying to obtain USDA farm loans. The Hispanic and female farmers have been seeking restitution in court since shortly after the black-farmers case was filed more than a decade ago.
The USDA-announced claims process would provide at least $1.33 billion, plus another $160 million for debt relief. The USDA said the system would provide up to $50,000 to any Hispanic or female farmer "who can show that USDA denied them a loan or loan servicing for discriminatory reasons" between 1981 and 2000.
But critics say that, in the case of the settlement process for black farmers, some of the claimants didn't have to prove much in order to receive the payments. Lawmakers who raised concern said whistleblowers from the Department of Agriculture had come to them in confidence to warn that the money is going to claimants who don't deserve it -- a charge the USDA denies.
The $4.6 billion settlement approved late last year marked the second round of payments for black farmers who claimed they were discriminated against. The government had paid out about $1 billion before that.
Newt is Right Again....did Obama open himself up for Impeachment?
I couldn't AGREE with Newt more....
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Friday, 25 Feb 2011 02:53 PM By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”
Gingrich’s comments mark the first time a significant Republican leader has raised the specter of impeachment against Obama.
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.
“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.
“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said it is too early to call for Obama’s impeachment, but did not rule it out if he fails to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.
“His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
“Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”
Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”
Gingrich: If Palin Took Obama Actions, There Would Be Calls for Impeachment
Friday, 25 Feb 2011 02:53 PM By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.
Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996.
Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups.
Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand.
“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”
Gingrich’s comments mark the first time a significant Republican leader has raised the specter of impeachment against Obama.
“First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.
“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.
“The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said it is too early to call for Obama’s impeachment, but did not rule it out if he fails to comply with Congress and the constitutional process.
“I believe the House Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job.
“His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.
“Clearly it is a dereliction of duty and a violation of his constitutional oath and is something that cannot be allowed to stand.”
Gingrich adds: “I don’t think these guys set out to create a constitutional crisis. I think they set out to pay off their allies in the gay community and to do something that they thought was clever. I think they didn’t understand the implication that having a president personally suspend a law is clearly unconstitutional.”
Pelosi...showing her Not so Humble side!
This just proves that Pelosi is an egotistical IDIOT!!!! And evidently her family is also....What an elitist!
Pelosi edits honorary resolution...on Pelosi -
The Democratic National Committee wanted to honor Nancy Pelosi Thursday -- but its praise wasn't good enough for the House minority leader.
When the DNC's Resolutions Committee brought up a resolution commemorating Pelosi's years as speaker of the House, Pelosi's daughter sought to alter the proposal at her mother's behest, adding some of the accomplishments that the elder Pelosi felt the committee had overlooked.
"I have some friendly amendments," said Christine Pelosi, a political strategist, at the committee's session during the DNC Winter Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel Thursday afternoon. She is a member of the committee.
"You think I'm kidding," Christine Pelosi added, to surprised laughter from the room. The proposed changes, she indicated, came out of a discussion with her mother.
First, Pelosi wanted to add a mention of her fight against HIV and AIDS, because it was "why she went to Congress." Then, she wanted to insert a paragraph on her "accomplishments for equality," mentioning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in December.
"Finally, since, as she said, 'I'm not going anywhere,' she wanted to add, in the final 'whereas' clause, '...and will continue the fight for America's working families,'" Christine Pelosi said.
The committee applauded that point, and approved the amended resolution on a voice vote.
The Pelosi resolution, submitted by a roster of Democratic luminaries headed by DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, was one of dozens of ceremonial acts considered by the committee, on such topics as praising President Obama's State of the Union address, honoring the victims of January's Tucson shootings and memorializing Elizabeth Edwards. Most of the resolutions were approved without changes.
:
Pelosi edits honorary resolution...on Pelosi -
The Democratic National Committee wanted to honor Nancy Pelosi Thursday -- but its praise wasn't good enough for the House minority leader.
When the DNC's Resolutions Committee brought up a resolution commemorating Pelosi's years as speaker of the House, Pelosi's daughter sought to alter the proposal at her mother's behest, adding some of the accomplishments that the elder Pelosi felt the committee had overlooked.
"I have some friendly amendments," said Christine Pelosi, a political strategist, at the committee's session during the DNC Winter Meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel Thursday afternoon. She is a member of the committee.
"You think I'm kidding," Christine Pelosi added, to surprised laughter from the room. The proposed changes, she indicated, came out of a discussion with her mother.
First, Pelosi wanted to add a mention of her fight against HIV and AIDS, because it was "why she went to Congress." Then, she wanted to insert a paragraph on her "accomplishments for equality," mentioning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in December.
"Finally, since, as she said, 'I'm not going anywhere,' she wanted to add, in the final 'whereas' clause, '...and will continue the fight for America's working families,'" Christine Pelosi said.
The committee applauded that point, and approved the amended resolution on a voice vote.
The Pelosi resolution, submitted by a roster of Democratic luminaries headed by DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, was one of dozens of ceremonial acts considered by the committee, on such topics as praising President Obama's State of the Union address, honoring the victims of January's Tucson shootings and memorializing Elizabeth Edwards. Most of the resolutions were approved without changes.
:
Obama, First Lady Get Their Groove On To Motown Hits....No Wonder Nothing's getting Done!
No wonder Obama's not paying any attention to what's going on in the Middle East, or doing anything about creating jobs, or doing anything about reducing the crushing debt he has rung up in America.....BUT he's dancing to Motown....Maybe they will take him back in Detroit...God knows we want to get rid of him....2012 can't come too soon....
Obama, First Lady Get Their Groove On To Motown Hits
Obama, First Lady Get Their Groove On To Motown Hits
Carville - Miracle Whip....finally something he can do!
They finally found something James Carville can do!
Obama again demonstrates his total disrespect for the rule of law!
Just another example of Obama's total lack of respect for the rule of law....who does he think he is....God?....DOMA is a duly passed piece of law in America and Obama has no right to deem it unconstitutional....IF he wants to have it reviewed by the courts I would guess he has that right, but to take it upon himself be judge and jury just continues to show what an elitist he is.....and what a politician he is trying to play up to his base and get funding and support from the gay community....But again the bigger problem is the total lack of respect for the rule of law and politicization of the Department of Justice....Holder is nothing more than Obama's puppet.....What an embarassment!!!!
All this and not to mention that this changes the subject from the areas where he is losing big time....whether it's the publics support for public employee unions, his mishandling of the crisis in the Middle East....this is nothing more than another Saul Alinski moment...
From today's Heritage Foundation -
Next Step in Congress' Fight for Marriage
This Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder sent his own version of a "Dear John" letter to the Speaker of the House, informing him that President Barack Obama's Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. The letter clearly states that the decision was personally made by the President himself, who, supposedly just this week, came to the conclusion that DOMA violates "the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment" of the U.S Constitution. This purely partisan act is completely consistent with both President Obama’s unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department and the same-sex marriage movement’s end-run around for democracy.
DOMA was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA has two core provisions. First, it defines the words marriage, spouse, husband, and wife wherever they appear in the U.S. Code as referring only to the union of a man or a woman. Second, it defends the right of each state not to be forced to accept the redefinition of marriage in a handful of other states as a result of state court decisions or laws. Nearly 40 states have enacted state-level DOMAs, and 31 have embraced traditional marriage in their state constitutions. No state’s voters have ever voted to the contrary.
President Obama knows all of this. He also knows that his Administration’s litany of failures (unemployment above 8 percent, Guantanamo still open, exploding debt, etc.) has weakened him politically. By now asserting that there is no rational case for defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Obama is echoing the claims of same-sex marriage advocated who portray the defenders of traditional marriage as irrational and bigoted. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Chuck Donovan explains, defense of traditional marriage is not only rational but a cornerstone of civil society:
Marriage is the cornerstone in an archway of values that form the constitution of the family and the foundation of civil society. To its advocates as an institution with a pre-political meaning, it is not an entity created by the state but rather one recognized by the state. It is not about one family, but the coming together of two families, whose role in begetting and bearing children make them not merely part of a community but the creators of community. The community they create is not time-bound, but existing across generations. ... What is at stake is the whole task of society to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers.
There is one silver lining in the President’s decision to call the vast majority of Americans who believe in traditional marriage bigots: Congress now has the opportunity to offer a real defense of marriage in court. Up to this date, the Obama Administration’s fraudulent defense of DOMA in federal court has been characterized by even supporters of same-sex marriage as "collusive litigation." Congress should defend its rights as a co-equal branch of government under the United States Constitution and fight for marriage.
This does not mean that Congress needs to vote on DOMA again. DOMA is still good law. It does mean that Congress needs to act to make sure DOMA has effective and aggressive defense in court. Members of Congress, should seek to intervene in the case to assure that DOMA gets the vigorous defense that should be afforded to all federal statutes for which reasonable legal arguments may be offered—and that the President is refusing to provide.
All this and not to mention that this changes the subject from the areas where he is losing big time....whether it's the publics support for public employee unions, his mishandling of the crisis in the Middle East....this is nothing more than another Saul Alinski moment...
From today's Heritage Foundation -
Next Step in Congress' Fight for Marriage
This Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder sent his own version of a "Dear John" letter to the Speaker of the House, informing him that President Barack Obama's Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. The letter clearly states that the decision was personally made by the President himself, who, supposedly just this week, came to the conclusion that DOMA violates "the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment" of the U.S Constitution. This purely partisan act is completely consistent with both President Obama’s unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department and the same-sex marriage movement’s end-run around for democracy.
DOMA was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA has two core provisions. First, it defines the words marriage, spouse, husband, and wife wherever they appear in the U.S. Code as referring only to the union of a man or a woman. Second, it defends the right of each state not to be forced to accept the redefinition of marriage in a handful of other states as a result of state court decisions or laws. Nearly 40 states have enacted state-level DOMAs, and 31 have embraced traditional marriage in their state constitutions. No state’s voters have ever voted to the contrary.
President Obama knows all of this. He also knows that his Administration’s litany of failures (unemployment above 8 percent, Guantanamo still open, exploding debt, etc.) has weakened him politically. By now asserting that there is no rational case for defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Obama is echoing the claims of same-sex marriage advocated who portray the defenders of traditional marriage as irrational and bigoted. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Chuck Donovan explains, defense of traditional marriage is not only rational but a cornerstone of civil society:
Marriage is the cornerstone in an archway of values that form the constitution of the family and the foundation of civil society. To its advocates as an institution with a pre-political meaning, it is not an entity created by the state but rather one recognized by the state. It is not about one family, but the coming together of two families, whose role in begetting and bearing children make them not merely part of a community but the creators of community. The community they create is not time-bound, but existing across generations. ... What is at stake is the whole task of society to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers.
