This Article highlights the falsehoods that Obama told to the American People and the Press yesterday....He has a REAL problem with the truth....He needs to go home in 2012...
President Obama’s war on facts
Published: Updated: 1:16 PM 06/30/2011 By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
Mayday! Mayday!
President Obama’s “corporate jet” line from his press conference Wednesday is crashing along with a host of other claims that fact-checkers dismissed in the hours after his speech.
Obama referred to private jets six times in his remarks, essentially describing the Republican position on how to decrease rampant deficits as being “willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break.”
The tax incentive at issue was enacted to counteract the airplane industry’s woes in 2001 after 9/11 and reauthorized in, drum roll, Obama’s stimulus package, signed into law by the president himself.
More fundamentally, eliminating that tax break would bring in $3 billion in new taxes over ten years. That is less than 1 percent of the $400 billion in tax increases the Obama administration is proposing behind the scenes. It is about .15 percent of the spending cuts Republicans would like to see enacted.
In other words, by highlighting such a small issue, Obama cherry-picked an effective tool for making the debt ceiling vote a “clash of classes,” in the words of National Journal’s Ron Fournier, while wildly distorting its importance. Given the relatively tiny scale of the tax incentive, it does not force Congress to choose between it and “kids’ safety” in any meaningful way.
(Obama turns spotlight on Republicans for not being willing to give up ’sacred cow’)
Moving on, Obama claimed Wednesday to have been the only president in the history of the United States to have ever tried to eliminate unnecessary regulations.
Ads by Google“What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way, no administration’s done this before — is I’ve said to each agency, don’t just look at current regulations or don’t just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing, let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books, and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them,” Obama said.
As Calivin Woodward of the Associated Press notes, every president since Jimmy Carter has ordered a similar review of federal regulations to cut red tape.
Obama also claimed Wednesday that every informed person on the planet who isn’t being willfully dishonest realizes you can’t tackle federal deficits without raising taxes.
“Every single observer who’s not an elected official, who’s not a politician, says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale and scope that we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything,” Obama said. (This “balanced approach” refers to, as he put it, “spending in the tax code,” i.e. tax increases.)
However, there is an “observer” who disagrees. He happens to be an Obama appointee. That person, as National Review’s Daniel Foster notes, is Ben Bernanke.
Questioned in a congressional hearing whether Congress could tackle deficits merely with spending cuts, Bernanke said, “of course.”
Another whopper from yesterday’s press conference was Obama acting like Congress has been stubbornly holding up three free trade deals with South Korea, Columbia and Panama that could be helping the economy.
“Right now, Congress can advance a set of trade agreements that would allow American businesses to sell more of their goods and services to countries in Asia and South America -– agreements that would support tens of thousands of American jobs while helping those adversely affected by trade. That’s pending before Congress right now,” Obama said.
Come on, Congress – right now! Obama might have mentioned he just broke an impasse with Congress on Tuesday, i.e. less than 24 hours before he acted like they’ve been sitting there for months. Immediately afterwards, Democrats angered Republicans by attaching the trade agreements to a controversial bill.
And, as Alana Goodman at Commentary notes, the trade agreements were originally negotiated by then-President George W. Bush in 2007. Democrats then in charge of Congress didn’t bring them up for consideration.
During the first two years of his presidency, Obama was widely faulted for having virtually no trade agenda, and the trade agreements sat dormant. Finally, several months ago, he began negotiating with Congress about the deals and Tuesday they broke a key stalemate.
Similarly, Obama blamed “Congress” for leaving town while he’s been here, in D.C., waiting to work hard on a budget deal.
“I think members of Congress need to understand we are going to start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done,” Obama said Wednesday, “They’re in one week, they’re out one week. And then they’re saying, Obama has got to step in. You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”
Nice bin Laden reference, Mr. President. A few relevant points:
Ads by GoogleFirst, members of the president’s party have faulted him for failing to lead on budget issues.
Second, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the GOP’s top man on the Senate Budget Committee, has been the loudest voice urging the Senate not to recess until it made progress on a debt deal.
Third, only a few top leaders from each party are part of negotiations over the deal, meaning those negotiations aren’t exactly dependent on whether every lawmaker is in town.
Maybe this is part of the reason why Mark Halperin thinks Obama was being a “dick”?
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Obama is all talk....No Action!
And now we know that Obama has declined Mitch McConnell's invitation to meet with Republican Senators....he'd rather go to his fundraiser in Philadelphia which really say he doesn't give a damn about the debt crisis....What a pathetic excuse for a President Obama is...
GOP Blasts Obama for Attending Fundraisers While Debt Talks Continue
June 30, 2011 12:47 PM
Not long after Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., invited President Obama to the Hill Thursday to meet with Senate Republicans, Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, took to the Senate floor to blast President Obama for attending a fundraiser this afternoon in Philadelphia, Penn., when the debt ceiling negotiations are still ongoing.
“I wonder if he's going to cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to meet with Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner to try to work on this threat that he was so emphatic about yesterday. I predict he won't cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to get to work on something that only he can do, which is to negotiate a grand bargain with Republicans and Democrats that will solve this problem.”
The White House has not yet responded to McConnell’s invitation, made just over an hour ago.
Cornyn said he was “shocked” that President Obama would tell Congress to get to work on this yesterday.
“I guess the president forgot that his party controls the United States Senate, and Republicans being in the minority have no ability to place matters on the agenda or to force a vote on issues over objection of Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Democrats who control the senate,” Cornyn said, “the president should have picked up his telephone or invited Senator Reid to come to his office and say, 'Harry, we need to pass a budget. We need to take care of this debt crisis, we need to take care of this cliff that we're getting ready to fall off of.'”
Cornyn called President Obama’s press conference yesterday “outrageous” and said that Obama engaged in “blatant electioneering, campaigning sort of rhetoric.”
He quipped that President Obama has time to make a videotaped fundraising pitch to donors this week but he doesn’t have time to take “ownership” of the debt ceiling issue.
“Frankly, he should be embarrassed, but unfortunately the threshold for embarrassment here in Washington seems to be much higher than the rest of the country.”
GOP Blasts Obama for Attending Fundraisers While Debt Talks Continue
June 30, 2011 12:47 PM
Not long after Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., invited President Obama to the Hill Thursday to meet with Senate Republicans, Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, took to the Senate floor to blast President Obama for attending a fundraiser this afternoon in Philadelphia, Penn., when the debt ceiling negotiations are still ongoing.
“I wonder if he's going to cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to meet with Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner to try to work on this threat that he was so emphatic about yesterday. I predict he won't cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to get to work on something that only he can do, which is to negotiate a grand bargain with Republicans and Democrats that will solve this problem.”
The White House has not yet responded to McConnell’s invitation, made just over an hour ago.
Cornyn said he was “shocked” that President Obama would tell Congress to get to work on this yesterday.
“I guess the president forgot that his party controls the United States Senate, and Republicans being in the minority have no ability to place matters on the agenda or to force a vote on issues over objection of Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Democrats who control the senate,” Cornyn said, “the president should have picked up his telephone or invited Senator Reid to come to his office and say, 'Harry, we need to pass a budget. We need to take care of this debt crisis, we need to take care of this cliff that we're getting ready to fall off of.'”
Cornyn called President Obama’s press conference yesterday “outrageous” and said that Obama engaged in “blatant electioneering, campaigning sort of rhetoric.”
He quipped that President Obama has time to make a videotaped fundraising pitch to donors this week but he doesn’t have time to take “ownership” of the debt ceiling issue.
“Frankly, he should be embarrassed, but unfortunately the threshold for embarrassment here in Washington seems to be much higher than the rest of the country.”
Obama...not involved...afraid the debt fight might impact his New England Vacation....
If I were a Republican in Congress I would stall this thing just to spite the President and force him to cancel/postpone his August Vacation to New England...
That's really what's in the back of his mind....It's again all about him...he's living the high life and doesn't want to be disturbed...
But he'll be gone after 2012...
.....Obama, Congress work against, and with, the clock
By JIM KUHNHENN - Associated Press | AP – Thu, Jun 30, 2011
....WASHINGTON (AP) — In prodding Congress to act swiftly to avoid a government default on its financial obligations, President Barack Obama has Isaac Bassett and a long history of procrastination conspiring against him.
From 1844 until his death in 1895, Bassett, the Senate's stately assistant doorkeeper, would lift a long pole and turn back the hands of the Senate clock at the close of every annual session, lengthening the official day so lawmakers could finish their work within the prescribed time.
Obama on Wednesday insisted there is no more time to add now. And he beseeched and badgered lawmakers to complete a deal to cut long-term deficits and lift the nation's debt ceiling before Aug. 2 to avoid what his administration says would be a calamitous government default.
"There's no point in putting it off," he said. "We've got to get this done."
But neither Obama nor the divided Congress is making it easier. The White House has identified at least $1.3 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and is proposing up to $400 billion in new tax revenue. Republicans want more spending cuts and no tax increases.
Such brinkmanship relies on the clock; it is both a friend and an adversary. The problem with Aug. 2 is not that it's too soon, but that it's still four week away.
At a news conference Wednesday, the president sought to upend the Republican argument that deficit-cutting negotiations had come to a standstill over the White House desire to increase taxes.
"The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers, and corporate jet owners," Obama countered.
Ever since bipartisan debt negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden broke down last week, the White House has gradually become more aggressive, culminating with Obama's spirited news conference.
He called on lawmakers to work through their July Fourth recess. By late Wednesday, the Senate appeared ready to comply. He argued that his 12- and 10-year-old daughters show more discipline getting their work done. "They're not pulling all-nighters," he said.
"Call me naive," he said at another point, "but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead."
Obama is tilting at an institutional dysfunction — one that he himself once seemed to recognize: "If you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia," he said in 2009 during the health care debate. As it turned out, his deadline came and went, and it wasn't until 2010 that the health care overhaul legislation passed.
Some deadlines are too stark to avoid, but they get pushed to the brink. The government shutdown talks earlier this year came down to the final two hours. When asked what ultimately led to a deal to avoid halting government operations, one top Obama adviser said, "the clock."
Senior presidential adviser David Plouffe was asked in a nationally broadcast interview Thursday if the deadline was real.
"There's very little debate that that's going to change," he told NBC's "Today" show. Plouffe added, "We're in a danger zone now."
Plouffe, who was Obama's campaign manager when he ran for president in 2008, said he believes Democrats and Republicans alike are going to have to "get out of their comfort zone" to reach an agreement that would increase the government's borrowing authority and avert a default on the federal debt.
The White House and a lame-duck Congress in late December cut an economic deal mainly for one reason: Without action, tax increases were to kick in on Jan. 1.
"The problem with Congress is it's a big institution, and you have to get a majority of the votes," said Steve Elmendorf, who has observed Congress for years as a top House Democratic leadership aide and now as a lobbyist. "Leaders can make deals with the president, but then leaders have to sell it to the followers. And that usually takes time."
Congressional negotiations are no different than any other high-stakes talks where parties have entrenched positions.
"Each side thinks two things," said congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, co-author of a book on Congress, "The Broken Branch." ''One, that it can get more by waiting until the absolute last minute and playing a game of chicken with the other side. The second is that because inevitably there are going to be some concessions on both sides, it's a little bit easier for negotiators to justify that they did everything they could."
The Obama administration is warning that if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2, the U.S. would face its first default in history, potentially throwing world financial markets into turmoil. Many congressional Republicans aren't convinced, and some administration officials worry that it could take a financial plunge before Congress acts.
It happened before, when the Bush administration tried to persuade Congress to intervene at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. The $700 billion plan to rescue banks was defeated initially in the House in late September 2008, freezing credit markets and sending stock markets into a dive. The measure passed in the ensuing days.
The pending debt ceiling vote would have to raise the current borrowing limit of $14.3 trillion by about $2.4 trillion to last until the end of 2012.
At his news conference, Obama took issue with criticism that he has not pushed for an agreement. He argued that he has spent an hour to an hour-and-a-half each with Republican senators, Democratic senators and House members from both parties.
"I've met with the leaders multiple times," he continued. "At a certain point, they need to do their job."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, replied that an increase in the debt ceiling will pass only if the White House agrees to spending cuts in excess of the debt limit increase, holds down future spending and raises no taxes.
"The longer the president denies these realities," Boehner said, "the more difficult he makes this process."
And the longer it will take.
Or, as associate Senate historian Betty Koed put it: "Always it's been this rush at the end of a session to get things done. Somehow it's human nature, and we have human beings in Congress."
___
That's really what's in the back of his mind....It's again all about him...he's living the high life and doesn't want to be disturbed...
But he'll be gone after 2012...
.....Obama, Congress work against, and with, the clock
By JIM KUHNHENN - Associated Press | AP – Thu, Jun 30, 2011
....WASHINGTON (AP) — In prodding Congress to act swiftly to avoid a government default on its financial obligations, President Barack Obama has Isaac Bassett and a long history of procrastination conspiring against him.
From 1844 until his death in 1895, Bassett, the Senate's stately assistant doorkeeper, would lift a long pole and turn back the hands of the Senate clock at the close of every annual session, lengthening the official day so lawmakers could finish their work within the prescribed time.