There is one silver lining in the President’s decision to call the vast majority of Americans who believe in traditional marriage bigots: Congress now has the opportunity to offer a real defense of marriage in court. Up to this date, the Obama Administration’s fraudulent defense of DOMA in federal court has been characterized by even supporters of same-sex marriage as "collusive litigation." Congress should defend its rights as a co-equal branch of government under the United States Constitution and fight for marriage.
This does not mean that Congress needs to vote on DOMA again. DOMA is still good law. It does mean that Congress needs to act to make sure DOMA has effective and aggressive defense in court. Members of Congress, should seek to intervene in the case to assure that DOMA gets the vigorous defense that should be afforded to all federal statutes for which reasonable legal arguments may be offered—and that the President is refusing to provide.
Democrats - the Party of the Past...the Party of NO!
Obama and the Democrats have become the party of the past, the party of status quo, the party of NO.....they certain have NOT gotten the message from the midterm elections. Now it's time for the American People to be serious and support this change....it's that or have America fall into the fate of Greece!
Charles Krauthammer February 25, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Rubicon of Wisconsin
Recklessly principled Republicans are tackling our fiscal crisis.
The magnificent turmoil now gripping statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and others marks an epic political moment. The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and, remarkably, our muddled, gridlocked, allegedly broken politics has yielded a singular clarity.
At the federal level, President Obama’s budget makes clear that Democrats are determined to do nothing about the debt crisis, while House Republicans have announced that beyond their proposed cuts in discretionary spending, their April budget will actually propose real entitlement reform. Simultaneously, in Wisconsin and other states, Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension and health-care obligations, while Democrats are full-throated in support of the public-employee unions’ crying, “Hell no.”
A choice, not an echo: Democrats desperately defending the status quo; Republicans charging the barricades.
Wisconsin is the epicenter. It began with economic issues. When Gov. Scott Walker proposed that state workers contribute more to their pension and health-care benefits, he started a revolution. Teachers called in sick. Schools closed. Demonstrators massed at the capitol. Democratic senators fled the state to paralyze the legislature.
Unfortunately for them, that telegenic faux-Cairo scene drew national attention to the dispute — and to the sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years. They were contributing a fifth of a penny on a dollar of wages to their pensions and one-fourth what private-sector workers pay for health insurance.
The unions quickly understood that the more than 85 percent of Wisconsin not part of this privileged special-interest group would not take kindly to “public servants” resisting adjustments that still leave them paying less for benefits than private-sector workers. They immediately capitulated and claimed they were only protesting the other part of the bill, the part about collective-bargaining rights.
Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state’s financial straits — a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years — did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.
In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largesse in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.
To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker’s bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them have left. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.
Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Private unions have shrunk to less than 7 percent of the working population. The Democrats’ strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion.
Hence the import of the current moment — its blinding clarity. Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang onto the gains of their glory years — from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.
Obama’s Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell no.
We have heard everyone — from Obama’s own debt commission to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — call the looming debt a mortal threat to the nation. We have watched Greece self-immolate. We can see the future. The only question has been: When will the country finally rouse itself?
Amazingly, the answer is now. Led by famously progressive Wisconsin — Scott Walker at the state level and Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan at the congressional level — a new generation of Republicans has looked at the debt and is crossing the Rubicon. Recklessly principled, they are putting the question to the nation: Are we a serious people?
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Charles Krauthammer February 25, 2011 12:00 A.M.
The Rubicon of Wisconsin
Recklessly principled Republicans are tackling our fiscal crisis.
The magnificent turmoil now gripping statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and others marks an epic political moment. The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions and, remarkably, our muddled, gridlocked, allegedly broken politics has yielded a singular clarity.
At the federal level, President Obama’s budget makes clear that Democrats are determined to do nothing about the debt crisis, while House Republicans have announced that beyond their proposed cuts in discretionary spending, their April budget will actually propose real entitlement reform. Simultaneously, in Wisconsin and other states, Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension and health-care obligations, while Democrats are full-throated in support of the public-employee unions’ crying, “Hell no.”
A choice, not an echo: Democrats desperately defending the status quo; Republicans charging the barricades.
Wisconsin is the epicenter. It began with economic issues. When Gov. Scott Walker proposed that state workers contribute more to their pension and health-care benefits, he started a revolution. Teachers called in sick. Schools closed. Demonstrators massed at the capitol. Democratic senators fled the state to paralyze the legislature.
Unfortunately for them, that telegenic faux-Cairo scene drew national attention to the dispute — and to the sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years. They were contributing a fifth of a penny on a dollar of wages to their pensions and one-fourth what private-sector workers pay for health insurance.
The unions quickly understood that the more than 85 percent of Wisconsin not part of this privileged special-interest group would not take kindly to “public servants” resisting adjustments that still leave them paying less for benefits than private-sector workers. They immediately capitulated and claimed they were only protesting the other part of the bill, the part about collective-bargaining rights.
Indeed. Walker understands that a one-time giveback means little. The state’s financial straits — a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years — did not come out of nowhere. They came largely from a half-century power imbalance between the unions and the politicians with whom they collectively bargain.
In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largesse in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.
To redress these perverse incentives that benefit both negotiating parties at the expense of the taxpayer, Walker’s bill would restrict future government-union negotiations to wages only. Excluded from negotiations would be benefits, the more easily hidden sweeteners that come due long after the politicians who negotiated them have left. The bill would also require that unions be recertified every year and that dues be voluntary.
Recognizing this threat to union power, the Democratic party is pouring money and fury into the fight. Private unions have shrunk to less than 7 percent of the working population. The Democrats’ strength lies in government workers, who now constitute a majority of union members and provide massive support to the party. For them, Wisconsin represents a dangerous contagion.
Hence the import of the current moment — its blinding clarity. Here stand the Democrats, avatars of reactionary liberalism, desperately trying to hang onto the gains of their glory years — from unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 to the massive promissory notes issued to government unions when state coffers were full and no one was looking.
Obama’s Democrats have become the party of no. Real cuts to the federal budget? No. Entitlement reform? No. Tax reform? No. Breaking the corrupt and fiscally unsustainable symbiosis between public-sector unions and state governments? Hell no.
We have heard everyone — from Obama’s own debt commission to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — call the looming debt a mortal threat to the nation. We have watched Greece self-immolate. We can see the future. The only question has been: When will the country finally rouse itself?
Amazingly, the answer is now. Led by famously progressive Wisconsin — Scott Walker at the state level and Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan at the congressional level — a new generation of Republicans has looked at the debt and is crossing the Rubicon. Recklessly principled, they are putting the question to the nation: Are we a serious people?
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2011 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Democrats Just Don't Get It!
The Democrats just don't get it....if that's all they are offering shut it down!
Shutdown Showdown: Democrats to Propose More Spending Cuts
February 24, 2011 3:45 PM
Senate Democrats are preparing a new round budget cuts to counter the cuts passed by House Republicans last week, according to Democratic sources. The new cuts will be unveiled as soon as tomorrow.
Currently Democrats are proposing to freeze spending at 2010 levels; the new Democratic proposal will be significantly lower than that, although will fall short of the $61 billion in cuts proposed by Republicans.
The cuts will include $8.5 billion in funding for earmarks left over from 2010. Additional cuts will come from the $24.7 billion in reductions that were outlined in President Obama’s budget for 2012. Democratic budget experts are trying to figure out how many of President Obama’s proposed cuts for next year can go into effect this year.
Shutdown Showdown: Democrats to Propose More Spending Cuts
February 24, 2011 3:45 PM
Senate Democrats are preparing a new round budget cuts to counter the cuts passed by House Republicans last week, according to Democratic sources. The new cuts will be unveiled as soon as tomorrow.
Currently Democrats are proposing to freeze spending at 2010 levels; the new Democratic proposal will be significantly lower than that, although will fall short of the $61 billion in cuts proposed by Republicans.
The cuts will include $8.5 billion in funding for earmarks left over from 2010. Additional cuts will come from the $24.7 billion in reductions that were outlined in President Obama’s budget for 2012. Democratic budget experts are trying to figure out how many of President Obama’s proposed cuts for next year can go into effect this year.
Donald Rumsfeld on the View with the Bitches (except for Elizabeth)
How DARE these bitches from the View (except for Elizabeth) question a true patriat like Donald Rumsfeld about any national issue...Barbara Walters makes me sick..she's nothing more than a Hollywood liberal....and what can I say about JOY...except that she is an idiot!
Obama's Making Headlines with Rhetoric rather than Making Progress for America!
Oh yea Barack...job #1 is creating jobs....but instead of doing something about jobs he opens up a front on gay marriage.....and he goes against Governor Walker in Wisconsin which will most likely cause teacher layoffs....Remember Obama said in the State of the Union in 2010 that jobs were his #1 priority...
You can't believe a word he says...and hey looks who's at the table...Richard Trumka the leader of the AFL-CIO...that will open up a ton of competitive jobs in the private sector?????
What a joke this President is...
Obama: Unemployment Biggest Challenge Facing Economy
Published February 24, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Obama says the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy is an unemployment rate that remains unacceptably high.
Obama told his newly created competitiveness council Thursday that its top priority must be creating jobs during a period of fiscal restraint.
Obama named business and labor leaders to the council, including GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. The council plans to deliver recommendations to the president within 90 days.
You can't believe a word he says...and hey looks who's at the table...Richard Trumka the leader of the AFL-CIO...that will open up a ton of competitive jobs in the private sector?????
What a joke this President is...
Obama: Unemployment Biggest Challenge Facing Economy
Published February 24, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Obama says the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy is an unemployment rate that remains unacceptably high.
Obama told his newly created competitiveness council Thursday that its top priority must be creating jobs during a period of fiscal restraint.
Obama named business and labor leaders to the council, including GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. The council plans to deliver recommendations to the president within 90 days.
Pathetic "Dirty" Harry Reid....changing the subject AGAIN!
Here's another Democrat ready to tell everyone what's best for THEM!....Dirty Harry Reid must really be getting senile.....He just is trying to change the subject form the real problems that Nevada has and his lack of effort to fix any of them....He's also probably concerned since he got tons of money from the unions and some of them (at least the public unions) might be coming into some tough times....and I am sure after they fronted him tons of money to get elected he's promised them a lot..and probably more than he will be able to deliver....
Another Pathetic Democrat Politician!
Nevada prostitutes, brothel owners say they’re not afraid of Harry Reid
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 12:57 AM 02/24/2011 | Updated: 3:55 PM 02/24/2011
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threat to shut down the regulated sex industry in his state doesn’t exactly have Nevada prostitutes shaking in their G-strings.
“I will lie down for a lot of things, but Senator Reid is not one of them,” said Brooke Taylor, a five-year veteran working girl at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch just outside Carson City.
In his biennial address at the state capitol Tuesday, the Nevada senator vowed to strip the state’s 16 counties of the right to determine their own brothel laws, saying that “the time has come” to rid the state of the practice.
“When the nation thinks about Nevada, it should think about the world’s newest ideas and newest careers – not about its oldest profession,” Reid told the state delegation.