Obama on Wednesday insisted there is no more time to add now. And he beseeched and badgered lawmakers to complete a deal to cut long-term deficits and lift the nation's debt ceiling before Aug. 2 to avoid what his administration says would be a calamitous government default.
"There's no point in putting it off," he said. "We've got to get this done."
But neither Obama nor the divided Congress is making it easier. The White House has identified at least $1.3 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and is proposing up to $400 billion in new tax revenue. Republicans want more spending cuts and no tax increases.
Such brinkmanship relies on the clock; it is both a friend and an adversary. The problem with Aug. 2 is not that it's too soon, but that it's still four week away.
At a news conference Wednesday, the president sought to upend the Republican argument that deficit-cutting negotiations had come to a standstill over the White House desire to increase taxes.
"The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers, and corporate jet owners," Obama countered.
Ever since bipartisan debt negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden broke down last week, the White House has gradually become more aggressive, culminating with Obama's spirited news conference.
He called on lawmakers to work through their July Fourth recess. By late Wednesday, the Senate appeared ready to comply. He argued that his 12- and 10-year-old daughters show more discipline getting their work done. "They're not pulling all-nighters," he said.
"Call me naive," he said at another point, "but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead."
Obama is tilting at an institutional dysfunction — one that he himself once seemed to recognize: "If you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia," he said in 2009 during the health care debate. As it turned out, his deadline came and went, and it wasn't until 2010 that the health care overhaul legislation passed.
Some deadlines are too stark to avoid, but they get pushed to the brink. The government shutdown talks earlier this year came down to the final two hours. When asked what ultimately led to a deal to avoid halting government operations, one top Obama adviser said, "the clock."
Senior presidential adviser David Plouffe was asked in a nationally broadcast interview Thursday if the deadline was real.
"There's very little debate that that's going to change," he told NBC's "Today" show. Plouffe added, "We're in a danger zone now."
Plouffe, who was Obama's campaign manager when he ran for president in 2008, said he believes Democrats and Republicans alike are going to have to "get out of their comfort zone" to reach an agreement that would increase the government's borrowing authority and avert a default on the federal debt.
The White House and a lame-duck Congress in late December cut an economic deal mainly for one reason: Without action, tax increases were to kick in on Jan. 1.
"The problem with Congress is it's a big institution, and you have to get a majority of the votes," said Steve Elmendorf, who has observed Congress for years as a top House Democratic leadership aide and now as a lobbyist. "Leaders can make deals with the president, but then leaders have to sell it to the followers. And that usually takes time."
Congressional negotiations are no different than any other high-stakes talks where parties have entrenched positions.
"Each side thinks two things," said congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, co-author of a book on Congress, "The Broken Branch." ''One, that it can get more by waiting until the absolute last minute and playing a game of chicken with the other side. The second is that because inevitably there are going to be some concessions on both sides, it's a little bit easier for negotiators to justify that they did everything they could."
The Obama administration is warning that if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2, the U.S. would face its first default in history, potentially throwing world financial markets into turmoil. Many congressional Republicans aren't convinced, and some administration officials worry that it could take a financial plunge before Congress acts.
It happened before, when the Bush administration tried to persuade Congress to intervene at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. The $700 billion plan to rescue banks was defeated initially in the House in late September 2008, freezing credit markets and sending stock markets into a dive. The measure passed in the ensuing days.
The pending debt ceiling vote would have to raise the current borrowing limit of $14.3 trillion by about $2.4 trillion to last until the end of 2012.
At his news conference, Obama took issue with criticism that he has not pushed for an agreement. He argued that he has spent an hour to an hour-and-a-half each with Republican senators, Democratic senators and House members from both parties.
"I've met with the leaders multiple times," he continued. "At a certain point, they need to do their job."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, replied that an increase in the debt ceiling will pass only if the White House agrees to spending cuts in excess of the debt limit increase, holds down future spending and raises no taxes.
"The longer the president denies these realities," Boehner said, "the more difficult he makes this process."
And the longer it will take.
Or, as associate Senate historian Betty Koed put it: "Always it's been this rush at the end of a session to get things done. Somehow it's human nature, and we have human beings in Congress."
___
Obama blaming everyone but himself...What he really needs to do is LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
Obama complains about the Republicans/Congress and their dedication to getting the debt crisis resolved when the TRUTH is he's not involved, not around and just lying to the American Public...Below is the truth!
Obama Complains About his Workload
“They're in one week, they're out one week. And then they're saying, ‘Obama has got to step in. You need to be here.’ I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”
-- A visibly indignant President Obama talking to reporters about claims that he has shown insufficient leadership on his request to increase the federal government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.
President Obama told reporters that he found it “amusing” when people say he needs to show more leadership on the fiscal impasse in Washington, but there was little mirth evident in the president on Wednesday.
Obama swiped and swatted at Republicans for intransigence, reprising his previous attack lines on fiscal confrontations, suggesting that Democrats were ready to make sacrifices but Republicans were radical and self-seeking. The president suggested that Republicans were just expressing opposition to tax increases to fire up their political base and get on “cable news.”
That stuff is pretty much expected in Obama’s Washington. The president often calls into question the motives of everyone but himself. Republicans, he claims, are fixated on 2012 while he is intent on governing.
Those Obamaian flourishes get bipartisan eye rolls inside the Beltway because they are so patently political themselves. Everybody in Washington is always thinking about the next election, especially the campaigner in chief.
The president is attending two fundraisers in Philadelphia tonight – the 36th and 37th fundraising events of his presidency. His wife, meanwhile, is hitting a trio of fundraising events while on an official trip to visit the families of Vermont National Guard members.
By comparison, President George W. Bush had held fewer than a half-dozen such events at this point in his first term.
As the president tries to amass another record-breaking campaign war chest, he has been pushing the envelope not just of the time he’s spending hustling cash but the lengths he’s gone to in order to do so.
Obama has come under criticism for using the White House to record a campaign video for a fundraising raffle for donors to win dinner with him and Vice President Biden. Fundraisers have also offered food tastings with the White House chef and access to other trappings of executive power as ways to lure big-dollar donors.
The Clinton scandals of selling access to the people’s house to high-dollar donors had previously squelched that kind of mercantilism, but the huge financial goals set by Team Obama are driving the administration into some riskier behavior.
Newly released White House visitors’ logs show a second Democratic National Committee event was held in the White House this year – even before the now controversial executive briefing given to Wall Street donors in March.
The Obama campaign has been trying to downplay fundraising expectations for the second quarter of the year, which ends today. Anything short of $60 million in combined fundraising for Obama’s campaign and the DNC would be a disappointment given the unprecedented lengths to which Obama has gone to raise money.
But, again, this is not a new thing. Obama has mostly been in campaign mode since taking office but frequently accuses his opponents of being politically motivated instead of being imbued with the national interest. As the election draws nearer, this line will grow increasingly strained, but it is old hat.
The new wrinkle on Wednesday was that Obama expanded the argument to actual hours on the job. He accused Congress of being neglectful of their work by taking vacations while he was busy dealing with killing Usama bin Laden and helping avoid the looming insolvency of the euro.
That was weird.
Obama played golf twice last weekend, is getting ready for a long summer vacation and has been on an increasingly active tour of 2012 swing states to give remarks about green energy, auto bailouts and stimulus spending. These are all normal things for presidents to do, but strange that Obama would cast himself as overworked and Congress as a bunch of goldbrickers.
Aside from sounding whiny, it also lays the president open to criticism for every golf outing, fundraiser, swing-state visit, family getaway and the like that he engages in. He played into the hands of his critics by framing the argument on their grounds.
It will be easy enough for Senators (except for the politically vulnerable ones who are missing out on parades and fundraisers) to stick around next week and wait for word of a deal. It will be hard for Obama to defend his schedule having now held it up as a metric by which one’s national service can be measured.
Obama Complains About his Workload
“They're in one week, they're out one week. And then they're saying, ‘Obama has got to step in. You need to be here.’ I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”
-- A visibly indignant President Obama talking to reporters about claims that he has shown insufficient leadership on his request to increase the federal government’s $14.3 trillion debt limit.
President Obama told reporters that he found it “amusing” when people say he needs to show more leadership on the fiscal impasse in Washington, but there was little mirth evident in the president on Wednesday.
Obama swiped and swatted at Republicans for intransigence, reprising his previous attack lines on fiscal confrontations, suggesting that Democrats were ready to make sacrifices but Republicans were radical and self-seeking. The president suggested that Republicans were just expressing opposition to tax increases to fire up their political base and get on “cable news.”
That stuff is pretty much expected in Obama’s Washington. The president often calls into question the motives of everyone but himself. Republicans, he claims, are fixated on 2012 while he is intent on governing.
Those Obamaian flourishes get bipartisan eye rolls inside the Beltway because they are so patently political themselves. Everybody in Washington is always thinking about the next election, especially the campaigner in chief.
The president is attending two fundraisers in Philadelphia tonight – the 36th and 37th fundraising events of his presidency. His wife, meanwhile, is hitting a trio of fundraising events while on an official trip to visit the families of Vermont National Guard members.
By comparison, President George W. Bush had held fewer than a half-dozen such events at this point in his first term.
As the president tries to amass another record-breaking campaign war chest, he has been pushing the envelope not just of the time he’s spending hustling cash but the lengths he’s gone to in order to do so.
Obama has come under criticism for using the White House to record a campaign video for a fundraising raffle for donors to win dinner with him and Vice President Biden. Fundraisers have also offered food tastings with the White House chef and access to other trappings of executive power as ways to lure big-dollar donors.
The Clinton scandals of selling access to the people’s house to high-dollar donors had previously squelched that kind of mercantilism, but the huge financial goals set by Team Obama are driving the administration into some riskier behavior.
Newly released White House visitors’ logs show a second Democratic National Committee event was held in the White House this year – even before the now controversial executive briefing given to Wall Street donors in March.
The Obama campaign has been trying to downplay fundraising expectations for the second quarter of the year, which ends today. Anything short of $60 million in combined fundraising for Obama’s campaign and the DNC would be a disappointment given the unprecedented lengths to which Obama has gone to raise money.
But, again, this is not a new thing. Obama has mostly been in campaign mode since taking office but frequently accuses his opponents of being politically motivated instead of being imbued with the national interest. As the election draws nearer, this line will grow increasingly strained, but it is old hat.
The new wrinkle on Wednesday was that Obama expanded the argument to actual hours on the job. He accused Congress of being neglectful of their work by taking vacations while he was busy dealing with killing Usama bin Laden and helping avoid the looming insolvency of the euro.
That was weird.
Obama played golf twice last weekend, is getting ready for a long summer vacation and has been on an increasingly active tour of 2012 swing states to give remarks about green energy, auto bailouts and stimulus spending. These are all normal things for presidents to do, but strange that Obama would cast himself as overworked and Congress as a bunch of goldbrickers.
Aside from sounding whiny, it also lays the president open to criticism for every golf outing, fundraiser, swing-state visit, family getaway and the like that he engages in. He played into the hands of his critics by framing the argument on their grounds.
It will be easy enough for Senators (except for the politically vulnerable ones who are missing out on parades and fundraisers) to stick around next week and wait for word of a deal. It will be hard for Obama to defend his schedule having now held it up as a metric by which one’s national service can be measured.
Mark Levin analyzes Obama's Press Conference
Mark Levin analyzes Obama's abysmal Press Conference.....it was a total embarrassment...
Obama.....spinning falsehoods....again!
Obama seems for "forget" that the corporate jet sudsidy was part of his Stimulus Package.....he doesn't seem to mention that...once again he has a real problem with the truth....
Mark Haperin was right...Obama was a "dick" yesterday at his press conference!
I don't know why Mark Halperin would apoligize...he spoke the truth...Obama as a Dick yesterday at his press conference...he lied to the American People repeatedly...he again failed to lead on the debt issue....he again found blame with everyone BUT himself as he flys around the nation campaigning for 2012 and going to fundraisers between his golf rounds....If he's not a "Dick" then I don't know who is.....BUT it is MSNBC and they all love Obama so to them this was probably blasphamy....
Mark Halperin suspended over Obama remark on Morning Joe (video)
By TIM MAK | 6/30/11 7:07 AM EDT Updated: 6/30/11 11:04 AM EDT
MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin was suspended on Thursday by the cable network after he called President Obama “a dick” on a popular morning show and then quickly apologized.
“I thought he was a dick yesterday,” Halperin, who also is an editor-at large for Time, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference.
A couple of hours later, MSNBC issued a statement, saying, “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.
The cable outlet also put out a statment from Halperin at the same time, saying, “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.”
During the Morning Joe show, host Joe Scarborough hoped to prevent the comment from being broadcast, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? I can’t believe… don’t do that. Did we delay that?”
Just minutes later, Halperin quickly apologized on the air to the president and viewers for his choice of words. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said.
“We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said.
According to Scarborough, there had been a mishap with the seven-second delay button – a new executive producer apparently didn’t know how it worked. “You are supposed to know how to do the job,” Scarborough said of his producer. “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.”