Reid’s call to ban prostitution in the state — which is only legal in a handful of mostly rural counties — received a downright cold response from the audience, which included brothel owner Dennis Hof and eight of his “ladies” who work for him at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch.
Hof, and other local industry leaders, said Reid was just using the issue to distract from the state’s other pressing problems. Nevada has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country, and its economy has seen little recovery since the recession began.
By focusing on prostitution, Reid could spend the week back in his district fielding frivolous questions about cathouses and not the state of the economy, brothel owners said.
“Reid is just trying to cover his butt,” Hoff told The Daily Caller. “He’s putting the spotlight on the brothel industry and using us as a red herring. He’s punishing the counties who didn’t vote for him. He’s saying, ‘You didn’t vote for me, then go to hell.’”
Nevada Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, who would have the final say on any proposal to outlaw the industry state-wide, suggested he would veto the bill if it ever made it to his desk.
“It’s up to the counties to decide if they want it or not,” he told the Las Vegas Sun.
In large part, brothel owners and defenders of local rights say that although they take calls from policymakers to eliminate their livelihood seriously, Reid’s speech was an empty threat that lacks any significant support in the Nevada assembly.
“No one has rallied on his behalf,” Bobbi Davis, owner of the Shady Lady Ranch in Goldfield, told TheDC. “In the last election, only one rural country supported him. His son ran for governor and no one supported it. It could be retaliation. It sounds like a dumb thing for a grown man to do, but that could be it.”
George Flint, a former minister who has been the spokesman for the legal sex industry in Nevada since the mid 1980s, wrote off the senator’s remarks as just another “political move.”
“I’m not going to lay awake worrying about it,” Flint told TheDC. “I don’t see anybody down there, and I mean this sincerely, being swept away by the senator’s comments. The general feeling yesterday afternoon as I started polling various members of the legislature was in fact that Nevada has better things to worry about than that.”
Reid’s comments no doubt took most in the industry by surprise. The Senate majority leader has been known to boast about how his mother paid for his law school fees by washing the clothes of local prostitutes in Searchlight, Nevada.
“It’s very much unlike him,” Flint said. “You never know about Harry.”
Another Pathetic Democrat Politician!
Nevada prostitutes, brothel owners say they’re not afraid of Harry Reid
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 12:57 AM 02/24/2011 | Updated: 3:55 PM 02/24/2011
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threat to shut down the regulated sex industry in his state doesn’t exactly have Nevada prostitutes shaking in their G-strings.
“I will lie down for a lot of things, but Senator Reid is not one of them,” said Brooke Taylor, a five-year veteran working girl at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch just outside Carson City.
In his biennial address at the state capitol Tuesday, the Nevada senator vowed to strip the state’s 16 counties of the right to determine their own brothel laws, saying that “the time has come” to rid the state of the practice.
“When the nation thinks about Nevada, it should think about the world’s newest ideas and newest careers – not about its oldest profession,” Reid told the state delegation.
Reid’s call to ban prostitution in the state — which is only legal in a handful of mostly rural counties — received a downright cold response from the audience, which included brothel owner Dennis Hof and eight of his “ladies” who work for him at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch.
Hof, and other local industry leaders, said Reid was just using the issue to distract from the state’s other pressing problems. Nevada has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country, and its economy has seen little recovery since the recession began.
By focusing on prostitution, Reid could spend the week back in his district fielding frivolous questions about cathouses and not the state of the economy, brothel owners said.
“Reid is just trying to cover his butt,” Hoff told The Daily Caller. “He’s putting the spotlight on the brothel industry and using us as a red herring. He’s punishing the counties who didn’t vote for him. He’s saying, ‘You didn’t vote for me, then go to hell.’”
Nevada Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, who would have the final say on any proposal to outlaw the industry state-wide, suggested he would veto the bill if it ever made it to his desk.
“It’s up to the counties to decide if they want it or not,” he told the Las Vegas Sun.
In large part, brothel owners and defenders of local rights say that although they take calls from policymakers to eliminate their livelihood seriously, Reid’s speech was an empty threat that lacks any significant support in the Nevada assembly.
“No one has rallied on his behalf,” Bobbi Davis, owner of the Shady Lady Ranch in Goldfield, told TheDC. “In the last election, only one rural country supported him. His son ran for governor and no one supported it. It could be retaliation. It sounds like a dumb thing for a grown man to do, but that could be it.”
George Flint, a former minister who has been the spokesman for the legal sex industry in Nevada since the mid 1980s, wrote off the senator’s remarks as just another “political move.”
“I’m not going to lay awake worrying about it,” Flint told TheDC. “I don’t see anybody down there, and I mean this sincerely, being swept away by the senator’s comments. The general feeling yesterday afternoon as I started polling various members of the legislature was in fact that Nevada has better things to worry about than that.”
Reid’s comments no doubt took most in the industry by surprise. The Senate majority leader has been known to boast about how his mother paid for his law school fees by washing the clothes of local prostitutes in Searchlight, Nevada.
“It’s very much unlike him,” Flint said. “You never know about Harry.”
Great short video...
I couldn't agree with Monica more...this President doesn't get to decide what's Constitutional and what isn't....but for her Mubarak Obama comment she is already being called a racist by the left.....Isn't it funny how the left can do what they want, but everything that is said on the right is criticized...
Chris Matthews and MSNBC misinformed AGAIN!
Once Again Chris Matthews and MSNBC doesn't know what they are talking about.
Obama is responsible for where we are on Oil Dependence....
I can't agree more...Obama has a lot of blame for where we find ourselves with oil dependence today....and IF he keeps being a day late and a dollar short on reacting to the issues in the Middle East we will be in big trouble...he has set us up for some very bad times that will certainly slow the economy.....he's worse than Carter was.....
Now at $100: Rising Oil Prices Fuel Skyrocketing Gas Costs, Economic Uncertainty
Posted by Don Seymour on February 23, 2011
Today we’re getting our first look at what’s to come this summer after the Obama Administration’s two-year drive to block new American energy production and impose a job-crushing national energy tax: AP reports that the price of oil has passed $100 per barrel “for the first time since October 2008.” And as the cost of oil rises, so too do prices at the gas pump for American families and small businesses.
ABC News says “[w]eekly retail gasoline prices skyrocketed to $3.19 a gallon…” USA Today says that’s “the highest average February price since the government started keeping track in 1990.” These high prices are making it harder for Americans just to get to school or work – or to find a job – and creating more economic uncertainty.
In recent years – rather than unlock America’s vast energy resources to help lower costs and create a better environment for job growth – President Obama and the Democrats who run Washington have:
* Blocked and stopped new American energy production that would create new jobs. The House Natural Resources Committee says the Administration’s latest job-destroying ban on offshore energy exploration will cost 75,000 jobs and more than 900,000 barrels of oil a day. According to the Heritage Foundation, “if the United States managed to increase its domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day, it would create an additional 128,000 jobs and generate $7.7 billion in economic activity.”
* Worked relentlessly to impose a “great big” job-crushing national energy tax. The House Energy & Commerce Committee warned of “the threat of Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats imposing” an energy tax “through a series of regulations.” And Kim Strassel with the Wall Street Journal explained that the president’s plan for “forcing utilities to switch to costly renewables” is “cap and trade by another name” and will lead to “dramatically higher energy prices.”
* Wasted billions of “green stimulus” dollars that have failed to create American jobs. For example, an investigative report by American University found that nearly $2 billion “stimulus” dollars were allotted to wind turbine projects that created jobs overseas. And according to the Daily Caller, a “green jobs” company touted by President Obama and VP Biden that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the “stimulus” is actually laying off workers.
Energy & Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) have already introduced legislation to stop the EPA from imposing a backdoor national energy tax, as outlined in the Pledge to America. The new House majority is also committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy that increases American-made energy production, provides for more clean renewable and alternative fuels, and increases conservation. It’s a plan that will lower energy costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and liberate our economy from the shackles of excessive regulation to help create more American jobs.
But with a high unemployment rate and gas prices on the rise, the question is: will President Obama and the Democrat-run Senate keep pushing for higher taxes and less energy production?
Now at $100: Rising Oil Prices Fuel Skyrocketing Gas Costs, Economic Uncertainty
Posted by Don Seymour on February 23, 2011
Today we’re getting our first look at what’s to come this summer after the Obama Administration’s two-year drive to block new American energy production and impose a job-crushing national energy tax: AP reports that the price of oil has passed $100 per barrel “for the first time since October 2008.” And as the cost of oil rises, so too do prices at the gas pump for American families and small businesses.
ABC News says “[w]eekly retail gasoline prices skyrocketed to $3.19 a gallon…” USA Today says that’s “the highest average February price since the government started keeping track in 1990.” These high prices are making it harder for Americans just to get to school or work – or to find a job – and creating more economic uncertainty.
In recent years – rather than unlock America’s vast energy resources to help lower costs and create a better environment for job growth – President Obama and the Democrats who run Washington have:
* Blocked and stopped new American energy production that would create new jobs. The House Natural Resources Committee says the Administration’s latest job-destroying ban on offshore energy exploration will cost 75,000 jobs and more than 900,000 barrels of oil a day. According to the Heritage Foundation, “if the United States managed to increase its domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day, it would create an additional 128,000 jobs and generate $7.7 billion in economic activity.”
* Worked relentlessly to impose a “great big” job-crushing national energy tax. The House Energy & Commerce Committee warned of “the threat of Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats imposing” an energy tax “through a series of regulations.” And Kim Strassel with the Wall Street Journal explained that the president’s plan for “forcing utilities to switch to costly renewables” is “cap and trade by another name” and will lead to “dramatically higher energy prices.”
* Wasted billions of “green stimulus” dollars that have failed to create American jobs. For example, an investigative report by American University found that nearly $2 billion “stimulus” dollars were allotted to wind turbine projects that created jobs overseas. And according to the Daily Caller, a “green jobs” company touted by President Obama and VP Biden that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the “stimulus” is actually laying off workers.
Energy & Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) have already introduced legislation to stop the EPA from imposing a backdoor national energy tax, as outlined in the Pledge to America. The new House majority is also committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy that increases American-made energy production, provides for more clean renewable and alternative fuels, and increases conservation. It’s a plan that will lower energy costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and liberate our economy from the shackles of excessive regulation to help create more American jobs.
But with a high unemployment rate and gas prices on the rise, the question is: will President Obama and the Democrat-run Senate keep pushing for higher taxes and less energy production?
Obama beats up on Republicans for listening to Lobbyists, but he and his team "hide" their lobbyist meetings to keep them from the American People!
More from you deceitful President...he and his team are meeting with lobbyists, but they're doing it down the street to hide it from the public....that way they don't have sign in to the White House Guest List....That's real transparency??...Just another example of just how dishonest this President is....
Lobbyists: White House sends meetings off-site to hide them
By CHRIS FRATES | 2/24/11 4:41 AM EST
Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.
“They’re doing it on the side. It’s better than nothing,” said immigration reform lobbyist Tamar Jacoby, who has attended meetings at the nearby Jackson Place complex and believes the undisclosed gatherings are better than none.
The White House scoffs at the notion of an ulterior motive for scheduling meetings in what are, after all, meeting rooms. But at least four lobbyists who’ve been to the conference rooms just off Lafayette Square tell POLITICO they had the distinct impression they were being shunted off to Jackson Place — and off the books — so their visits wouldn’t later be made public.
Obama’s administration has touted its release of White House visitors logs as a breakthrough in transparency, as the first White House team to reveal the comings and goings around the West Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.
The Jackson Place townhouses are a different story.
There are no records of meetings at the row houses just off Lafayette Square that house the White House Conference Center and the Council on Environmental Quality, home to two of the busiest meeting spaces. The White House can’t say who attended meetings there, or how often. The Secret Service doesn’t log in visitors or require a background check the way it does at the main gates of the White House.
The White House says the additional meeting space is used when the White House is filled or when there’s no time to clear participants through the security screening. And to be sure, a few lobbyists contacted by POLITICO said they didn’t see any hidden motive for the White House staff’s decision to hold a meeting there.
“The White House conference facilities are just that: facilities for large meetings. They are also an option when rooms inside the complex don’t have the capacity for a given meeting or are booked,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
But that’s not how it feels to some of the lobbyists who’ve been there.
They say the White House is generally happy to meet with them and their clients once or twice but get leery when an issue requires multiple visits. These lobbyists say it is then that phone calls or meetings seem to be pushed outside the White House gates.
“Without question, I think that there’s a lot of concern about being seen meeting with the same lobbyists or particular lobbyists over and over again,” said one business lobbyist, who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
It’s not only Jackson Place. Another favorite off-campus meeting spot is a nearby Caribou Coffee, which, according to The New York Times, has hosted hundreds of meetings among lobbyists and White House staffers since Obama took office.
And administration officials recently asked some lobbyists and others who met with them to sign confidentiality agreements barring them from disclosing what was discussed at meetings with administration officials, in that case a rental policy working group.
The administration has defended the practice as a way to “maintain the integrity of our decision-making process.” But it has come under fire from lobbyists and a top House Republican, who have criticized the demand that participants sign a “gag order” before being allowed into meetings. The White House has not responded to repeated requests for comment on its nondisclosure agreement policy.
The process of disclosing the meetings can cut both ways.
During the health care reform debate, Democratic House and Senate leadership pushed for high-level negotiations to be held in the White House — specifically to create a record when the visitor logs were released, so administration officials couldn’t later distance themselves if the talks had failed, said a source familiar with the situation.
And in fact, a number of lobbyist contacts have been recorded in the visitor logs released by the White House.
Cherlin said the administration never claimed the visitor logs capture every meeting held with White House officials.
“Our driving principal here is that lobbyists should have the same access to the White House as non-lobbyists. We deal with important policy issues, and we want to get those policy issues right,” Cherlin said. “We’ve taken unprecedented steps to limit the influence of lobbyists inside the White House; we’ve closed the revolving door. But we just felt that access should be equal, which you know in the past it has not been. Lobbyists have had more.”
But lobbyists are particularly stung by what they see as a double standard, with Obama bashing their profession as part of what’s wrong with Washington while his staff routinely sits down with lobbyists to discuss key issues.
“When they need us, they call us. When they don’t, we’re evil,” said another lobbyist who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
Indeed, during the State of the Union address Obama derided the “parade of lobbyists [that] has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries.” And, because the public deserves to know when its elected officials are talking to lobbyists, he called on “Congress to do what the White House has already done — put that information online.”
Randy Johnson, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive who has been to White House and Jackson Place meetings, said the gatherings aren’t closely guarded secrets and insiders generally know who administration staffers are talking to. But, he said, there’s no way to know for certain without a record of all the meetings at Jackson Place.
“You can’t make the claim you’re holier than thou because sometimes a car looks shiny, but when you look below the hood, things may look a lot different,” he said. “You can’t measure the claim of transparency unless you have those numbers.”
Some lobbyists gripe about the hypocrisy of publicly bashing lobbyists while privately holding off-the-books meetings with them, but Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an organization representing small businesses, supports the outreach, no matter the form.
“The most important thing, for all the prohibitions, is that they’re realizing that you can’t govern in America without a.), getting the input of experts and b.), getting in touch with the business community. No matter how they do that, whether it’s on the up-and-up or off-the-charts, so to speak, the important thing is that they know that they have to do it,” she said.
The administration really “boxed themselves in” with their anti-lobbyist policies, she said. But rather than emphasizing hypocrisy and playing gotcha, it’s important to recognize that “they’re on a better track and they see that they need to get out of the box,” said Jacoby, who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
Of course, meeting outside the limelight and limiting written correspondence is not unique to the Obama administration. For years, countless government staffers have been admonished not to write down something they wouldn’t want to read on the front page of The Washington Post. But the Obama administration, some lobbyists say, has taken that approach to new levels.
“I’ve not seen The Washington Post test enforced so ritualistically as this White House,” said one lobbyist, who regularly does business with the administration.
The veteran lobbyist said no other administration he’s worked with has so often responded to routine e-mail queries with the same three-word response, “Gimme a ring.”
White House officials are traditionally wary of disclosing their meetings. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, refused to name the energy company officials and lobbyists he met with while heading a task force that made pro-industry recommendations — a decision a federal appeals court ultimately upheld.
But unlike Obama, Bush and previous presidents didn’t pledge to make their administrations “the most open and transparent in history” — a fact not lost on Washington’s lobbying class.
During last year’s push to move comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation on Capitol Hill, the White House invited business lobbyists and executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Restaurant Association and others to a Jackson Place meeting with senior policy staffers.
“We would like to convene a small meeting with White House staff on Friday at 12 noon (736 Jackson Place — see attached map), to discuss the current progress of CIR legislation,” a White House invitation obtained by POLITICO said.
The email was sent on a Wednesday, two days before the meeting, which left time for background checks had staffers wanted to hold the meeting at the White House. Some lobbyists suspected they were being kept outside the gates for political, rather than logistical, reasons.
“My understanding was they were holding the meeting there because it included several high-level business and trade association lobbyists,” said a senior business lobbyist who attended the meeting. “This was an effort to not have to go through the security protocols at the White House which could lead to the visitor logs at some point being released to the public and embarrass the president.”
Lobbyists: White House sends meetings off-site to hide them
By CHRIS FRATES | 2/24/11 4:41 AM EST
Caught between their boss’ anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds — and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.
It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view — and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.
“They’re doing it on the side. It’s better than nothing,” said immigration reform lobbyist Tamar Jacoby, who has attended meetings at the nearby Jackson Place complex and believes the undisclosed gatherings are better than none.
The White House scoffs at the notion of an ulterior motive for scheduling meetings in what are, after all, meeting rooms. But at least four lobbyists who’ve been to the conference rooms just off Lafayette Square tell POLITICO they had the distinct impression they were being shunted off to Jackson Place — and off the books — so their visits wouldn’t later be made public.
Obama’s administration has touted its release of White House visitors logs as a breakthrough in transparency, as the first White House team to reveal the comings and goings around the West Wing and the Old Executive Office Building.
The Jackson Place townhouses are a different story.
There are no records of meetings at the row houses just off Lafayette Square that house the White House Conference Center and the Council on Environmental Quality, home to two of the busiest meeting spaces. The White House can’t say who attended meetings there, or how often. The Secret Service doesn’t log in visitors or require a background check the way it does at the main gates of the White House.
The White House says the additional meeting space is used when the White House is filled or when there’s no time to clear participants through the security screening. And to be sure, a few lobbyists contacted by POLITICO said they didn’t see any hidden motive for the White House staff’s decision to hold a meeting there.
“The White House conference facilities are just that: facilities for large meetings. They are also an option when rooms inside the complex don’t have the capacity for a given meeting or are booked,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
But that’s not how it feels to some of the lobbyists who’ve been there.
They say the White House is generally happy to meet with them and their clients once or twice but get leery when an issue requires multiple visits. These lobbyists say it is then that phone calls or meetings seem to be pushed outside the White House gates.
“Without question, I think that there’s a lot of concern about being seen meeting with the same lobbyists or particular lobbyists over and over again,” said one business lobbyist, who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
It’s not only Jackson Place. Another favorite off-campus meeting spot is a nearby Caribou Coffee, which, according to The New York Times, has hosted hundreds of meetings among lobbyists and White House staffers since Obama took office.
And administration officials recently asked some lobbyists and others who met with them to sign confidentiality agreements barring them from disclosing what was discussed at meetings with administration officials, in that case a rental policy working group.
The administration has defended the practice as a way to “maintain the integrity of our decision-making process.” But it has come under fire from lobbyists and a top House Republican, who have criticized the demand that participants sign a “gag order” before being allowed into meetings. The White House has not responded to repeated requests for comment on its nondisclosure agreement policy.
The process of disclosing the meetings can cut both ways.
During the health care reform debate, Democratic House and Senate leadership pushed for high-level negotiations to be held in the White House — specifically to create a record when the visitor logs were released, so administration officials couldn’t later distance themselves if the talks had failed, said a source familiar with the situation.
And in fact, a number of lobbyist contacts have been recorded in the visitor logs released by the White House.
Cherlin said the administration never claimed the visitor logs capture every meeting held with White House officials.
“Our driving principal here is that lobbyists should have the same access to the White House as non-lobbyists. We deal with important policy issues, and we want to get those policy issues right,” Cherlin said. “We’ve taken unprecedented steps to limit the influence of lobbyists inside the White House; we’ve closed the revolving door. But we just felt that access should be equal, which you know in the past it has not been. Lobbyists have had more.”
But lobbyists are particularly stung by what they see as a double standard, with Obama bashing their profession as part of what’s wrong with Washington while his staff routinely sits down with lobbyists to discuss key issues.
“When they need us, they call us. When they don’t, we’re evil,” said another lobbyist who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
Indeed, during the State of the Union address Obama derided the “parade of lobbyists [that] has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries.” And, because the public deserves to know when its elected officials are talking to lobbyists, he called on “Congress to do what the White House has already done — put that information online.”
Randy Johnson, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive who has been to White House and Jackson Place meetings, said the gatherings aren’t closely guarded secrets and insiders generally know who administration staffers are talking to. But, he said, there’s no way to know for certain without a record of all the meetings at Jackson Place.
“You can’t make the claim you’re holier than thou because sometimes a car looks shiny, but when you look below the hood, things may look a lot different,” he said. “You can’t measure the claim of transparency unless you have those numbers.”