Later in the show, Halperin again apologized, saying, “I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the President. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers…It is disrespectful, what I said was disrespectful to the president and the office but it also lowers our discourse.”
He also tweeted to his followers, “I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President and the viewers of Morning Joe. My remark was not funny. I deeply regret it.”
Scarborough and Morning Joe Executive Producer Alex Korson said they were sorry for what happened.
“Certainly (host) Mika (Brzezinski) and I also apologize to viewers,” Scarborough said. “And we hear this all the time - parents come up and say, ‘Hey, by the way, we don’t just watch the show, our kids watch the show.’”
Mark Halperin suspended over Obama remark on Morning Joe (video)
By TIM MAK | 6/30/11 7:07 AM EDT Updated: 6/30/11 11:04 AM EDT
MSNBC senior political analyst Mark Halperin was suspended on Thursday by the cable network after he called President Obama “a dick” on a popular morning show and then quickly apologized.
“I thought he was a dick yesterday,” Halperin, who also is an editor-at large for Time, said on Morning Joe, referring to the President’s conduct during his press conference.
A couple of hours later, MSNBC issued a statement, saying, “Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.
The cable outlet also put out a statment from Halperin at the same time, saying, “I completely agree with everything in MSNBC’s statement about my remark. I believe that the step they are taking in response is totally appropriate. Again, I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President, to my MSNBC colleagues, and to the viewers. My remark was unacceptable, and I deeply regret it.”
During the Morning Joe show, host Joe Scarborough hoped to prevent the comment from being broadcast, saying, “Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? I can’t believe… don’t do that. Did we delay that?”
Just minutes later, Halperin quickly apologized on the air to the president and viewers for his choice of words. “Joking aside, this is an absolute apology. I shouldn’t have said it. I apologize to the president and the viewers who heard me say that,” Halperin said.
“We’re going to have a meeting after the show,” Scarborough said.
According to Scarborough, there had been a mishap with the seven-second delay button – a new executive producer apparently didn’t know how it worked. “You are supposed to know how to do the job,” Scarborough said of his producer. “I would tell you what I think of him, but he doesn’t know what button to push.”
Later in the show, Halperin again apologized, saying, “I can’t explain why I did it. It’s inappropriate, disrespectful. I’ve already apologized, and I will again to the President. I’m sorry, I’m sorry to the viewers…It is disrespectful, what I said was disrespectful to the president and the office but it also lowers our discourse.”
He also tweeted to his followers, “I want to offer a heartfelt and profound apology to the President and the viewers of Morning Joe. My remark was not funny. I deeply regret it.”
Scarborough and Morning Joe Executive Producer Alex Korson said they were sorry for what happened.
“Certainly (host) Mika (Brzezinski) and I also apologize to viewers,” Scarborough said. “And we hear this all the time - parents come up and say, ‘Hey, by the way, we don’t just watch the show, our kids watch the show.’”
A Must Read from the Heritage Foundation
A great piece from today's Heritage Foundation's Morning Call....it's obvious that Obama will AGAIN lead on NOTHING, so it's up to the Congress...more specifically the Republicans to hold their ground and not budge...that's what the American Peoople want..that's what the American People voted for in the midterms last year....I heard something that struck me last night...the statement was made that "the Republicans are attempting to fix the debt problem, while Obama is simply trying to fix blame to someone other than himself"... this President is a pathetic excuse for the President of America.
Time For Congress to Lead on the Debt Ceiling
As we saw at yesterday's press conference, President Obama is not going to lead on the debt ceiling issue. Nor is he going to compromise or play a mediating role. He is more interested in blaming others for his troubles, demagoguing other solutions and running for re-election.
This is why conservatives need to be reminded not to yield to scare tactics. Last night, our sister organization, Heritage Action for America, announced it would ask Members of Congress to vote "no" on raising the debt ceiling--unless, that is, a deal "rises to the level of the substantial fiscal challenges which face our nation." Heritage Action also said it would score that vote on its official scorecard.
In other words, Members of Congress must not pass up this opportunity to lead as President Obama has.
The Heritage Foundation has previously laid out exactly what an acceptable package might look like. It must: 1) significantly cut current spending; 2) restrict future spending; and 3) fix the budget process. Heritage Action for America notes that only one plan currently being debated meets this test, and that is the plan embodied in the "Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge." Heritage Action goes on to say: "This is an example of a plan that matches the historical moment that we currently face as a nation."
But this reform will not be easy. President Obama is intent on laying the groundwork to blame Congress if a deal is not reached. It's why the President pointed his finger at Congress several times yesterday, saying it was "their job" and "these are bills that Congress ran up" and finally excusing himself: "I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis." Apparently for the President, the economy of Greece is more important than preventing the American economy from collapsing…like Greece's.
Some Members of Congress are working toward appropriate solutions. All 47 Republican Senators have co-sponsored a balanced budget proposal in the Senate. Likewise, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has indicated similar support among House Republicans for such a measure. The House GOP also passed a budget with significant savings, and they have proposed entitlement reform ideas. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats haven't even engaged in the budget process in more than two years.
But Congress must also act to relieve the uncertainty caused by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's August 2 deadline and keep President Obama focused on solutions rather than political talking points. Congress can do so by exercising its constitutional power of the purse and prioritizing federal spending, based on the framework of legislation introduced by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA).
As Heritage economist J.D. Foster has pointed out:
Both immediately and long after it reaches the debt limit, the government would have far more than enough revenue coming in that the Secretary of the Treasury could use to pay interest on the debt. Nor would preserving the current debt limit put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, as the President's chief economic adviser has claimed. The government would continue to pay net interest as it comes due.
In fact, yesterday the Bipartisan Research Council released a Debt Ceiling Analysis that showed that even if the August 2 deadline is missed, the federal government would still have enough revenue to pay for: "all interest on Treasury securities (thus avoiding default), all Social Security obligations, all Medicare and Medicaid obligations, all Defense contractor bills, all Veterans payments, and all active duty troops, and still have almost $7 billion left over for other items." Congress can and should take its time to get this right.
Finally, any deal that cuts spending, restricts future spending and fixes the budget process will not fit on a single page. That is why it is critical that the American public have a full 72 hours to review the details of any deal to increase the debt ceiling. As Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham notes:
The Washington inclination to go behind closed doors and strike a grand deal is unacceptable. Heritage Action, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans we represent, demand transparency and accountability. Americans must feel confident their Members of Congress understand what they are voting on. There must not be another "pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it" moment.
The status quo is not a plan. There is no saving Medicare or Social Security "as we know it." America is on an unsustainable course, and raising taxes on job creators and wage providers will neither fix the problems in Washington nor help rescue a flailing economy. Half-measures and gimmicks will only push these problems down the road, and onto our children and grandchildren.
The crisis is now. Now is the time for substantive action. The American people demand it.
Time For Congress to Lead on the Debt Ceiling
As we saw at yesterday's press conference, President Obama is not going to lead on the debt ceiling issue. Nor is he going to compromise or play a mediating role. He is more interested in blaming others for his troubles, demagoguing other solutions and running for re-election.
This is why conservatives need to be reminded not to yield to scare tactics. Last night, our sister organization, Heritage Action for America, announced it would ask Members of Congress to vote "no" on raising the debt ceiling--unless, that is, a deal "rises to the level of the substantial fiscal challenges which face our nation." Heritage Action also said it would score that vote on its official scorecard.
In other words, Members of Congress must not pass up this opportunity to lead as President Obama has.
The Heritage Foundation has previously laid out exactly what an acceptable package might look like. It must: 1) significantly cut current spending; 2) restrict future spending; and 3) fix the budget process. Heritage Action for America notes that only one plan currently being debated meets this test, and that is the plan embodied in the "Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge." Heritage Action goes on to say: "This is an example of a plan that matches the historical moment that we currently face as a nation."
But this reform will not be easy. President Obama is intent on laying the groundwork to blame Congress if a deal is not reached. It's why the President pointed his finger at Congress several times yesterday, saying it was "their job" and "these are bills that Congress ran up" and finally excusing himself: "I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis." Apparently for the President, the economy of Greece is more important than preventing the American economy from collapsing…like Greece's.
Some Members of Congress are working toward appropriate solutions. All 47 Republican Senators have co-sponsored a balanced budget proposal in the Senate. Likewise, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has indicated similar support among House Republicans for such a measure. The House GOP also passed a budget with significant savings, and they have proposed entitlement reform ideas. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats haven't even engaged in the budget process in more than two years.
But Congress must also act to relieve the uncertainty caused by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's August 2 deadline and keep President Obama focused on solutions rather than political talking points. Congress can do so by exercising its constitutional power of the purse and prioritizing federal spending, based on the framework of legislation introduced by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA).
As Heritage economist J.D. Foster has pointed out:
Both immediately and long after it reaches the debt limit, the government would have far more than enough revenue coming in that the Secretary of the Treasury could use to pay interest on the debt. Nor would preserving the current debt limit put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government, as the President's chief economic adviser has claimed. The government would continue to pay net interest as it comes due.
In fact, yesterday the Bipartisan Research Council released a Debt Ceiling Analysis that showed that even if the August 2 deadline is missed, the federal government would still have enough revenue to pay for: "all interest on Treasury securities (thus avoiding default), all Social Security obligations, all Medicare and Medicaid obligations, all Defense contractor bills, all Veterans payments, and all active duty troops, and still have almost $7 billion left over for other items." Congress can and should take its time to get this right.
Finally, any deal that cuts spending, restricts future spending and fixes the budget process will not fit on a single page. That is why it is critical that the American public have a full 72 hours to review the details of any deal to increase the debt ceiling. As Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham notes:
The Washington inclination to go behind closed doors and strike a grand deal is unacceptable. Heritage Action, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans we represent, demand transparency and accountability. Americans must feel confident their Members of Congress understand what they are voting on. There must not be another "pass the bill so that we can find out what is in it" moment.
The status quo is not a plan. There is no saving Medicare or Social Security "as we know it." America is on an unsustainable course, and raising taxes on job creators and wage providers will neither fix the problems in Washington nor help rescue a flailing economy. Half-measures and gimmicks will only push these problems down the road, and onto our children and grandchildren.
The crisis is now. Now is the time for substantive action. The American people demand it.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
This guy Obama is a JOKE!
Does this man realize...HE IS THE PRESIDENT!!! And all he's been doing is out fundraising and campaigning... He's the one that's been dragging his feet and pushing this to the very last minute, just like he did at the end of the year last year.
Obama: Why Can't Congress Be More Like My Daughters?
Published June 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
If only members of Congress were more like Sasha and Malia.
President Obama, scolding lawmakers Wednesday for failing to reach a budget deal, held up his daughters as an example of how to handle pressure and deadlines. He questioned why it is that Congress routinely dilly-dallies on important legislation while his daughters have figured out how to finish their homework in a prompt and timely manner.
"Malia and Sasha, generally, finish their homework a day ahead of time," Obama said. "They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all-nighters -- they're 13 and 10."
He added: "You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you've got to do something, just do it."
The president criticized lawmakers for trying to foist the stalled negotiations on him. He vowed to work with lawmakers to strike a deal, but suggested they should stop going on recess until a compromise is reached.
"They need to do their jobs," he said. "You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis."
Since the beginning of the year, Congress has spent six full weeks out of session, in addition to other days off. The president hasn't had a bona fide vacation since he returned from Hawaii with his family in early January. He reportedly plans to go to Martha's Vineyard in August.
Obama: Why Can't Congress Be More Like My Daughters?
Published June 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
If only members of Congress were more like Sasha and Malia.
President Obama, scolding lawmakers Wednesday for failing to reach a budget deal, held up his daughters as an example of how to handle pressure and deadlines. He questioned why it is that Congress routinely dilly-dallies on important legislation while his daughters have figured out how to finish their homework in a prompt and timely manner.
"Malia and Sasha, generally, finish their homework a day ahead of time," Obama said. "They don't wait until the night before. They're not pulling all-nighters -- they're 13 and 10."
He added: "You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you've got to do something, just do it."
The president criticized lawmakers for trying to foist the stalled negotiations on him. He vowed to work with lawmakers to strike a deal, but suggested they should stop going on recess until a compromise is reached.
"They need to do their jobs," he said. "You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis."
Since the beginning of the year, Congress has spent six full weeks out of session, in addition to other days off. The president hasn't had a bona fide vacation since he returned from Hawaii with his family in early January. He reportedly plans to go to Martha's Vineyard in August.
More Proof that this President and his Administration just LIES!
General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.
In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”
Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”
Allen: “It was not.”
Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”
The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”
The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”
(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)
So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military's range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president's policy was within that range of options. Who is right?
We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration's decision was "more aggressive" than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan's "fighting season" typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year's fighting season.
Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”
Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.
Q Hi, everyone. Thanks for doing the call. I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick. Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president? And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it? Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014? And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I’ll take part of that. In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.
That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.
So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.
Just for a process point, over the course of last week the president had three meetings with his national security team to include Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Director Panetta, Director Clapper, but also General Petraeus was in all of those discussions as well — and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, of course, Admiral Mullen.
In terms of the troops, I couldn’t be specific about that. They’re obviously coming out of Afghanistan.
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.
In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”
Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”
Allen: “It was not.”
Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”
The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”
The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”
(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)
So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military's range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president's policy was within that range of options. Who is right?
We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration's decision was "more aggressive" than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan's "fighting season" typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year's fighting season.
Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”
Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.
Q Hi, everyone. Thanks for doing the call. I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick. Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president? And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it? Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014? And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I’ll take part of that. In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.
That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.
So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.
Just for a process point, over the course of last week the president had three meetings with his national security team to include Secretary Gates, Secretary Clinton, Director Panetta, Director Clapper, but also General Petraeus was in all of those discussions as well — and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, of course, Admiral Mullen.
In terms of the troops, I couldn’t be specific about that. They’re obviously coming out of Afghanistan.
Obama doesn't get it on Debt Reduction...
Here's where Obama and the Democrats stand....it's not about spending...it's all about taxes and revenue....They got to be voted out of office in 2012...Obama's got to GO as does the Democrat control of the Senate....
A Great Article...Pass it On!
Fred Thompson makes a great case for what's wrong with the soaking the rich...not to mention that these are the folks that create jobs...many of whom are small businesses and if you hit them too hard the will simply move jobs and their business off shore!
June 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The Fairness Argument
Spending cuts are smarter and fairer than soak-the-rich tax hikes.
The average person must wonder what the Democrats are thinking. Even the most casual observer knows that U.S. debt projections foretell disaster. With spending at 24 percent of our economy, a modern record, how can Democrats expect to avoid substantial spending cuts? The answer, of course, is that they expect that, when push comes to shove, they can raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem — specifically, that they can tax the people who don’t vote for them to pay for the programs that primarily benefit those who do. Even when the taxes inevitably dip into middle-class pockets, it will be easier to tax than to cut spending. And the rhetoric will still be about taxing the rich and made easier with a little help from the media.
Every team has a go-to play when they’re in a bind. For the Dems it’s to talk about “the need for increased revenue.” According to Obama, we could balance that darned budget if only the millionaires and billionaires (read: couples making over $250,000) would pay their fair share. Obama and his team played that card again last week, during the Biden-led budget negotiations and debt-ceiling talks, prompting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Sen. John Kyl to walk out. For every three dollars of spending cuts there must be a dollar of additional revenues, the Dems insist. It’s as if Poppa were spending the family into bankruptcy but will agree to reduce his rate of profligacy only if Momma gets a second job.
Realizing that increasing taxes can never match out-of-control spending, the Republicans have dug in. They have also borne witness to the long history of compromise on this issue. The tax hikes are placed promptly into effect. The spending cuts never quite materialize as planned. The Dems are talking about closing loopholes and cutting subsidies in the current budget talks, but that’s just a door-opener for doing away with the hated Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.”
Who knows how this is going to play out? If no agreement is reached on the debt ceiling, while default is still not a danger, Obama gets to choose which federal programs get cut or slow-walked as he uses his pulpit to blame the GOP. On the other hand, we have a growing number of Americans who are interested in our not becoming Greece. I’m betting on the GOP but, as we enter this new round of Obama-led demagoguery on the rich-who-must-be-soaked, we need to refocus.
Let’s get off the defensive with regard to this “fairness” argument and meet it head on. We’ve got the better argument from both an economic and a fairness standpoint.
First, I’d start with the question, “Just how much of any person’s money should the government take?” Polls indicate that the public puts that number lower than most politicians think.
Then I’d make these points:
Fewer people are already carrying more of the tax load in this country. More than half pay no income tax at all. Upper-income Americans are paying a growing share of our tax burden. Five percent of taxpayers pay well over 50 percent of the entire tax burden — a higher percentage than anywhere else in the Western world. (Yes, that would include France and Germany.) Moreover, the top 10 percent — makers of an average of $114,000 — pay almost 70 percent of all income taxes.
The soaking-the-rich argument is just a way for the voracious taxing machine known as the federal government to get its foot in the door so that it can get its hands on the middle class, where the real money is. If the government took all of the income of those making over $200,000, it would hardly solve our fiscal problem. It would barely cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and it wouldn’t cover those programs after five years. Obama’s soak-the-rich proposals would raise about $750 billion. If interest rates normalize, by the end of ten years that wouldn’t cover the additional interest costs to the government for a single year.
The government never gets the amount of money liberals claim it will from raising the top income-tax rate. The ratio of tax receipts to GDP is always about 8 percent of GDP regardless of the top rate. So in order to raise revenue, you’ve gotta raise real GDP. This should hardly come as a surprise. More than two centuries ago, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 12: “It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly been disappointed, and the treasuries of the states have remained empty.”
But look at the Clinton administration, the Dems say. “We had higher rates then, and tax collections were booming. We just want to go back to the Clinton tax rates.” But as Cato’s Alan Reynolds pointed out recently, the unexpected revenue windfalls in Clinton’s second term were largely a consequence of lower tax rates on capital gains. They went from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997. The same thing happened in 2003 when they went to 15 percent.
Our income-tax system doesn’t tax wealth as such. It taxes income. Most people in the highest bracket have been in every tax bracket. They were not in highest bracket ten years ago and they may well not be in it ten years from now. Is there anything more defining of what this country is all about than the ability and the freedom to prosper as a result of one’s own efforts? Shouldn’t we be able to win this argument with the American people?
— Fred Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2003, is an actor, lawyer, and political commentator. His weekly commentaries also appear on his site, Fred Thompson’s America.
June 29, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The Fairness Argument
Spending cuts are smarter and fairer than soak-the-rich tax hikes.
The average person must wonder what the Democrats are thinking. Even the most casual observer knows that U.S. debt projections foretell disaster. With spending at 24 percent of our economy, a modern record, how can Democrats expect to avoid substantial spending cuts? The answer, of course, is that they expect that, when push comes to shove, they can raise the taxes necessary to cover the problem — specifically, that they can tax the people who don’t vote for them to pay for the programs that primarily benefit those who do. Even when the taxes inevitably dip into middle-class pockets, it will be easier to tax than to cut spending. And the rhetoric will still be about taxing the rich and made easier with a little help from the media.
Every team has a go-to play when they’re in a bind. For the Dems it’s to talk about “the need for increased revenue.” According to Obama, we could balance that darned budget if only the millionaires and billionaires (read: couples making over $250,000) would pay their fair share. Obama and his team played that card again last week, during the Biden-led budget negotiations and debt-ceiling talks, prompting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Sen. John Kyl to walk out. For every three dollars of spending cuts there must be a dollar of additional revenues, the Dems insist. It’s as if Poppa were spending the family into bankruptcy but will agree to reduce his rate of profligacy only if Momma gets a second job.
Realizing that increasing taxes can never match out-of-control spending, the Republicans have dug in. They have also borne witness to the long history of compromise on this issue. The tax hikes are placed promptly into effect. The spending cuts never quite materialize as planned. The Dems are talking about closing loopholes and cutting subsidies in the current budget talks, but that’s just a door-opener for doing away with the hated Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.”
Who knows how this is going to play out? If no agreement is reached on the debt ceiling, while default is still not a danger, Obama gets to choose which federal programs get cut or slow-walked as he uses his pulpit to blame the GOP. On the other hand, we have a growing number of Americans who are interested in our not becoming Greece. I’m betting on the GOP but, as we enter this new round of Obama-led demagoguery on the rich-who-must-be-soaked, we need to refocus.
Let’s get off the defensive with regard to this “fairness” argument and meet it head on. We’ve got the better argument from both an economic and a fairness standpoint.
First, I’d start with the question, “Just how much of any person’s money should the government take?” Polls indicate that the public puts that number lower than most politicians think.
Then I’d make these points:
Fewer people are already carrying more of the tax load in this country. More than half pay no income tax at all. Upper-income Americans are paying a growing share of our tax burden. Five percent of taxpayers pay well over 50 percent of the entire tax burden — a higher percentage than anywhere else in the Western world. (Yes, that would include France and Germany.) Moreover, the top 10 percent — makers of an average of $114,000 — pay almost 70 percent of all income taxes.
The soaking-the-rich argument is just a way for the voracious taxing machine known as the federal government to get its foot in the door so that it can get its hands on the middle class, where the real money is. If the government took all of the income of those making over $200,000, it would hardly solve our fiscal problem. It would barely cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and it wouldn’t cover those programs after five years. Obama’s soak-the-rich proposals would raise about $750 billion. If interest rates normalize, by the end of ten years that wouldn’t cover the additional interest costs to the government for a single year.
The government never gets the amount of money liberals claim it will from raising the top income-tax rate. The ratio of tax receipts to GDP is always about 8 percent of GDP regardless of the top rate. So in order to raise revenue, you’ve gotta raise real GDP. This should hardly come as a surprise. More than two centuries ago, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 12: “It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly been disappointed, and the treasuries of the states have remained empty.”
But look at the Clinton administration, the Dems say. “We had higher rates then, and tax collections were booming. We just want to go back to the Clinton tax rates.” But as Cato’s Alan Reynolds pointed out recently, the unexpected revenue windfalls in Clinton’s second term were largely a consequence of lower tax rates on capital gains. They went from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997. The same thing happened in 2003 when they went to 15 percent.
Our income-tax system doesn’t tax wealth as such. It taxes income. Most people in the highest bracket have been in every tax bracket. They were not in highest bracket ten years ago and they may well not be in it ten years from now. Is there anything more defining of what this country is all about than the ability and the freedom to prosper as a result of one’s own efforts? Shouldn’t we be able to win this argument with the American people?
— Fred Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate from 1994 to 2003, is an actor, lawyer, and political commentator. His weekly commentaries also appear on his site, Fred Thompson’s America.
This President is Dangerous.....almost as dangerous as having a dictator running America!
From today's Heritage Foundation's Morning Call.....it's right on the mark and points out just how dangerous this President is and how he will do whatever he can (whether it's within the law or not) to get what he wants....
Five Ways Obama Is Circumventing the Legislative Branch
For all of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress’s authority to draft the nation’s laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign’s legal advisers cautioned against a President who would "take the law into his own hands and shred it when it's convenient," he has done just that time and time again.
The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives.
1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for “carbon credits” that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission—despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.
2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.
But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the “card check” provision from the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.
The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.
3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.
But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama’s Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.
4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama’s Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.
The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.
5. Regulating the Internet: Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court’s ruling, the FCC voted 3–2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.
More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.
Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.
Following the November elections, when President Obama’s party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can’t legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration’s modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama’s agenda, the President’s bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.
Five Ways Obama Is Circumventing the Legislative Branch
For all of candidate Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric promising to respect Congress’s authority to draft the nation’s laws, President Obama has demonstrated a persistent pattern of circumventing the legislative branch via administrative fiat whenever his agenda stalls. And though one of the Obama campaign’s legal advisers cautioned against a President who would "take the law into his own hands and shred it when it's convenient," he has done just that time and time again.
The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives.
1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for “carbon credits” that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
The measure passed the House in 2009 but was defeated in the Senate. Undeterred, the Obama Administration sought to ram its agenda into law without congressional approval. It managed to classify carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate its emission—despite warnings even from Members of Congress who wanted to regulate carbon emissions but recognized the problematic nature of doing so without congressional approval.
2. Labor Law: Expanding powerful labor unions is another Obama Administration objective. On June 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced plans to dramatically reduce the time to conduct unionization elections.
But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the “card check” provision from the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.
The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.
3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.
But rather than waiting for Congress to act, officials at Obama’s Department of Homeland Security have instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and attorneys to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” for illegal immigrants who have attended school in the United States, meaning far fewer such illegal immigrants will be prosecuted and deported. The agency cited a shortage of resources, but the decision amounts to a de facto implementation of the DREAM Act.
4. Selective Enforcement of Federal Law: Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, Obama’s Justice Department decided in 2009 that it would simply stop enforcing those laws. Proposals to legalize marijuana at the federal level consistently fail to win congressional approval, but the Obama Administration decided to implement its agenda in spite of that lack of legislative support.
The Justice Department again employed this tactic in February when it announced that it would no longer enforce another federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act. The Administration did not agree with the law, so rather than attempting to repeal it via the standard legislative channels, it decided to ignore it.
5. Regulating the Internet: Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided late last year to assume authority over Internet regulation despite a ruling by a federal appeals court explicitly denying the commission that authority. In contradiction of the court’s ruling, the FCC voted 3–2 in December to pass the first-ever federal regulations on Internet traffic. The House has voted to block those regulations, but Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation.
More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.
Nor is there any sign of this trend abating. Even now, the President is considering a number of proposals that would advance his legislative agenda without congressional consideration or approval, including re-regulation of campaign finance laws to circumvent a Supreme Court decision and waivers of the No Child Left Behind law in the face of congressional inaction.
Following the November elections, when President Obama’s party lost control of the House, Obama told America that where he can’t legislate, he will regulate. And that seems to be this Administration’s modus operandi: If Congress refuses to abide by Obama’s agenda, the President’s bureaucratic machine will make its own laws.
Obama takes a break from Campaigning and Fundraising to hold a press conference....but no time to get in the weeds on debt reduction...