Some lobbyists gripe about the hypocrisy of publicly bashing lobbyists while privately holding off-the-books meetings with them, but Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, an organization representing small businesses, supports the outreach, no matter the form.
“The most important thing, for all the prohibitions, is that they’re realizing that you can’t govern in America without a.), getting the input of experts and b.), getting in touch with the business community. No matter how they do that, whether it’s on the up-and-up or off-the-charts, so to speak, the important thing is that they know that they have to do it,” she said.
The administration really “boxed themselves in” with their anti-lobbyist policies, she said. But rather than emphasizing hypocrisy and playing gotcha, it’s important to recognize that “they’re on a better track and they see that they need to get out of the box,” said Jacoby, who has been to Jackson Place meetings.
Of course, meeting outside the limelight and limiting written correspondence is not unique to the Obama administration. For years, countless government staffers have been admonished not to write down something they wouldn’t want to read on the front page of The Washington Post. But the Obama administration, some lobbyists say, has taken that approach to new levels.
“I’ve not seen The Washington Post test enforced so ritualistically as this White House,” said one lobbyist, who regularly does business with the administration.
The veteran lobbyist said no other administration he’s worked with has so often responded to routine e-mail queries with the same three-word response, “Gimme a ring.”
White House officials are traditionally wary of disclosing their meetings. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, refused to name the energy company officials and lobbyists he met with while heading a task force that made pro-industry recommendations — a decision a federal appeals court ultimately upheld.
But unlike Obama, Bush and previous presidents didn’t pledge to make their administrations “the most open and transparent in history” — a fact not lost on Washington’s lobbying class.
During last year’s push to move comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation on Capitol Hill, the White House invited business lobbyists and executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Restaurant Association and others to a Jackson Place meeting with senior policy staffers.
“We would like to convene a small meeting with White House staff on Friday at 12 noon (736 Jackson Place — see attached map), to discuss the current progress of CIR legislation,” a White House invitation obtained by POLITICO said.
The email was sent on a Wednesday, two days before the meeting, which left time for background checks had staffers wanted to hold the meeting at the White House. Some lobbyists suspected they were being kept outside the gates for political, rather than logistical, reasons.
“My understanding was they were holding the meeting there because it included several high-level business and trade association lobbyists,” said a senior business lobbyist who attended the meeting. “This was an effort to not have to go through the security protocols at the White House which could lead to the visitor logs at some point being released to the public and embarrass the president.”
The Ball is now in "Dirty" Harry Reid's Court!
To have a government shutdown or not is now firmly in the hands of Harry Reid, the Democrats and Obama....IF it shuts down it's their fault....from today's Heritage Foundation....
Will Harry Reid Also Hide in Illinois?
Over the past week the nation witnessed the spectacle of Wisconsin and Indiana Democrat lawmakers fleeing across state-lines into Illinois, Bonnie and Clyde-style, though in this case in hopes that their absence would stave off having to make tough decisions. Back home, their votes were needed to rescue their states from dire fiscal problems, and that is the case in states across the rest of the Midwest and the rest of the nation. Budget deficits are bulging and competition for scarce financial resources is growing more alarming.
This Prohibition-era retro replay may indeed spread to the federal government and Washington, as a new Congress grapples with its first tough budget debate. Will liberals duck responsibility again?
The federal government has been operating under a Continuing Resolution that will expire on March 4th. The House, led by Republican Speaker John Boehner (R-IL) has already passed a new Continuing Resolution (CR) that cuts approximately $61 billion from the current year’s budget and keeps the government otherwise functioning through year’s end. It is now up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama to decide if they will accept this modest first step towards fiscal responsibility or continue to push our nation down the unsustainable path that voters rejected in November 2010.
Will Reid and Obama actually accept that budget cuts are necessary? Harry Reid has so much as admitted that cuts are necessary, since he and his colleagues spent the past week touting the supposed $41 billion in savings his yet-to-be-released proposal supposedly includes. While it is a good step that Reid understands serious spending cuts are needed, his math simply does not add up. The Washington Post today called the claimed $41 billion cuts "disingenous and not very truthful."
The "savings" that Reid and his fellow Democratic lawmakers are suggesting will be included in the Senate CR are simply cuts from Obama’s 2011 budget proposal. Of course these were never actually passed into law since the last Congress chose to not fulfill its most basic obligation and pass a budget. So, since the federal government is still operating at 2010 levels and Senator Reid's CR purportedly would fund the government at 2010 levels, this would leave cuts of precisely zero.
To put it another way, imagine if Reid has eight oranges and Obama suggests he add two to the pile. If Reid refuses to take the oranges, has he “cut” his supply by 20%? Of course not. He still has eight oranges.
This is the same false narrative that Democrats employed in December when they sold the prevention of tax hikes as a new tax “cut.” The simple fact is, the nation is far past the point where symbolic – do no additional harm – gestures will do the job. The status quo may be a welcome change from the spend, spend, spend trajectory of the last two years, but it’s not responsible governing.
President Obama would like you to think he has seen the light on spending. His own budget says "we must free ourselves from the burden of historic deficits and growing debt." But despite this lofty rhetoric, he proposed a budget for FY 2012 that increases spending and nearly doubles our national debt over the decade. He then pledged to veto the House-passed Continuing Resolution once again claiming fiscal responsibility while rejecting it at the same time. It is time for him to demonstrate leadership. Mr. President, the time for cuts is now.
Make no mistake, these cuts are vitally important first steps to getting control of exploding federal spending. But despite all the scary rhetoric, they would not even bring federal spending back to its pre-recession 2008 levels. Making modest cuts such as these to the remaining 2011 budget would demonstrate that Washington can be trusted to take the tough steps necessary to get spending and debt under control.
The American people demanded that this Congress make tough choices and make real cuts, and congressional Republicans promised as much in their Pledge to America. Significant cuts. This opportunity must not be allowed to pass. Capitulating would return Washington to business-as-usual, which American cannot afford.
If Senator Reid needs more time to prepare for such cuts in the form of another temporary spending bill, that too must demonstrate real and tangible cuts and policy changes completely in line with what the House passed this month. Yesterday, Speaker Boehner proposed such a stopgap that would cut $4 billion over two weeks as a sign of good faith. Surely, cutting a meager $4 billion won’t stop progress, or lead to a potential government shutdown, will it?
The House of Representatives have shown leadership. If Senate Democrats and the president choose to not follow their example, then one has to wonder if they prefer the government to shutdown rather than make the necessary tough decisions.
If President Obama and Majority Leader Reid want to punt these tough choices to another time, another Congress, another generation one more time they will be abdicating their responsibilities in the same way their liberal colleagues in Wisconsin and Indiana are doing. It’s time for both chambers of Congress and the White House to get to work. Kicking the can is no longer an option.
Will Harry Reid Also Hide in Illinois?
Over the past week the nation witnessed the spectacle of Wisconsin and Indiana Democrat lawmakers fleeing across state-lines into Illinois, Bonnie and Clyde-style, though in this case in hopes that their absence would stave off having to make tough decisions. Back home, their votes were needed to rescue their states from dire fiscal problems, and that is the case in states across the rest of the Midwest and the rest of the nation. Budget deficits are bulging and competition for scarce financial resources is growing more alarming.
This Prohibition-era retro replay may indeed spread to the federal government and Washington, as a new Congress grapples with its first tough budget debate. Will liberals duck responsibility again?
The federal government has been operating under a Continuing Resolution that will expire on March 4th. The House, led by Republican Speaker John Boehner (R-IL) has already passed a new Continuing Resolution (CR) that cuts approximately $61 billion from the current year’s budget and keeps the government otherwise functioning through year’s end. It is now up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama to decide if they will accept this modest first step towards fiscal responsibility or continue to push our nation down the unsustainable path that voters rejected in November 2010.
Will Reid and Obama actually accept that budget cuts are necessary? Harry Reid has so much as admitted that cuts are necessary, since he and his colleagues spent the past week touting the supposed $41 billion in savings his yet-to-be-released proposal supposedly includes. While it is a good step that Reid understands serious spending cuts are needed, his math simply does not add up. The Washington Post today called the claimed $41 billion cuts "disingenous and not very truthful."
The "savings" that Reid and his fellow Democratic lawmakers are suggesting will be included in the Senate CR are simply cuts from Obama’s 2011 budget proposal. Of course these were never actually passed into law since the last Congress chose to not fulfill its most basic obligation and pass a budget. So, since the federal government is still operating at 2010 levels and Senator Reid's CR purportedly would fund the government at 2010 levels, this would leave cuts of precisely zero.
To put it another way, imagine if Reid has eight oranges and Obama suggests he add two to the pile. If Reid refuses to take the oranges, has he “cut” his supply by 20%? Of course not. He still has eight oranges.
This is the same false narrative that Democrats employed in December when they sold the prevention of tax hikes as a new tax “cut.” The simple fact is, the nation is far past the point where symbolic – do no additional harm – gestures will do the job. The status quo may be a welcome change from the spend, spend, spend trajectory of the last two years, but it’s not responsible governing.
President Obama would like you to think he has seen the light on spending. His own budget says "we must free ourselves from the burden of historic deficits and growing debt." But despite this lofty rhetoric, he proposed a budget for FY 2012 that increases spending and nearly doubles our national debt over the decade. He then pledged to veto the House-passed Continuing Resolution once again claiming fiscal responsibility while rejecting it at the same time. It is time for him to demonstrate leadership. Mr. President, the time for cuts is now.
Make no mistake, these cuts are vitally important first steps to getting control of exploding federal spending. But despite all the scary rhetoric, they would not even bring federal spending back to its pre-recession 2008 levels. Making modest cuts such as these to the remaining 2011 budget would demonstrate that Washington can be trusted to take the tough steps necessary to get spending and debt under control.
The American people demanded that this Congress make tough choices and make real cuts, and congressional Republicans promised as much in their Pledge to America. Significant cuts. This opportunity must not be allowed to pass. Capitulating would return Washington to business-as-usual, which American cannot afford.
If Senator Reid needs more time to prepare for such cuts in the form of another temporary spending bill, that too must demonstrate real and tangible cuts and policy changes completely in line with what the House passed this month. Yesterday, Speaker Boehner proposed such a stopgap that would cut $4 billion over two weeks as a sign of good faith. Surely, cutting a meager $4 billion won’t stop progress, or lead to a potential government shutdown, will it?
The House of Representatives have shown leadership. If Senate Democrats and the president choose to not follow their example, then one has to wonder if they prefer the government to shutdown rather than make the necessary tough decisions.
If President Obama and Majority Leader Reid want to punt these tough choices to another time, another Congress, another generation one more time they will be abdicating their responsibilities in the same way their liberal colleagues in Wisconsin and Indiana are doing. It’s time for both chambers of Congress and the White House to get to work. Kicking the can is no longer an option.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Mitch Daniels...Maybe NOT!