Isn't it nice that Obama has taken time out of his fundraising, campaigning (on your dollar flying aroung the nation in AirForce One) and playing Golf to hold a press conference????? God knows he doesnt' appear to be able to make time to get involved in the debt/debt limit talks....he's willing to delegate it to Biden....he's willing to a couple of meetings with leaders, but to get in the trenches and really get his hands dirty....no he doesn't have time for that!!!! too much fundraising and campaigning to do!....
Where is his program????? He has NONE!
This guy is simply a JOKE!
Obama to Hold Press Conference Amid Budget Talks
Published June 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama speaks to workers at the Alcoa Davenport Works factory in Bettendorf, Iowa, June 28.
President Obama will juggle questions on a host of domestic and foreign policy challenges when he meets the press Wednesday morning, amid a fierce debate on Capitol Hill over the debt ceiling and other issues.
The president will hold a press conference, his first solo appearance since March, late Wednesday morning, before convening a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders in the afternoon.
That meeting follows efforts by the president to salvage budget talks that fell apart late last week when GOP negotiators bowed out. The talks surely will be front and center at Wednesday's press conference.
Obama is trying to find middle ground between the two parties on a plan to cut spending so he can muster a majority in Congress to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by early August. So far, a compromise is elusive.
The biggest sticking point has been the issue of tax hikes, which Republicans resolutely oppose. House Speaker John Boehner, speaking on Fox News Tuesday night, reiterated that he opposes any tax increase as part of a deal.
"There are no votes in the Congress ... to raise taxes on anyone, so tax increases are off the table," Boehner said.
The speaker also predicted that the Obama administration will soon issue warnings that Americans might not get their Social Security checks or that doctors might not get Medicare payments if the debt ceiling issue is not resolved in the coming weeks.
"It is predictable. It is going to come. What we've got to do is continue to press our case with the American people that cutting spending now and dealing with our long-term debt will help create a better environment for job creators in our country," Boehner said.
The press conference also comes amid controversy on Capitol Hill over the turmoil in Libya. The House has twice rebuked the president for his handling of the conflict, while Obama's allies in the Senate are trying to piece together a resolution to authorize the U.S. military's actions there. The debate, though, signals lawmakers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the administration's view that it need not seek permission from Congress to continue the military operation.
Obama's last full-blown news conference was in March, when turmoil in Libya first drew in the U.S. military and the threatened shutdown of the government was making headlines. Obama has since answered questions in brief sessions with reporters during a European trip and during a joint White House appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Wednesday's news conference comes amid persistent signals that the economic recovery has slowed. Obama has been stepping up his promotion of job creation initiatives amid evidence that the state of the economy has weakened his job approval standing with the public.
Obama also recently announced a drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, prompting criticism by some lawmakers that he was not pulling enough forces out and by others that he was acting too precipitously.
Where is his program????? He has NONE!
This guy is simply a JOKE!
Obama to Hold Press Conference Amid Budget Talks
Published June 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama speaks to workers at the Alcoa Davenport Works factory in Bettendorf, Iowa, June 28.
President Obama will juggle questions on a host of domestic and foreign policy challenges when he meets the press Wednesday morning, amid a fierce debate on Capitol Hill over the debt ceiling and other issues.
The president will hold a press conference, his first solo appearance since March, late Wednesday morning, before convening a meeting with Senate Democratic leaders in the afternoon.
That meeting follows efforts by the president to salvage budget talks that fell apart late last week when GOP negotiators bowed out. The talks surely will be front and center at Wednesday's press conference.
Obama is trying to find middle ground between the two parties on a plan to cut spending so he can muster a majority in Congress to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by early August. So far, a compromise is elusive.
The biggest sticking point has been the issue of tax hikes, which Republicans resolutely oppose. House Speaker John Boehner, speaking on Fox News Tuesday night, reiterated that he opposes any tax increase as part of a deal.
"There are no votes in the Congress ... to raise taxes on anyone, so tax increases are off the table," Boehner said.
The speaker also predicted that the Obama administration will soon issue warnings that Americans might not get their Social Security checks or that doctors might not get Medicare payments if the debt ceiling issue is not resolved in the coming weeks.
"It is predictable. It is going to come. What we've got to do is continue to press our case with the American people that cutting spending now and dealing with our long-term debt will help create a better environment for job creators in our country," Boehner said.
The press conference also comes amid controversy on Capitol Hill over the turmoil in Libya. The House has twice rebuked the president for his handling of the conflict, while Obama's allies in the Senate are trying to piece together a resolution to authorize the U.S. military's actions there. The debate, though, signals lawmakers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the administration's view that it need not seek permission from Congress to continue the military operation.
Obama's last full-blown news conference was in March, when turmoil in Libya first drew in the U.S. military and the threatened shutdown of the government was making headlines. Obama has since answered questions in brief sessions with reporters during a European trip and during a joint White House appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Wednesday's news conference comes amid persistent signals that the economic recovery has slowed. Obama has been stepping up his promotion of job creation initiatives amid evidence that the state of the economy has weakened his job approval standing with the public.
Obama also recently announced a drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, prompting criticism by some lawmakers that he was not pulling enough forces out and by others that he was acting too precipitously.
Obama - hasn't been Pro Business and he will never be Pro Business or Pro Capitalism....
Obama talks one way and acts exactly the opposite AND the American People are FINALLY onto him.....He's NOT Pro Business now and has never been...
Administration's Labor Dispute With Boeing Hampers Obama Biz Outreach
Published June 29, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The government's labor dispute with Boeing Co. is turning into a political headache for President Barack Obama, giving his Republican rivals a fresh opening to bash the administration's economic policies.
From congressional hearings to presidential debates, outraged Republicans are keeping up a steady drumbeat of criticism over the National Labor Relations Board's lawsuit against the aerospace giant.
The NLRB says Boeing retaliated against its unionized workforce in Washington state by opening a new production line for its 787 airplane in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The agency wants a judge to order Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington, even though the company has already built a new $750 million South Carolina plant and hired 1,000 new workers there.
The case -- which could drag on for years -- has become an unwanted distraction for Obama as he tries to mend relations with the business community and contend with polls that show growing public disapproval over his handling of the economy.
It makes an easy target for Republicans, who call it a case of government overreaching at a time when the private sector is struggling to create new jobs. And it's a major story in South Carolina -- a bellwether early primary state in the GOP presidential race. Candidates are lining up to impress voters and the state's Republican governor, tea party favorite Nikki Haley.
"Obama's NLRB has united the Republican Party and turned this government agency into a political piInata," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "Boeing spent a billion dollars building a plant to create thousands of jobs and it looks like the NLRB stuck their nose in and tried to pull the rug out."
Business groups and their GOP allies say the government is interfering with the right of company managers to choose where and how to expand business operations. Boeing claims it opened the plant for a variety of economic reasons, but NLRB officials say Boeing executives made public comments showing the move was meant to punish union workers for a series of costly strikes.
For Haley, the case has been a litmus test for every GOP presidential candidate visiting the state. And they have not disappointed her.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, visiting New Hampshire on Monday, said Obama had appointed "union stooges into the NLRB and then they come up with decisions that are really quite extraordinary," like the Boeing lawsuit that he and others have said will drive companies to seek workers overseas.
GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich called for defunding the agency during a recent New Hampshire debate, saying the case could threaten the viability of the nation's 22 right-to-work states, where labor unions can't force employees to be members.
And during a tour of South Carolina last week, GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman called on Obama to step in and end the lawsuit to prevent it from scaring other businesses away from the state.
Haley says the only way to make things right "is for the president to tell the NLRB to back off. And until that happens, it is my job to be loud and annoying and in his face until he realizes that what they have done is wrong."
Even South Carolina's Democrats have piled on, focusing on the complaint's effect on business less than the politics of the board.
"Clearly it's an independent agency and is taking an action that I know was not directed by the president," said Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Democrat. "But in this case, I think it was a very, very bad decision and a huge mistake that is not good policy for the country."
Obama, ordinarily a reliable supporter of organized labor, has carefully avoided taking a position on the case. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president does not want to interfere with the conduct of an independent federal agency.
"We don't get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies," Carney said last week. "But I would also say that the president has a strong record on labor rights." He added that Obama also supports "a strong private sector in the United States that helps our economy grow and create jobs."
But the issue became more awkward for Obama when John Bryson, his pick to head the Commerce Department and a former Boeing board member, openly criticized the lawsuit during a Senate confirmation hearing last week.
"I think it's not the right judgment," Bryson said. He said Boeing officials thought they were "doing the right thing for the country" by keeping jobs in the U.S. and not moving them overseas.
Some Democrats and union officials have stepped up their defense of the NLRB, saying Republicans are misrepresenting the case against Boeing. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, accused Republicans of peddling "misinformation," distorting the public perception of the case and unfairly attacking the agency.
Labor experts say if the allegations in the complaint are true, it would constitute a standard violation of federal labor laws, which prohibit a company from moving work to punish union workers for past strikes. The complaint lays out several public statements by Boeing executives saying they wanted to relocate new lines for the Dreamliner because of strike activity, including a 58-day work stoppage in 2008.
But such violations can be difficult to prove, especially if the company can show it had other valid motives for opening the new lines in South Carolina. The government has to show the company relocated work for the purpose of stopping workers from exercising their legal rights to strike, said Catherine Fisk, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in labor issues.
Perhaps the best scenario for Obama would be for the case to be settled, an outcome that many labor experts expect.
"The unions don't want an adverse decision, management doesn't want an adverse decision and the best way to avoid that is to reach a settlement on their own," said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University.
Administration's Labor Dispute With Boeing Hampers Obama Biz Outreach
Published June 29, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The government's labor dispute with Boeing Co. is turning into a political headache for President Barack Obama, giving his Republican rivals a fresh opening to bash the administration's economic policies.
From congressional hearings to presidential debates, outraged Republicans are keeping up a steady drumbeat of criticism over the National Labor Relations Board's lawsuit against the aerospace giant.
The NLRB says Boeing retaliated against its unionized workforce in Washington state by opening a new production line for its 787 airplane in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The agency wants a judge to order Boeing to return all 787 assembly work to Washington, even though the company has already built a new $750 million South Carolina plant and hired 1,000 new workers there.
The case -- which could drag on for years -- has become an unwanted distraction for Obama as he tries to mend relations with the business community and contend with polls that show growing public disapproval over his handling of the economy.
It makes an easy target for Republicans, who call it a case of government overreaching at a time when the private sector is struggling to create new jobs. And it's a major story in South Carolina -- a bellwether early primary state in the GOP presidential race. Candidates are lining up to impress voters and the state's Republican governor, tea party favorite Nikki Haley.
"Obama's NLRB has united the Republican Party and turned this government agency into a political piInata," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "Boeing spent a billion dollars building a plant to create thousands of jobs and it looks like the NLRB stuck their nose in and tried to pull the rug out."
Business groups and their GOP allies say the government is interfering with the right of company managers to choose where and how to expand business operations. Boeing claims it opened the plant for a variety of economic reasons, but NLRB officials say Boeing executives made public comments showing the move was meant to punish union workers for a series of costly strikes.
For Haley, the case has been a litmus test for every GOP presidential candidate visiting the state. And they have not disappointed her.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, visiting New Hampshire on Monday, said Obama had appointed "union stooges into the NLRB and then they come up with decisions that are really quite extraordinary," like the Boeing lawsuit that he and others have said will drive companies to seek workers overseas.
GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich called for defunding the agency during a recent New Hampshire debate, saying the case could threaten the viability of the nation's 22 right-to-work states, where labor unions can't force employees to be members.
And during a tour of South Carolina last week, GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman called on Obama to step in and end the lawsuit to prevent it from scaring other businesses away from the state.
Haley says the only way to make things right "is for the president to tell the NLRB to back off. And until that happens, it is my job to be loud and annoying and in his face until he realizes that what they have done is wrong."
Even South Carolina's Democrats have piled on, focusing on the complaint's effect on business less than the politics of the board.
"Clearly it's an independent agency and is taking an action that I know was not directed by the president," said Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a Democrat. "But in this case, I think it was a very, very bad decision and a huge mistake that is not good policy for the country."
Obama, ordinarily a reliable supporter of organized labor, has carefully avoided taking a position on the case. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president does not want to interfere with the conduct of an independent federal agency.
"We don't get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies," Carney said last week. "But I would also say that the president has a strong record on labor rights." He added that Obama also supports "a strong private sector in the United States that helps our economy grow and create jobs."
But the issue became more awkward for Obama when John Bryson, his pick to head the Commerce Department and a former Boeing board member, openly criticized the lawsuit during a Senate confirmation hearing last week.
"I think it's not the right judgment," Bryson said. He said Boeing officials thought they were "doing the right thing for the country" by keeping jobs in the U.S. and not moving them overseas.
Some Democrats and union officials have stepped up their defense of the NLRB, saying Republicans are misrepresenting the case against Boeing. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, accused Republicans of peddling "misinformation," distorting the public perception of the case and unfairly attacking the agency.