This needs to be considered when thinking about Mitch Daniels....He many NOT be the guy we need based on this decision....the last thing we need is another wimp tht can't make decisions....
Hypocritical Barbara Walters...she can dish it out, but can't take it....
Typical LIBERAL TV person....Barbara Walter shows just how hypocritical she really is...no wonder she and most of the "girls" on the View like Obama...
You have to LOVE Chris Christie
You have to LOVE Chris Christie....He Gets It....Obama doesn't have a clue...
Left-Wing Reporter Prank Calls Gov Walker; Posed as David Koch
This prank call just shows that Governor Walker is the same guy in a private conversation as he is in public....however if this tactic were used by a conservative Republican you would hear the STATE-RUN media cuying foul as loudly as they could.....A Double Standard....I think so!....
But even more important is that Walker passed the test with flying colors...
Breitbart.tv » Left-Wing Reporter Prank Calls Gov Walker; Posed as David Koch
But even more important is that Walker passed the test with flying colors...
Breitbart.tv » Left-Wing Reporter Prank Calls Gov Walker; Posed as David Koch
A Calculated Move to Sure up Funds for Obama's Reelection....
This is nothing more than a calculated move by Obama and democrats to try to get money out of the gays now that they might lose the endless funds they have been getting from Unions.....And it appears to me that it's illegal for the President of the United States to not defend a duly passed piece of legislatoin when it have not been deemed unconstitutional by the courts....who is Obama anyway...he's not a judge!.....
And the further hypocrisy of this move is that Obamacare has be declared Unconstitutional by the courts yet Obama is still moving ahead with it's implimentation????.....Again it's all about what Obama wants and it is certainly no respect for the rule of law...
Obama is afraid he is going to lose the big bucks he and Democrats will get specifically from the public sector unions so he's trying to drum up another source of funding and income....
Unethical, Corrupt, self centered, Elitist...this President is a total embarassment to America!
WH: Obama still 'grappling' with gay marriage
WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that, at Obama's direction, it would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in a court case where it's being challenged.
Spokesman Jay Carney said Obama has always opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair." But Carney said there's no change to how Obama views gay marriage itself.
Obama said in January that he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry. He said his feelings on the issue continue to evolve but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions.
And the further hypocrisy of this move is that Obamacare has be declared Unconstitutional by the courts yet Obama is still moving ahead with it's implimentation????.....Again it's all about what Obama wants and it is certainly no respect for the rule of law...
Obama is afraid he is going to lose the big bucks he and Democrats will get specifically from the public sector unions so he's trying to drum up another source of funding and income....
Unethical, Corrupt, self centered, Elitist...this President is a total embarassment to America!
WH: Obama still 'grappling' with gay marriage
WASHINGTON – The White House says President Barack Obama is "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage even as he's ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of a law that bans it.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that, at Obama's direction, it would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in a court case where it's being challenged.
Spokesman Jay Carney said Obama has always opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair." But Carney said there's no change to how Obama views gay marriage itself.
Obama said in January that he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry. He said his feelings on the issue continue to evolve but he still believes in allowing strong civil unions.
The Public Sector Unions are trying to BREAK America!
From Today's Heritage Foundation -
Government Unions vs American Taxpayers
The Washington Post reports today that "the daunting tower of national, state and local debt in the United States will reach a level this year unmatched just after World War II and already exceeds the size of the entire economy, according to government estimates." But there are a number of big differences between our national debt now and the debt in 1946. The Post reports: "State and municipal governments from Sacramento to Madison to Harrisburg have racked up about $2.4 trillion in debt, or more than 15 percent of GDP."
And even this total is understating the problem. Recent studies show that state and local governments are severely underestimating their pension and benefit promises, including a $574 billion shortfall for the nation’s top major cities and a possible $3.4 trillion shortfall for the states. The cause of these crippling pension and benefit obligations is no secret. The Post explains: "Public employees often enjoy more generous pension and health-care benefits, and these are at the root of the long-term budget problems confronting many states."
How did this happen? Why did so many state and local governments not only spend too much today but promise future spending far beyond the means of taxpayers to pay for it? Government unions. And across the country, legislators and governors are beginning to fight back.
The professional left (including the AFL-CIO, the SEIU, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the NEA, AFSCME and President Barack Obama) is trying to portray these budget battles as an assault against all unions. But as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R), who is pushing legislation to curtail government union bargaining power, explained last night, this is just plain false:
The bill I put forward isn’t aimed at state workers, and it certainly isn’t a battle with unions. If it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely or we would have gone after the private-sector unions. But, we did not because they are our partners in economic development. We need them to help us put 250,000 people to work in the private sector over the next four years.
Walker is right: Government unions are inherently different from private-sector unions. The purpose of private-sector unions is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But government is a monopoly and earns no profits. All government unions do is redistribute more tax dollars from taxpayers to unions. The left used to understand this. Not only did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt write in 1937: "All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," but as recently as 1959, the AFL-CIO Executive Council stated that "government workers have no right [to collectively bargain] beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen."
Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) also recognizes the key difference between private-sector and government unions, telling the Associated Press Monday:
We have an $8 billion budget hole in Ohio. We have a third of our college students that leave Ohio after three years. We’ve lost 600,000 jobs in the last 10 years. Only California and Michigan have lost more than that. And part of the reason why we are pushing collective bargaining is we frankly want to give the managers in our local communities and our schools the ability to control their costs so they don’t have to raise taxes and drive businesses out and more jobs out.
By granting government workers the power to collectively bargain, government unions have completely politicized the civil service. State and local employees in 28 states are required to pay full union dues or get fired. Using this government coercion, government unions have amassed tremendous financial resources that they use to campaign for higher taxes and higher pay for government workers. The top outside spender in the last election was the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees ($91 million). Governor Mitch Daniels (R–IN), who signed an executive order ending state worker collective bargaining his first month in office, spoke in support of Walker yesterday:
The people who are doing the demonstrating, and their allies … spent that state broke. … The most powerful special interests in America today are the government unions. They’re the leading financial contributors. They have muscle, a lot of times their contracts provide for time off to go politick and lobby.
And lobby and politick government unions have. Across the country, from Arizona to California to Minnesota to Maine to New Jersey and more, government unions have pushed legislation and ballot measures that raise taxes and spending. In Trenton, New Jersey, last night, Governor Chris Christie (R) framed the debate:
In Wisconsin and Ohio, they have decided there can no longer be two classes of citizens: one that receives the rich health and pension benefits, and the rest who are left to pay for them. These ideas are not red or blue. They are the black and white of truth.
Conservative governors across the nation should absolutely work to reform the way public-sector unions drain our economy. As Governor Christie told MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' today: "We're not trying to break the unions, the unions are trying to break the middle class."
Government Unions vs American Taxpayers
The Washington Post reports today that "the daunting tower of national, state and local debt in the United States will reach a level this year unmatched just after World War II and already exceeds the size of the entire economy, according to government estimates." But there are a number of big differences between our national debt now and the debt in 1946. The Post reports: "State and municipal governments from Sacramento to Madison to Harrisburg have racked up about $2.4 trillion in debt, or more than 15 percent of GDP."
And even this total is understating the problem. Recent studies show that state and local governments are severely underestimating their pension and benefit promises, including a $574 billion shortfall for the nation’s top major cities and a possible $3.4 trillion shortfall for the states. The cause of these crippling pension and benefit obligations is no secret. The Post explains: "Public employees often enjoy more generous pension and health-care benefits, and these are at the root of the long-term budget problems confronting many states."
How did this happen? Why did so many state and local governments not only spend too much today but promise future spending far beyond the means of taxpayers to pay for it? Government unions. And across the country, legislators and governors are beginning to fight back.
The professional left (including the AFL-CIO, the SEIU, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the NEA, AFSCME and President Barack Obama) is trying to portray these budget battles as an assault against all unions. But as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R), who is pushing legislation to curtail government union bargaining power, explained last night, this is just plain false:
The bill I put forward isn’t aimed at state workers, and it certainly isn’t a battle with unions. If it was, we would have eliminated collective bargaining entirely or we would have gone after the private-sector unions. But, we did not because they are our partners in economic development. We need them to help us put 250,000 people to work in the private sector over the next four years.
Walker is right: Government unions are inherently different from private-sector unions. The purpose of private-sector unions is to get workers a larger share of the profits they helped create. But government is a monopoly and earns no profits. All government unions do is redistribute more tax dollars from taxpayers to unions. The left used to understand this. Not only did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt write in 1937: "All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," but as recently as 1959, the AFL-CIO Executive Council stated that "government workers have no right [to collectively bargain] beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen."
Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) also recognizes the key difference between private-sector and government unions, telling the Associated Press Monday:
We have an $8 billion budget hole in Ohio. We have a third of our college students that leave Ohio after three years. We’ve lost 600,000 jobs in the last 10 years. Only California and Michigan have lost more than that. And part of the reason why we are pushing collective bargaining is we frankly want to give the managers in our local communities and our schools the ability to control their costs so they don’t have to raise taxes and drive businesses out and more jobs out.
By granting government workers the power to collectively bargain, government unions have completely politicized the civil service. State and local employees in 28 states are required to pay full union dues or get fired. Using this government coercion, government unions have amassed tremendous financial resources that they use to campaign for higher taxes and higher pay for government workers. The top outside spender in the last election was the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees ($91 million). Governor Mitch Daniels (R–IN), who signed an executive order ending state worker collective bargaining his first month in office, spoke in support of Walker yesterday:
The people who are doing the demonstrating, and their allies … spent that state broke. … The most powerful special interests in America today are the government unions. They’re the leading financial contributors. They have muscle, a lot of times their contracts provide for time off to go politick and lobby.
And lobby and politick government unions have. Across the country, from Arizona to California to Minnesota to Maine to New Jersey and more, government unions have pushed legislation and ballot measures that raise taxes and spending. In Trenton, New Jersey, last night, Governor Chris Christie (R) framed the debate:
In Wisconsin and Ohio, they have decided there can no longer be two classes of citizens: one that receives the rich health and pension benefits, and the rest who are left to pay for them. These ideas are not red or blue. They are the black and white of truth.
Conservative governors across the nation should absolutely work to reform the way public-sector unions drain our economy. As Governor Christie told MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' today: "We're not trying to break the unions, the unions are trying to break the middle class."
Public Unions MUST GO!
I could not agree with this author more...this is the core of the problem facing the states and the nation today.....Thank God the Republicans are taking up this cause!
Jonah Goldberg February 23, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Public Unions Must Go
A death knell for government unions? If only.
The protesting public-school teachers with fake doctor’s notes swarming the capitol building in Madison, Wis., insist that Gov. Scott Walker is hell-bent on “union busting.” Walker denies that his effort to reform public-sector unions in Wisconsin is anything more than an honest attempt at balancing the state’s books.