Labor experts say if the allegations in the complaint are true, it would constitute a standard violation of federal labor laws, which prohibit a company from moving work to punish union workers for past strikes. The complaint lays out several public statements by Boeing executives saying they wanted to relocate new lines for the Dreamliner because of strike activity, including a 58-day work stoppage in 2008.
But such violations can be difficult to prove, especially if the company can show it had other valid motives for opening the new lines in South Carolina. The government has to show the company relocated work for the purpose of stopping workers from exercising their legal rights to strike, said Catherine Fisk, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in labor issues.
Perhaps the best scenario for Obama would be for the case to be settled, an outcome that many labor experts expect.
"The unions don't want an adverse decision, management doesn't want an adverse decision and the best way to avoid that is to reach a settlement on their own," said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Obama Translation...let me Raise Taxes so I can spend more of your Money!
When Obama says "up your game"...he really means raise taxes so HE can spend more of your money!....If he really wanted more products made in America he'd reduce the intrusion of the government, decrease regulations, move to a truly market based economy, support capitalism and small business......But he's done just the opposite....
If the Debt Ceiling doesn't get Raised...It's Obama's Fault!
IF the debt ceiling doesn't get raised because Obama is dragging his feet (which he obviously is) then it is his fault....He is more focused on campaigning and fund raising than handling this serious problem...Republicans cannot/should not cave on this one....If Obama doesn't come to the table and negotiate, then he's to blame....so far he's done next to nothing to resolve this issue....and his Press Secretary asked if the public thinks he should be involved every day...the answer is a resounding YES!.....Obama is not a LEADER...he is not trying to bring America through this potential disaster...he's just all about himself and his ability to spend money......He's got to GO in 2012! along with the Democrat control of the Senate!
Obama maneuvers on debt deal while GOP demands a planPublished:
11:02 AM 06/28/2011 | Updated: 2:12 PM 06/28/2011 By Neil Munro
Republican legislators and activists want President Barack Obama to get more involved in the debt ceiling negotiations, and they fear Obama’s strategy is to run out the clock until a financial crisis forces Republicans into painful concessions.
Obama should step forward with a plan, said House Speaker John Boehner’s press secretary, Michael Steel. His “showing that we have a real plan to start getting our long-term debt and deficits under control – without tax hikes – will end some of the uncertainty that is making it harder for employers to grow and hire, so we’d like to get it done as soon as possible,” Steel told TheDC.
Obama is “just stringing this out until the crisis,” said Wendy Wright, president of the social conservative group, Concerned Women for America. “That’s definitely how they operate … if they don’t get what they want, they blame conservatives and Republicans for whatever occurs, even though it was they who delayed the negotiations.”
“President Obama is starting to engage, but it needs to be real,” said Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of No Labels, a bipartisan advocacy group, which called today for Congress to stay in session until it reaches a debt ceiling deal. “His entire schedule between now and Aug. 2 should reflect a commitment to getting a deal done.”
“Obama refuses to lead and kicks the can down the road,” RNC spokesman Kirsten Kukowski told TheDC. “He belatedly got involved in the talks but his past efforts to turn the economy around have come up short … voters can’t afford another year of Obama.”
Obama did meet with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Monday night and also met with Boehner last Wednesday. Steel declined to comment about Boehner’s private meeting with Obama, and McConnell did not release a statement last night. Obama met with his fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Monday morning.
Obama met with McConnell in the Oval Office, but only after he met with Reid and welcomed the nation’s championship soccer team, Colorado Rapids. Boehner is visiting out-of-town political allies this week, and there’s no scheduled meeting of Boehner and Obama this week.
Publicly at least, Obama is keeping his distance from the controversy, and his spokesman released little information about his priorities and goals.
Ads by GoogleOn Tuesday, according to the White House’s published schedule, the president will fly to the Alcoa Davenport Works Factory in Bettendorf, Iowa. Wednesday’s agenda includes a welcome at the White House for the WNBA Champion Seattle Storm, a reception for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride month, and a farewell dinner for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the White House.
Thursday’s to-do list includes another visit to Philadelphia, Pa., where he will attended his next two fundraisers. In recent weeks, he has used the fundraisers to condemn GOP budget proposals and to tout his own spending plans.
Much progress has already been made in negotiations between Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders, Carney said. Those talks ended Thursday, when Republican leaders declined to agree with Biden’s call for new taxes.
“If you honestly believe the public is wondering why the president is not at every one of these [budget] meetings, you’re nuts,” Carney told skeptical reporters at the Monday press conference. “The president will be engaged…I don’t have a schedule for you, I don’t have a formula for you … [but] we will continue to push this process forward because its very important.”
Carney also used the press conference to repeatedly predict dire consequences if a budget deal is not reached and to blame Congress for any breakdown. “The United States of America must not default on its obligations, and it is incumbent on the Congress to prevent that happening,” he said.
When pressed by reporters for a detailed budget proposal, Carney cited proposals to increase taxes on corporate jets and to exclude oil-drilling firms from routine investment-related tax breaks. He also said the president had already presented his plan in an April speech at George Washington University.
That plan, which called for a spending cut of $4 trillion over the next 12 years, has not been assessed by the Congressional Budget Office because it lacks enough detail.
Obama “does just enough to show some engagement, but refuses to put any real skin in the game by rolling up his sleeves and doing the hard work of governing,” said Scott Stanzel, a former press aide for President George W. Bush. “He is trying to risk as little as possible in hopes that he can take maximum credit after the actual work of addressing the massive debt is resolved.”
Obama is avoiding the negotiations because his absence concentrates media and public attention on Republicans, not Democrats, said Wes Anderson, a partner of OnMessage Inc., a polling firm in Crofton, Md., that mostly works for GOP candidates. “When the president is only tangentially in the conversation, that’s good for them, it’s not good for us.”
The debt ceiling controversy is politically critical because it is likely to have an impact on the 2012 election, not just on the economy and the government’s balance sheet. Obama is already riding low in the polls, and the Democrats’ Senate majority would also be lost if voters elect Republicans to four of the 23 Democrat seats up for election in 2012.
Republicans worry their fired-up base will lose heart if the GOP fails to win a good deal on the debt ceiling. They’re less likely to get a good deal if Obama slow-rolls the talks until a financial crisis arrives in late July, said Republicans.
In such a crisis, administration officials can allocate budget cuts and direct media coverage to maximize the political pain for Republicans, said a GOP Senate staffer. The resulting public anger would likely pressure Republicans into a deal that splits their base, the staffer said.
Ads by GoogleDemocrats have already used that strategy during government-shutdown talks in April and in the mid-1990s, he said. Democrats “believe if we get to the [August 2] deadline and there’s no deal there would be panic in the [financial] markets, and the voters will blame the Republicans,” Anderson said.
Anita Dunn, a senior Democratic lobbyist and former Obama aide, told ABC’s This Week that “the energy in the Tea Party” is compatible with any budget-deal acceptable to mainstream Americans.
GOP activists also worry that a mishandled deal could also prompt swing voters to shift from anti-Obama attitudes to an anti-incumbent mood. “The real questions is if there is [only] $2 trillion in budget cuts, do we meet the expectations among independents and Republicans that we have done what we need to do?” said Anderson, who conducted a mid-June poll of 1,000 likely voters for the small-government group, Let Freedom Ring. The poll, he said, shows that swing voters want “$2 trillion plus something that shows permanency, that shows systematic change and and reform,” he said.
Republicans should end the closed-door meeting and prod Obama into public negotiations well in advance of the Aug 2. deadline, said Wright. Public talks will allow the public to vet proposals made by Republicans and Democrats, and to help avert last-minute crises, failed proposals and political risk, she said.
If Republicans manage the debt negotiations well, Anderson said, the 2012 election ”will be an anti-Democratic cycle, but if we don’t live up to the expectations of the voters, it will be anti-incumbent.”
Democrats, however, focus on polls that show support for tax increases.
An April New York Times/CBS News poll, for example, showed that 72 percent of respondents supported tax increases on people earning more than $250,000 a year. In recent days, several top Democrats, including Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have said the budget talks should raise taxes.
Meanwhile, the president is using his fundraising speeches to gradually shape the the public debate. “The notion that [the wealthy] should not have to pay a little more; the notion that [wealthy people] would get a $200,000 tax break, and as a consequence of that tax break, hundreds of kids might not be able to go to Head Start, or… senior citizens might end up having to pay thousands of dollars more for their Medicare… that’s not who I think we are,” Obama told attendees at a June 23 fundraiser. The event was attended mostly by African-Americans, who paid $100 for their tickets to the Broadway Theatre in New York.
White House spokesman Carney repeated the same message in the June 24 press-conference. “We won’t support an approach that gives millionaires and billionaires $200,000 in tax cuts annually while 33 seniors pay for that with a $6,000 per person increase in their Medicare costs. We just don’t believe that that’s a fair or balanced approach to solving this problem.”
“There seem to a lot of slow-walking” of the negotiations by the White House, said a Republican Senate staffer. “It brings us ever closer to the Aug 2 [crisis] date, and it is perfectly consistent with them planning to wait until the last minute to negotiate.”
Obama maneuvers on debt deal while GOP demands a planPublished:
11:02 AM 06/28/2011 | Updated: 2:12 PM 06/28/2011 By Neil Munro
Republican legislators and activists want President Barack Obama to get more involved in the debt ceiling negotiations, and they fear Obama’s strategy is to run out the clock until a financial crisis forces Republicans into painful concessions.
Obama should step forward with a plan, said House Speaker John Boehner’s press secretary, Michael Steel. His “showing that we have a real plan to start getting our long-term debt and deficits under control – without tax hikes – will end some of the uncertainty that is making it harder for employers to grow and hire, so we’d like to get it done as soon as possible,” Steel told TheDC.
Obama is “just stringing this out until the crisis,” said Wendy Wright, president of the social conservative group, Concerned Women for America. “That’s definitely how they operate … if they don’t get what they want, they blame conservatives and Republicans for whatever occurs, even though it was they who delayed the negotiations.”
“President Obama is starting to engage, but it needs to be real,” said Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of No Labels, a bipartisan advocacy group, which called today for Congress to stay in session until it reaches a debt ceiling deal. “His entire schedule between now and Aug. 2 should reflect a commitment to getting a deal done.”
“Obama refuses to lead and kicks the can down the road,” RNC spokesman Kirsten Kukowski told TheDC. “He belatedly got involved in the talks but his past efforts to turn the economy around have come up short … voters can’t afford another year of Obama.”
Obama did meet with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Monday night and also met with Boehner last Wednesday. Steel declined to comment about Boehner’s private meeting with Obama, and McConnell did not release a statement last night. Obama met with his fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Monday morning.
Obama met with McConnell in the Oval Office, but only after he met with Reid and welcomed the nation’s championship soccer team, Colorado Rapids. Boehner is visiting out-of-town political allies this week, and there’s no scheduled meeting of Boehner and Obama this week.
Publicly at least, Obama is keeping his distance from the controversy, and his spokesman released little information about his priorities and goals.
Ads by GoogleOn Tuesday, according to the White House’s published schedule, the president will fly to the Alcoa Davenport Works Factory in Bettendorf, Iowa. Wednesday’s agenda includes a welcome at the White House for the WNBA Champion Seattle Storm, a reception for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride month, and a farewell dinner for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the White House.
Thursday’s to-do list includes another visit to Philadelphia, Pa., where he will attended his next two fundraisers. In recent weeks, he has used the fundraisers to condemn GOP budget proposals and to tout his own spending plans.
Much progress has already been made in negotiations between Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders, Carney said. Those talks ended Thursday, when Republican leaders declined to agree with Biden’s call for new taxes.
“If you honestly believe the public is wondering why the president is not at every one of these [budget] meetings, you’re nuts,” Carney told skeptical reporters at the Monday press conference. “The president will be engaged…I don’t have a schedule for you, I don’t have a formula for you … [but] we will continue to push this process forward because its very important.”
Carney also used the press conference to repeatedly predict dire consequences if a budget deal is not reached and to blame Congress for any breakdown. “The United States of America must not default on its obligations, and it is incumbent on the Congress to prevent that happening,” he said.
When pressed by reporters for a detailed budget proposal, Carney cited proposals to increase taxes on corporate jets and to exclude oil-drilling firms from routine investment-related tax breaks. He also said the president had already presented his plan in an April speech at George Washington University.
That plan, which called for a spending cut of $4 trillion over the next 12 years, has not been assessed by the Congressional Budget Office because it lacks enough detail.
Obama “does just enough to show some engagement, but refuses to put any real skin in the game by rolling up his sleeves and doing the hard work of governing,” said Scott Stanzel, a former press aide for President George W. Bush. “He is trying to risk as little as possible in hopes that he can take maximum credit after the actual work of addressing the massive debt is resolved.”
Obama is avoiding the negotiations because his absence concentrates media and public attention on Republicans, not Democrats, said Wes Anderson, a partner of OnMessage Inc., a polling firm in Crofton, Md., that mostly works for GOP candidates. “When the president is only tangentially in the conversation, that’s good for them, it’s not good for us.”
The debt ceiling controversy is politically critical because it is likely to have an impact on the 2012 election, not just on the economy and the government’s balance sheet. Obama is already riding low in the polls, and the Democrats’ Senate majority would also be lost if voters elect Republicans to four of the 23 Democrat seats up for election in 2012.
Republicans worry their fired-up base will lose heart if the GOP fails to win a good deal on the debt ceiling. They’re less likely to get a good deal if Obama slow-rolls the talks until a financial crisis arrives in late July, said Republicans.
In such a crisis, administration officials can allocate budget cuts and direct media coverage to maximize the political pain for Republicans, said a GOP Senate staffer. The resulting public anger would likely pressure Republicans into a deal that splits their base, the staffer said.
Ads by GoogleDemocrats have already used that strategy during government-shutdown talks in April and in the mid-1990s, he said. Democrats “believe if we get to the [August 2] deadline and there’s no deal there would be panic in the [financial] markets, and the voters will blame the Republicans,” Anderson said.
Anita Dunn, a senior Democratic lobbyist and former Obama aide, told ABC’s This Week that “the energy in the Tea Party” is compatible with any budget-deal acceptable to mainstream Americans.
GOP activists also worry that a mishandled deal could also prompt swing voters to shift from anti-Obama attitudes to an anti-incumbent mood. “The real questions is if there is [only] $2 trillion in budget cuts, do we meet the expectations among independents and Republicans that we have done what we need to do?” said Anderson, who conducted a mid-June poll of 1,000 likely voters for the small-government group, Let Freedom Ring. The poll, he said, shows that swing voters want “$2 trillion plus something that shows permanency, that shows systematic change and and reform,” he said.
Republicans should end the closed-door meeting and prod Obama into public negotiations well in advance of the Aug 2. deadline, said Wright. Public talks will allow the public to vet proposals made by Republicans and Democrats, and to help avert last-minute crises, failed proposals and political risk, she said.
If Republicans manage the debt negotiations well, Anderson said, the 2012 election ”will be an anti-Democratic cycle, but if we don’t live up to the expectations of the voters, it will be anti-incumbent.”
Democrats, however, focus on polls that show support for tax increases.
An April New York Times/CBS News poll, for example, showed that 72 percent of respondents supported tax increases on people earning more than $250,000 a year. In recent days, several top Democrats, including Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have said the budget talks should raise taxes.
Meanwhile, the president is using his fundraising speeches to gradually shape the the public debate. “The notion that [the wealthy] should not have to pay a little more; the notion that [wealthy people] would get a $200,000 tax break, and as a consequence of that tax break, hundreds of kids might not be able to go to Head Start, or… senior citizens might end up having to pay thousands of dollars more for their Medicare… that’s not who I think we are,” Obama told attendees at a June 23 fundraiser. The event was attended mostly by African-Americans, who paid $100 for their tickets to the Broadway Theatre in New York.
White House spokesman Carney repeated the same message in the June 24 press-conference. “We won’t support an approach that gives millionaires and billionaires $200,000 in tax cuts annually while 33 seniors pay for that with a $6,000 per person increase in their Medicare costs. We just don’t believe that that’s a fair or balanced approach to solving this problem.”
“There seem to a lot of slow-walking” of the negotiations by the White House, said a Republican Senate staffer. “It brings us ever closer to the Aug 2 [crisis] date, and it is perfectly consistent with them planning to wait until the last minute to negotiate.”
Monday, June 27, 2011
Obama....Politician First....Protector of America - a DISTANT SECOND!
It's amazing that this President is willing to play politics instead of protecting the American People from future terrorist strikes....by NOT listening to the Commanders in the field and bringing home the surge troops BEFORE HIS REELECTION BID just shows how incompetent he is and how selfish, arrogant and self centered he is...it's all about his reelection bid....if we end up getting hit again by terrorists and he's reelected it seems that's ok with him....What a disgrace this guy is.....the President is supposed to be a LEADER and supposed to act first and foremost to protect the American People....but not this guy!
From Today's Heritage Foundation Morning Call -
President Obama Plays Politics in Afghanistan
The nation’s two highest-ranking military commanders have gone on record raising serious concerns about President Obama’s flawed plan to bring 33,000 troops home from Afghanistan by September 2012. The outgoing Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, said during Senate hearings last week that the troop withdrawal was “a more aggressive formulation…than what we had recommended.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen echoed Petraeus when he noted the danger in moving U.S. troops out of Afghanistan too quickly, saying it will “incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept.”
While the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, heeding wise counsel from his most senior military commanders is part of fulfilling that role. The President is under political pressure from his liberal base to withdraw troops and wind down the Afghan war as next year’s election inches closer. His announcement last week reveals he is basing the Afghan troop decision more on the domestic political calendar than the goal of achieving U.S. objectives there.
Ironically, this hasty drawdown did not even satisfy that liberal base. Members of his own party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D–CA), criticized the pullout as too slow.
President Obama was right to authorize the surge of 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan in December 2009, but he needs to allow the majority of surge troops to stay until at least the end of the 2012 fighting season, according to the advice of his military commanders. Petraeus called the coalition’s recent battlefield gains in southern Afghanistan “fragile” and noted that “more force for more time is without doubt the safer course.”
Outgoing Pentagon Chief Robert Gates has said that waning public support for the war played into the President’s decision-making process. However, Obama made no effort to inform the American people about the potential dangers involved in leaving Afghanistan before the mission is complete. As President, Obama has an obligation to protect U.S. national security and make war-time decisions—based not on public polling but on the long-term interest of protecting the American people.
President Obama is also seeking to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to justify the accelerated troop drawdown. This is short-sighted. As Heritage policy analyst James Carafano warned:
Now is the wrong time to take the foot off the pedal in the effort to crush the transnational terrorist threats aimed at the United States and its friends and allies. There is important work for Washington to do to ensure that the likes of al-Qaeda never threaten Americans with the likes of 9/11 again.
...The long war is not won. The United States and its friends and allies can win, but it requires continued courage and commitment like that demonstrated by American armed forces.
By pulling troops too soon and leaving Afghanistan in a vulnerable state, President Obama risks allowing the country to return to its status as a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking America. Instead of squandering the battlefield gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan over the last 10 months, President Obama should follow the advice of his military leaders to give them more time to solidify progress and achieve U.S. objectives.
From Today's Heritage Foundation Morning Call -
President Obama Plays Politics in Afghanistan
The nation’s two highest-ranking military commanders have gone on record raising serious concerns about President Obama’s flawed plan to bring 33,000 troops home from Afghanistan by September 2012. The outgoing Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, said during Senate hearings last week that the troop withdrawal was “a more aggressive formulation…than what we had recommended.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen echoed Petraeus when he noted the danger in moving U.S. troops out of Afghanistan too quickly, saying it will “incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept.”
While the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, heeding wise counsel from his most senior military commanders is part of fulfilling that role. The President is under political pressure from his liberal base to withdraw troops and wind down the Afghan war as next year’s election inches closer. His announcement last week reveals he is basing the Afghan troop decision more on the domestic political calendar than the goal of achieving U.S. objectives there.
Ironically, this hasty drawdown did not even satisfy that liberal base. Members of his own party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D–CA), criticized the pullout as too slow.
President Obama was right to authorize the surge of 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan in December 2009, but he needs to allow the majority of surge troops to stay until at least the end of the 2012 fighting season, according to the advice of his military commanders. Petraeus called the coalition’s recent battlefield gains in southern Afghanistan “fragile” and noted that “more force for more time is without doubt the safer course.”
Outgoing Pentagon Chief Robert Gates has said that waning public support for the war played into the President’s decision-making process. However, Obama made no effort to inform the American people about the potential dangers involved in leaving Afghanistan before the mission is complete. As President, Obama has an obligation to protect U.S. national security and make war-time decisions—based not on public polling but on the long-term interest of protecting the American people.
President Obama is also seeking to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to justify the accelerated troop drawdown. This is short-sighted. As Heritage policy analyst James Carafano warned:
Now is the wrong time to take the foot off the pedal in the effort to crush the transnational terrorist threats aimed at the United States and its friends and allies. There is important work for Washington to do to ensure that the likes of al-Qaeda never threaten Americans with the likes of 9/11 again.
...The long war is not won. The United States and its friends and allies can win, but it requires continued courage and commitment like that demonstrated by American armed forces.
By pulling troops too soon and leaving Afghanistan in a vulnerable state, President Obama risks allowing the country to return to its status as a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking America. Instead of squandering the battlefield gains the U.S. has made in Afghanistan over the last 10 months, President Obama should follow the advice of his military leaders to give them more time to solidify progress and achieve U.S. objectives.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Elitist NY Times Columnist - I hope everyone in middle America Sees this and Votes Obama Out in 2012...
Arrogant, Elitist NY Times Columnist.....who does he sound like....Obama?
Young Democrat Commercial - really these are reasons to be Republican!
This young democrat commercial shows you the reasons NOT to be a Democrat...It just shows how nieve these young folks are and how easily they can be brainwashed...Once they get a Job (which may never happen if the head Democrat Obama stays in the White House) and start to pay taxes, bills, have kids etc they quickly change to be Republicans....and if they really were open to listen today they would already be Republicans...
Clyburn is Either STUPID or an IDIOT!
Does Clyburn realize if you take away tax subsidys for the oil industry the oil industry will just pass that "TAX INCREASE" that they are experiencing onto the American Public???? Is he Stupid???? Does he think We are Stupid???? And he's the one out there representing the Democrats????
Friday, June 24, 2011
Yes it was a Fundraiser.....and a violation of the Hatch Act!
Once again this President and his Administration think we are all stupid.....if it looks like a fundraiser, if it smells like a fundraiser....guess what it's a fundraiser...and in the White House....shame on you Barack....
A violation of the Hatch Act....why not this President has NO respect for the rule of law...
W.H. releases DNC meet names
By JOSH GERSTEIN & MATT NEGRIN | 6/24/11 7:24 PM EDT
Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, former technology executive Bernard Schwartz and banking executive James Staley were among 30 well-connected figures in the business and finance world who met with President Barack Obama at the White House in March for an unusual economic discussion organized by the Democratic National Committee.
The White House released the names on Friday under a policy Obama instituted in 2009 to disclose nearly all White House guests approximately three months after they visit.
The March 7 meeting in the Blue Room of the residence has drawn attention and criticism because most of the attendees were donors or fundraisers and the session was arranged by the DNC. Good-government advocates said hosting the event at the White House was ill-advised.
“There’s a pretty clear line — or there should be a clear line,” Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, which presses for tighter controls on campaign finance, recently told POLITICO. “I don’t have a problem with the president inviting Wall Street people to the White House to discuss policy, but why does it need to be DNC-sponsored? I think that’s what raises the eyebrows. Even if it’s not a fundraiser, it’s a cultivation.”
In addition to the Wall Street financiers and business executives, the session was attended by Andy Tobias, the DNC treasurer; Patrick Gaspard, the former White House political director and current DNC executive director; and Brad Thompson, a DNC fundraiser who works with high-dollar donors and bundlers in New York.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said last week the White House is “very transparent” about its DNC-sponsored events. White House officials have described the meeting as a chance for Obama to solicit supporters’ views on the economy. However, Obama aides have not responded to queries from POLITICO about which Obama aides accompanied him to the meeting.
At a House hearing this week, two Bush White House ethics lawyers said the session raised questions under the Hatch Act, the federal law limiting political activity on federal property and by government officials.
“It is unclear why the Democratic National Committee would have been used to organize a meeting to solicit advice on the economy. Indeed, this meeting seems to walk a fine line between official and political with all of the attendant Hatch Act concerns,” Scott Coffina, who served as an ethics adviser to the Bush White House, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“I would never have agreed to having such a meeting going on in the White House itself, in any room of the White House,” said Richard Painter, who also served as an ethics counsel under Bush. “I know there’s controversy about that. But I would not want to see those meetings, quite frankly, going on on federal property. What the legal restrictions are is somewhat more ambiguous.”
Carney has said that the Blue Room meeting “was not a fundraiser” and that the DNC picked up the $68 tab for the event.
In addition, Obama aides note that the Democratic and Republican parties have sponsored events at the White House over the years. At least one of the annual Christmas parties is usually paid for by the DNC or Republican National Committee and attended by political guests, including donors. And in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a reception on the lawn of his residence for top Republican fundraisers.
However, President Bill Clinton sparked controversy when he and Vice President Al Gore hosted dozens of DNC-sponsored policy discussions — often called “coffees” — at the White House with Democratic donors and other supporters. At least some of the guests were told they could attend if they gave a specific amount, such as $50,000, to the Democratic Party. The so-called coffees were part of a broader flap involving donors being hosted overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
Several participants in the March 7 session declined to comment publicly when contacted by POLITICO. However, attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the meeting was entirely or almost entirely devoted to discussion of the sluggish economy.
“There was a lot of concern about the markets and how so far we’ve avoided disaster, but we’re really not out of the woods here,” one participant said Friday. “All I remember was very substantive stuff about what to do with economy [and] markets, how to get jobs growing — good solid policy stuff.”
The Blue Room event, first reported last week by The New York Times, was not on Obama’s public schedule. Obama aides have noted that the public schedule does not list every meeting Obama has and that he is the first president to pledge to disclose the names of nearly all White House visitors.