I hope the protesters are right. Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.
A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker’s proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private-sector unions.
Traditional, private-sector unions were born out of an often-bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It’s been said that during World War I, U.S. soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent; hazardous conditions were the norm. In 1907, the Monongah mine explosion claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Day-to-day life often resembled serfdom, with management controlling vast swaths of the miners’ lives. Before unionization and many New Deal–era reforms, Washington had little power to reform conditions by legislation.
Government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV Cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair’s famous schoolhouse sequel to The Jungle? No? Don’t feel bad, because no such horror stories exist.
Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil-service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.
The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.
Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.
The plan worked perfectly — too perfectly. Public-union membership skyrocketed, and government-union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5 percent going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. Which is why, as the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga has been chronicling for years, public unions are the country’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.
And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they’ve acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don’t want to lose the right to collective bargaining.
But that is exactly what they need to lose.
Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests, and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government. California’s pension costs soared 2,000 percent in a decade thanks to the unions.
The labor-politician negotiations can’t be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
This is why FDR believed that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” and why even George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, held that it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
As it turns out, it’s not impossible; it’s just terribly unwise. It creates a dysfunctional system where for some, growing government becomes its own reward. You can find evidence of this dysfunction everywhere. The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes that federal education spending has risen by 188 percent in real terms since 1970, but we’ve seen no significant improvement in test scores.
The unions and the protesters in Wisconsin see Walker’s reforms as a potential death knell for government unions. My response? If only.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Jonah Goldberg February 23, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Public Unions Must Go
A death knell for government unions? If only.
The protesting public-school teachers with fake doctor’s notes swarming the capitol building in Madison, Wis., insist that Gov. Scott Walker is hell-bent on “union busting.” Walker denies that his effort to reform public-sector unions in Wisconsin is anything more than an honest attempt at balancing the state’s books.
I hope the protesters are right. Public unions have been a 50-year mistake.
A crucial distinction has been lost in the debate over Walker’s proposals: Government unions are not the same thing as private-sector unions.
Traditional, private-sector unions were born out of an often-bloody adversarial relationship between labor and management. It’s been said that during World War I, U.S. soldiers had better odds of surviving on the front lines than miners did in West Virginia coal mines. Mine disasters were frequent; hazardous conditions were the norm. In 1907, the Monongah mine explosion claimed the lives of 362 West Virginia miners. Day-to-day life often resembled serfdom, with management controlling vast swaths of the miners’ lives. Before unionization and many New Deal–era reforms, Washington had little power to reform conditions by legislation.
Government unions have no such narrative on their side. Do you recall the Great DMV Cave-in of 1959? How about the travails of second-grade teachers recounted in Upton Sinclair’s famous schoolhouse sequel to The Jungle? No? Don’t feel bad, because no such horror stories exist.
Government workers were making good salaries in 1962 when President Kennedy lifted, by executive order (so much for democracy), the federal ban on government unions. Civil-service regulations and similar laws had guaranteed good working conditions for generations.
The argument for public unionization wasn’t moral, economic, or intellectual. It was rankly political.
Traditional organized labor, the backbone of the Democratic party, was beginning to lose ground. As Daniel DiSalvo wrote in “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” in the fall issue of National Affairs, JFK saw how in states such as New York and Wisconsin, where public unions were already in place, local liberal pols benefited politically and financially. He took the idea national.
The plan worked perfectly — too perfectly. Public-union membership skyrocketed, and government-union support for the party of government skyrocketed with it. From 1989 to 2004, AFSCME — the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees — gave nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections, with 98.5 percent going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Why would local government unions give so much in federal elections? Because government workers have an inherent interest in boosting the amount of federal tax dollars their local governments get. Put simply, people in the government business support the party of government. Which is why, as the Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga has been chronicling for years, public unions are the country’s foremost advocates for increased taxes at all levels of government.
And this gets to the real insidiousness of government unions. Wisconsin labor officials fairly note that they’ve acceded to many of their governor’s specific demands — that workers contribute to their pensions and health-care costs, for example. But they don’t want to lose the right to collective bargaining.
But that is exactly what they need to lose.
Private-sector unions fight with management over an equitable distribution of profits. Government unions negotiate with friendly politicians over taxpayer money, putting the public interest at odds with union interests, and, as we’ve seen in states such as California and Wisconsin, exploding the cost of government. California’s pension costs soared 2,000 percent in a decade thanks to the unions.
The labor-politician negotiations can’t be fair when the unions can put so much money into campaign spending. Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the New York City chapter of AFSCME, summed up the problem in 1975 when he boasted, “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
This is why FDR believed that “the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” and why even George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, held that it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
As it turns out, it’s not impossible; it’s just terribly unwise. It creates a dysfunctional system where for some, growing government becomes its own reward. You can find evidence of this dysfunction everywhere. The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes that federal education spending has risen by 188 percent in real terms since 1970, but we’ve seen no significant improvement in test scores.
The unions and the protesters in Wisconsin see Walker’s reforms as a potential death knell for government unions. My response? If only.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Corporate American is not going to win...The American People are about to win....
CNN is WRONG....Corporate America is not about to win....the current fight is NOT against private unions...for the most part they have either gone away or only exist in industries where the Government provides bailouts to allow those businesses to stay in business. The current fight is about public employee unions and there are still a lot of folks involved in them because the taxpayers checkbooks are seen to be endless.....the winner in Wisconsin and other states over employee unions will definitely be the AMERICAN PEOPLE...
A Primer for the Dummies in the State-Run Media...
The State-Run Media (ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CNN) might want to pay attention to this...they could learn something.....
Wisconsin is very different from the middle east although you might not believe that IF you watch State-Run Media.....in Wisconsin this Governor and this Agenda was voted on last November and a minority of Union goons who lost the election and now trying to cry foul....Democrat Senators get back to work....it's a Democracy and this is how it works....look what Obama did in the past two years passing massive liberal/socialist legislation against the will of the American People....he did it because he won the 2008 election and controlled the House/Senate and White House...the Republicans didn't escape to Europe to avoid a vote....they participated in the process....
This Video is Worth a Look!
This comical, but unfortunately pretty much true....It's time to change the rules on Public Employee Unions.....
Another Good Move by the Republicans!
Another Good Move by the Republicans to stop the lack of transparency in the Obama Administration and the "shadow government" moves...
House GOP Moves to Eliminate Obama 'Czars'
Published February 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com
If House Republicans have their way, the Obama administration's "czars" will no longer be able to dictate pay at bailed-out mega-firms or negotiate new emissions standards for U.S. vehicles. An amendment attached to the 2011 spending package, which passed the House last week, would strip funding for a select list of the so-called czars.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the author of the proposal, hailed the vote as a step toward ending the administration's "shadow government."
"Hardworking American families should not be forced to pay millions of dollars to fund these czars, who are implementing radical policies under the cloak of darkness," Scalise said in a written statement.
Though the Obama administration is not the first to appoint high-level officials without Senate approval, they've become a popular target for Republicans since President Obama took office.
The Scalise amendment was a refined version of a catch-all anti-czar bill he introduced earlier in the session. That bill called for effectively shutting down any Executive Office task force or office led by an official who had not received Senate confirmation. At the time, Scalise estimated that 39 officials would fall under that description.
The latest amendment, which would still have to survive a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate, narrowed that list down to nine positions. Several of them have been responsible for shepherding high-profile policy changes that Republicans opposed practically in lockstep.
Here's the kind of "czar" activities that Republicans would stop if their amendment becomes law:
-- No more administration agreements on greenhouse-gas emissions. On the list for funding elimination is the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, known colloquially as the "climate czar." That official, Carol Browner, is expected to leave the position, following a tenure during which she helped strike a deal to increase fuel economy standards and require greenhouse-gas emissions standards for automakers.
"Let her leave, and take the funding, too," Scalise said on the House floor last week.
Even if that position is eliminated, however, the EPA is still pushing forward on limiting emissions for power plants and oil refineries.
-- No more edicts on executive pay. The Scalise proposal targets the special master for TARP executive compensation -- also known as the pay czar, who until recently was Kenneth Feinberg.
In that position, Feinberg sought deep pay cuts among top executives at seven firms that got "exceptional assistance" from the government's financial industry and auto industry bailouts. A Congressional Oversight Panel report this month showed the average pay decrease for the 25 highest-paid workers from 2008 to 2009 was nearly 55 percent.
Though some lawmakers have expressed concern that the pay czar's work could lead the government down a slippery slope when it comes to regulating private-sector salaries, the oversight panel report also noted that the "special master" position was created in response to a congressional mandate imposing pay restrictions on bailout recipients.
The pay czar is also not the only entity with that responsibility. The Treasury Department established an Office of Internal Review to, similarly, review pay packages for executives at bailout-funded firms.
-- No more "secret" meetings on the health care law. In addition to the "special master" post, the Scalise amendment would target the White House Office of Health Reform. The longtime director of that office, Nancy-Ann DeParle, was just promoted to White House deputy chief of staff.
DeParle's responsibilities were numerous. She was primarily tasked with coordinating the development of the law's policies across the Executive Branch. But on the House floor, Scalise suggested the "ObamaCare czar" helped facilitate too many backroom deals in the process.
Scalise noted that hundreds of companies have gotten exemptions from the law. In addition, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee just wrote to DeParle requesting information about "secret negotiations" with interest groups conducted by the Office of Health Reform regarding the details of the health care overhaul.
In response to criticism about the waivers, the White House said last year that the exemptions -- issued by the Department of Health and Human Services -- only apply, on a temporary basis, to a provision to phase out annual limits.
-- No more visits to foreign countries to convince them to take Guantanamo Bay detainees. That's been the job of Daniel Fried, special envoy to oversee the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He's tasked with facilitating the closure of Guantanamo and finding homes for those prisoners deemed fit for release.
But many lawmakers don't want Guantanamo closed in the first place, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently acknowledged chances are slim that the shutdown would happen. That being the case, Republicans would like to see Fried's position simply eliminated.
-- No more trips to United Nations climate summits to negotiate western commitments to developing nations. The other "climate" czar, special envoy for climate change Todd Stern, has been an administration point man for these summits, most recently in Cancun, Mexico. The Scalise amendment would eliminate funding for that job.
-- No more plans to close auto dealerships en masse. The Obama administration's Task Force on the Auto Industry pressed General Motors and Chrysler to cut costs as part of bailout and restructuring negotiations, resulting in plans from the companies to close hundreds of dealerships. An inspector general report released last summer faulted the Treasury Department for not fully considering the economic side effects from that plan. Scalise's amendment targets the senior Treasury adviser to that task force, Ron Bloom, who is now senior counselor for manufacturing policy. Bloom was also credited with extracting significant concessions from all parties during the auto negotiations.
The other positions targeted by the Scalise House amendment are:
-- Special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation
-- White House director of urban affairs
-- Chief diversity officer for the Federal Communications Commission
House GOP Moves to Eliminate Obama 'Czars'
Published February 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com
If House Republicans have their way, the Obama administration's "czars" will no longer be able to dictate pay at bailed-out mega-firms or negotiate new emissions standards for U.S. vehicles. An amendment attached to the 2011 spending package, which passed the House last week, would strip funding for a select list of the so-called czars.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., the author of the proposal, hailed the vote as a step toward ending the administration's "shadow government."
"Hardworking American families should not be forced to pay millions of dollars to fund these czars, who are implementing radical policies under the cloak of darkness," Scalise said in a written statement.
Though the Obama administration is not the first to appoint high-level officials without Senate approval, they've become a popular target for Republicans since President Obama took office.
The Scalise amendment was a refined version of a catch-all anti-czar bill he introduced earlier in the session. That bill called for effectively shutting down any Executive Office task force or office led by an official who had not received Senate confirmation. At the time, Scalise estimated that 39 officials would fall under that description.
The latest amendment, which would still have to survive a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate, narrowed that list down to nine positions. Several of them have been responsible for shepherding high-profile policy changes that Republicans opposed practically in lockstep.
Here's the kind of "czar" activities that Republicans would stop if their amendment becomes law:
-- No more administration agreements on greenhouse-gas emissions. On the list for funding elimination is the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, known colloquially as the "climate czar." That official, Carol Browner, is expected to leave the position, following a tenure during which she helped strike a deal to increase fuel economy standards and require greenhouse-gas emissions standards for automakers.
"Let her leave, and take the funding, too," Scalise said on the House floor last week.
Even if that position is eliminated, however, the EPA is still pushing forward on limiting emissions for power plants and oil refineries.
-- No more edicts on executive pay. The Scalise proposal targets the special master for TARP executive compensation -- also known as the pay czar, who until recently was Kenneth Feinberg.
In that position, Feinberg sought deep pay cuts among top executives at seven firms that got "exceptional assistance" from the government's financial industry and auto industry bailouts. A Congressional Oversight Panel report this month showed the average pay decrease for the 25 highest-paid workers from 2008 to 2009 was nearly 55 percent.
Though some lawmakers have expressed concern that the pay czar's work could lead the government down a slippery slope when it comes to regulating private-sector salaries, the oversight panel report also noted that the "special master" position was created in response to a congressional mandate imposing pay restrictions on bailout recipients.
The pay czar is also not the only entity with that responsibility. The Treasury Department established an Office of Internal Review to, similarly, review pay packages for executives at bailout-funded firms.
-- No more "secret" meetings on the health care law. In addition to the "special master" post, the Scalise amendment would target the White House Office of Health Reform. The longtime director of that office, Nancy-Ann DeParle, was just promoted to White House deputy chief of staff.
DeParle's responsibilities were numerous. She was primarily tasked with coordinating the development of the law's policies across the Executive Branch. But on the House floor, Scalise suggested the "ObamaCare czar" helped facilitate too many backroom deals in the process.
Scalise noted that hundreds of companies have gotten exemptions from the law. In addition, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee just wrote to DeParle requesting information about "secret negotiations" with interest groups conducted by the Office of Health Reform regarding the details of the health care overhaul.
In response to criticism about the waivers, the White House said last year that the exemptions -- issued by the Department of Health and Human Services -- only apply, on a temporary basis, to a provision to phase out annual limits.
-- No more visits to foreign countries to convince them to take Guantanamo Bay detainees. That's been the job of Daniel Fried, special envoy to oversee the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He's tasked with facilitating the closure of Guantanamo and finding homes for those prisoners deemed fit for release.
But many lawmakers don't want Guantanamo closed in the first place, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently acknowledged chances are slim that the shutdown would happen. That being the case, Republicans would like to see Fried's position simply eliminated.
-- No more trips to United Nations climate summits to negotiate western commitments to developing nations. The other "climate" czar, special envoy for climate change Todd Stern, has been an administration point man for these summits, most recently in Cancun, Mexico. The Scalise amendment would eliminate funding for that job.
-- No more plans to close auto dealerships en masse. The Obama administration's Task Force on the Auto Industry pressed General Motors and Chrysler to cut costs as part of bailout and restructuring negotiations, resulting in plans from the companies to close hundreds of dealerships. An inspector general report released last summer faulted the Treasury Department for not fully considering the economic side effects from that plan. Scalise's amendment targets the senior Treasury adviser to that task force, Ron Bloom, who is now senior counselor for manufacturing policy. Bloom was also credited with extracting significant concessions from all parties during the auto negotiations.
The other positions targeted by the Scalise House amendment are:
-- Special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation
-- White House director of urban affairs
-- Chief diversity officer for the Federal Communications Commission
Monday, February 21, 2011
If you are not behind Governor Walker after this then you never will be!
Myth versus Fact in Wisconsin....
The REAL truth about Teachers Pay and Benefits in Wisconsin....for nine months work!
Wisconsin Teachers make more money than you think...they make substantially more than the average Wisconsin worker....and that pay is for a nine month job....Summers off.....How bad is that???? Now listen to them "cry" about how these proposed changes will kill them financially.....The TRUTH about what Wisconsin Teachers makea not only in pay, but in benefits....
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Union members, students and others have been protesting
Wisconsin’s public school teachers and the unions that represent them are saying budget cuts proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker would be devastating — but many of those teachers make more money than they’re letting on.
The Daily Caller has broken out the salaries and benefits of teachers who have publicly entered the debate by commenting to the press.
Wisconsin’s 2010 Teacher of the Year, Leah Lechleiter-Luke of Mauston High School, told CNN the budget changes would force her to look for additional part-time work.
“When people say that public sector employees live high off the hog, I’d like to share that for 13 of my 19-year teaching career I have held a part-time job either in the summer or teaching night class at the local technical college,” Lechleiter-Luke told CNN. “In addition to tightening the belt even more and crossing our fingers that nothing breaks, I will need to find part-time work again.”
Lechleiter-Luke makes $54,928 in base salary and $32,213 in “fringe benefits,” which include health insurance, life insurance and retirement pay.
Brad Lutes and his wife, Heather Lutes, told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz that Walker’s budget would hit them twice as hard.
“Having to explain to an 8- and 10-year old that the governor of your state basically wants to take money away from dad and mom? It’s just really, really frustrating,” Brad Lutes told Schultz.
He makes $49,412 in base salary with $27,987 in fringe benefits and his wife makes $50,240 with $9,413 in benefits. That’s $137,052 annually between the two of them
Jim Nelsen, a teacher at Hamilton High School in Milwaukee who attended the union protests in Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he thought it was “time we had to move and we did.” He earns $62,877 in base salary with an additional $26,492 in benefits.
Julene Flanagan, a fourth-grade teacher at Story Elementary School in Milwaukee, said the reason she attended the protests in Madison was because she cares “about the children deeply” and about the “future of public education in Wisconsin.” Flanagan makes $48,406 in base salary and $37,600 in benefits.
Chris Fons, a social studies teacher at Milwaukee’s Riverside High School, said the union protests in Madison are a “bottom-up” movement, and that the “people have been acting and the leaders are following.” Fons earns $58,976 in annual salary with an additional $25,646 in benefits.
Teachers in the state are only contracted to work part of the year, too. Most teachers start their work year around Aug. 30 and end around June 3, according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. They also get vacation time during the student breaks, like during Christmas, fall vacation and spring vacation. Year-round, teachers in the state are out of the classroom for about 13 or 14 weeks.
Per the Department of Commerce, in 2009, the average personal income for all Wisconsin workers was $37,398.
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Union members, students and others have been protesting
Wisconsin’s public school teachers and the unions that represent them are saying budget cuts proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker would be devastating — but many of those teachers make more money than they’re letting on.
The Daily Caller has broken out the salaries and benefits of teachers who have publicly entered the debate by commenting to the press.
Wisconsin’s 2010 Teacher of the Year, Leah Lechleiter-Luke of Mauston High School, told CNN the budget changes would force her to look for additional part-time work.
“When people say that public sector employees live high off the hog, I’d like to share that for 13 of my 19-year teaching career I have held a part-time job either in the summer or teaching night class at the local technical college,” Lechleiter-Luke told CNN. “In addition to tightening the belt even more and crossing our fingers that nothing breaks, I will need to find part-time work again.”
Lechleiter-Luke makes $54,928 in base salary and $32,213 in “fringe benefits,” which include health insurance, life insurance and retirement pay.
Brad Lutes and his wife, Heather Lutes, told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz that Walker’s budget would hit them twice as hard.
“Having to explain to an 8- and 10-year old that the governor of your state basically wants to take money away from dad and mom? It’s just really, really frustrating,” Brad Lutes told Schultz.
He makes $49,412 in base salary with $27,987 in fringe benefits and his wife makes $50,240 with $9,413 in benefits. That’s $137,052 annually between the two of them
Jim Nelsen, a teacher at Hamilton High School in Milwaukee who attended the union protests in Madison, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he thought it was “time we had to move and we did.” He earns $62,877 in base salary with an additional $26,492 in benefits.
Julene Flanagan, a fourth-grade teacher at Story Elementary School in Milwaukee, said the reason she attended the protests in Madison was because she cares “about the children deeply” and about the “future of public education in Wisconsin.” Flanagan makes $48,406 in base salary and $37,600 in benefits.
Chris Fons, a social studies teacher at Milwaukee’s Riverside High School, said the union protests in Madison are a “bottom-up” movement, and that the “people have been acting and the leaders are following.” Fons earns $58,976 in annual salary with an additional $25,646 in benefits.
Teachers in the state are only contracted to work part of the year, too. Most teachers start their work year around Aug. 30 and end around June 3, according to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. They also get vacation time during the student breaks, like during Christmas, fall vacation and spring vacation. Year-round, teachers in the state are out of the classroom for about 13 or 14 weeks.
Per the Department of Commerce, in 2009, the average personal income for all Wisconsin workers was $37,398.
Obama's Rating Fall AGAIN!
The American People are back onto this President...his brief effort to spin the fact that he was moving to the middle only lasted a week or two....a tiger can't change it's stripes....he's the same old liberal, socialist Obama with unions in his pocket and big spending, big government his goal!!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday, February 21, 2011
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).
Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.
It’s President’s Day, and 93% have a favorable opinion about Abraham Lincoln. Ninety-one percent (91%) say the same about George Washington.
Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book could do a better job than the current Congress. Only 41% disagree.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday, February 21, 2011
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).
Yesterday and today mark the president’s lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.
It’s President’s Day, and 93% have a favorable opinion about Abraham Lincoln. Ninety-one percent (91%) say the same about George Washington.
Most voters continue to favor repeal of the health care law.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now think a group of people selected at random from the phone book could do a better job than the current Congress. Only 41% disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)