Here’s a partial guest list for the meeting (POLITICO added the affiliations and descriptions):
Thomas Bernstein, co-founder of Chelsea Piers, L.P., and chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (appointed by Obama in September 2010); and his wife, Andrea Bernstein
Jon Corzine, former Democratic governor of New Jersey and former CEO of Goldman Sachs
James Dinan, founder of York Capital Management
Glenn Dubin, CEO of Highbridge Capital Management
Mark Gallogly, co-founder of Centerbridge Partners and a member of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jeffrey Gural, chairman of the real estate firm Newmark Knight Frank
Michael Kempner, CEO at MWW Group and a member of the White House’s Council for Community Solutions
Sarah Kovner, longtime Clinton supporter and prominent New York liberal
Marc Lasry, co-founder and CEO of Avenue Capital Group
Margo Lion, of Margo Lion LTD, co-chairwoman of the Obama’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities
Brian Mathis, co-managing member of Provident Group Ltd. and co-managing partner of Longship Capital Management, LLC
Richard Richman, runs real estate/investment banking/property management conglomerate The Richman Group; and his wife, Ellen Richman, a philanthropist and Pace University marketing professor
William Rudin, chief executive of the real estate company Rudin Management
Rick Schifter, partner at TPG Capital, formerly Texas Pacific Group
Bernard Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications, philanthropist and backer of the Democratic Leadership Council
Jay Snyder, Democratic Party activist and philanthropist
James Staley, head of JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank
Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.
A violation of the Hatch Act....why not this President has NO respect for the rule of law...
W.H. releases DNC meet names
By JOSH GERSTEIN & MATT NEGRIN | 6/24/11 7:24 PM EDT
Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, former technology executive Bernard Schwartz and banking executive James Staley were among 30 well-connected figures in the business and finance world who met with President Barack Obama at the White House in March for an unusual economic discussion organized by the Democratic National Committee.
The White House released the names on Friday under a policy Obama instituted in 2009 to disclose nearly all White House guests approximately three months after they visit.
The March 7 meeting in the Blue Room of the residence has drawn attention and criticism because most of the attendees were donors or fundraisers and the session was arranged by the DNC. Good-government advocates said hosting the event at the White House was ill-advised.
“There’s a pretty clear line — or there should be a clear line,” Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, which presses for tighter controls on campaign finance, recently told POLITICO. “I don’t have a problem with the president inviting Wall Street people to the White House to discuss policy, but why does it need to be DNC-sponsored? I think that’s what raises the eyebrows. Even if it’s not a fundraiser, it’s a cultivation.”
In addition to the Wall Street financiers and business executives, the session was attended by Andy Tobias, the DNC treasurer; Patrick Gaspard, the former White House political director and current DNC executive director; and Brad Thompson, a DNC fundraiser who works with high-dollar donors and bundlers in New York.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said last week the White House is “very transparent” about its DNC-sponsored events. White House officials have described the meeting as a chance for Obama to solicit supporters’ views on the economy. However, Obama aides have not responded to queries from POLITICO about which Obama aides accompanied him to the meeting.
At a House hearing this week, two Bush White House ethics lawyers said the session raised questions under the Hatch Act, the federal law limiting political activity on federal property and by government officials.
“It is unclear why the Democratic National Committee would have been used to organize a meeting to solicit advice on the economy. Indeed, this meeting seems to walk a fine line between official and political with all of the attendant Hatch Act concerns,” Scott Coffina, who served as an ethics adviser to the Bush White House, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“I would never have agreed to having such a meeting going on in the White House itself, in any room of the White House,” said Richard Painter, who also served as an ethics counsel under Bush. “I know there’s controversy about that. But I would not want to see those meetings, quite frankly, going on on federal property. What the legal restrictions are is somewhat more ambiguous.”
Carney has said that the Blue Room meeting “was not a fundraiser” and that the DNC picked up the $68 tab for the event.
In addition, Obama aides note that the Democratic and Republican parties have sponsored events at the White House over the years. At least one of the annual Christmas parties is usually paid for by the DNC or Republican National Committee and attended by political guests, including donors. And in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney hosted a reception on the lawn of his residence for top Republican fundraisers.
However, President Bill Clinton sparked controversy when he and Vice President Al Gore hosted dozens of DNC-sponsored policy discussions — often called “coffees” — at the White House with Democratic donors and other supporters. At least some of the guests were told they could attend if they gave a specific amount, such as $50,000, to the Democratic Party. The so-called coffees were part of a broader flap involving donors being hosted overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
Several participants in the March 7 session declined to comment publicly when contacted by POLITICO. However, attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the meeting was entirely or almost entirely devoted to discussion of the sluggish economy.
“There was a lot of concern about the markets and how so far we’ve avoided disaster, but we’re really not out of the woods here,” one participant said Friday. “All I remember was very substantive stuff about what to do with economy [and] markets, how to get jobs growing — good solid policy stuff.”
The Blue Room event, first reported last week by The New York Times, was not on Obama’s public schedule. Obama aides have noted that the public schedule does not list every meeting Obama has and that he is the first president to pledge to disclose the names of nearly all White House visitors.
Here’s a partial guest list for the meeting (POLITICO added the affiliations and descriptions):
Thomas Bernstein, co-founder of Chelsea Piers, L.P., and chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (appointed by Obama in September 2010); and his wife, Andrea Bernstein
Jon Corzine, former Democratic governor of New Jersey and former CEO of Goldman Sachs
James Dinan, founder of York Capital Management
Glenn Dubin, CEO of Highbridge Capital Management
Mark Gallogly, co-founder of Centerbridge Partners and a member of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Jeffrey Gural, chairman of the real estate firm Newmark Knight Frank
Michael Kempner, CEO at MWW Group and a member of the White House’s Council for Community Solutions
Sarah Kovner, longtime Clinton supporter and prominent New York liberal
Marc Lasry, co-founder and CEO of Avenue Capital Group
Margo Lion, of Margo Lion LTD, co-chairwoman of the Obama’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities
Brian Mathis, co-managing member of Provident Group Ltd. and co-managing partner of Longship Capital Management, LLC
Richard Richman, runs real estate/investment banking/property management conglomerate The Richman Group; and his wife, Ellen Richman, a philanthropist and Pace University marketing professor
William Rudin, chief executive of the real estate company Rudin Management
Rick Schifter, partner at TPG Capital, formerly Texas Pacific Group
Bernard Schwartz, former CEO of Loral Space & Communications, philanthropist and backer of the Democratic Leadership Council
Jay Snyder, Democratic Party activist and philanthropist
James Staley, head of JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank
Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.
Obama - advocating for the Unions Again and taking America DOWN!
This is nothing more than Obama advocating for the Unions....he'll do anything to oppose business and jobs in America....no wonder our economy is not getting any better....
Obama Administration Accused of Backing Union Agenda With NLRB
By Jim Angle Published June 24, 2011
June 20: A large gathering of public employee union members and supporters protest in Trenton, N.J., outside the Statehouse over plans by Gov. Chris Christie to reduce benefits and limit collective bargaining over health care for public workers.
Transportation Security Administration workers were given the right to unionize in February, and recently chose the American Federation of Government Employees to represent them. That's one of the few areas of growth for unions, whose percentage of the workforce has steadily declined in recent years.
"The percentage of workers that are in unions is a little over 11 percent, and that's declined from about 1/3 of all workers [that] used to be in unions about 30 to 40 years ago," says David Madland, director of the American Worker Project at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress.
Now, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is proposing to change the rules that could speed up elections held among employees to decide whether to unionize. Critics say it’s an attempt by Obama appointees to turn those declining numbers around.
“Now the union membership's dropped off, so they say well let's just change the rules of the road because we don’t like the result," says Randel Johnson, a vice president with the Chamber of Commerce.
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst for conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, agrees that the administration is advocating for unions.
"President Obama appointed a series of union activists to the national labor relations board, and they're doing exactly what they wanted to do -- implementing the union agenda," he says.
But defenders of the proposed rule say it has a simple purpose.
“The goal of the new rule is to ensure that when workers petition for an election they actually get an election," Madland says.
Once a union gets 30 percent of workers to request an election, the NLRB orders one and most happen within 30-40 days, but Madland points out that some elections take longer.
"Both sides have the opportunity to try to game the system to have the timing at their advantage,” he says, “rather than a set time that ensures that workers get a fair choice."
Union organizers can spend weeks or even months talking to workers about unionizing without the employer even knowing about it. But critics say the NLRB is now proposing a change in rules that could force an election in as little as ten days, giving management little time to present its side to workers.
"The unions have long opposed giving employers an ability to talk about the pros and cons of unionization in the context of a union election," says Randel Johnson.
James Sherk says management needs time to communicate with employees, "and point out … the union might have promised you the sun, the moon and the stars, but in this economy we can’t possibly deliver that. But you're still going to have to pay 2 percent of salary in union dues."
He adds the process should allow time for all to make their cases. "Workers have the right to an informed choice. They ought to be able to hear from both sides, management and union making their strongest case. And then decide after some reflection whether or not they really want to join."
Meanwhile, existing unions are losing some ground. On Friday, New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie won approval from a Democratic-led state legislature for a plan that would raise the retirement age and force unionized state workers to contribute more to their health and pension plans.
"We did it in a bipartisan way,” he told the NBC's Today Show. “This is not just a Republican plan or a Democratic plan, it's a bipartisan plan where we compromise to put the people first. The taxpayers are going to be saved over $130 billion over the next 30 years. We needed to bring equity and shared sacrifice to this."
At a time when state governments and legislatures controlled by both parties are trimming union-negotiated benefits, and overall membership continues to decline, critics say Obama administration appointees are doing what they can to help unions maintain or even expand their influence.
Obama Administration Accused of Backing Union Agenda With NLRB
By Jim Angle Published June 24, 2011
June 20: A large gathering of public employee union members and supporters protest in Trenton, N.J., outside the Statehouse over plans by Gov. Chris Christie to reduce benefits and limit collective bargaining over health care for public workers.
Transportation Security Administration workers were given the right to unionize in February, and recently chose the American Federation of Government Employees to represent them. That's one of the few areas of growth for unions, whose percentage of the workforce has steadily declined in recent years.
"The percentage of workers that are in unions is a little over 11 percent, and that's declined from about 1/3 of all workers [that] used to be in unions about 30 to 40 years ago," says David Madland, director of the American Worker Project at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress.
Now, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is proposing to change the rules that could speed up elections held among employees to decide whether to unionize. Critics say it’s an attempt by Obama appointees to turn those declining numbers around.
“Now the union membership's dropped off, so they say well let's just change the rules of the road because we don’t like the result," says Randel Johnson, a vice president with the Chamber of Commerce.
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst for conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, agrees that the administration is advocating for unions.
"President Obama appointed a series of union activists to the national labor relations board, and they're doing exactly what they wanted to do -- implementing the union agenda," he says.
But defenders of the proposed rule say it has a simple purpose.
“The goal of the new rule is to ensure that when workers petition for an election they actually get an election," Madland says.
Once a union gets 30 percent of workers to request an election, the NLRB orders one and most happen within 30-40 days, but Madland points out that some elections take longer.
"Both sides have the opportunity to try to game the system to have the timing at their advantage,” he says, “rather than a set time that ensures that workers get a fair choice."
Union organizers can spend weeks or even months talking to workers about unionizing without the employer even knowing about it. But critics say the NLRB is now proposing a change in rules that could force an election in as little as ten days, giving management little time to present its side to workers.
"The unions have long opposed giving employers an ability to talk about the pros and cons of unionization in the context of a union election," says Randel Johnson.
James Sherk says management needs time to communicate with employees, "and point out … the union might have promised you the sun, the moon and the stars, but in this economy we can’t possibly deliver that. But you're still going to have to pay 2 percent of salary in union dues."
He adds the process should allow time for all to make their cases. "Workers have the right to an informed choice. They ought to be able to hear from both sides, management and union making their strongest case. And then decide after some reflection whether or not they really want to join."
Meanwhile, existing unions are losing some ground. On Friday, New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie won approval from a Democratic-led state legislature for a plan that would raise the retirement age and force unionized state workers to contribute more to their health and pension plans.
"We did it in a bipartisan way,” he told the NBC's Today Show. “This is not just a Republican plan or a Democratic plan, it's a bipartisan plan where we compromise to put the people first. The taxpayers are going to be saved over $130 billion over the next 30 years. We needed to bring equity and shared sacrifice to this."
At a time when state governments and legislatures controlled by both parties are trimming union-negotiated benefits, and overall membership continues to decline, critics say Obama administration appointees are doing what they can to help unions maintain or even expand their influence.
A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words...Obama a sleazy politician...that's all!
Incompetent Obama WASTING our Strategic Oil Reserves for his own political gain...if he was really interested in lowering gas prices and improving the economy he would open up drilling in the US.....
I couldn't have said it better.....an Out of Control Obama Again!
President Obama Abuses Nation's Oil Reserves
When it comes to making bad energy policy decisions, President Obama is a pro. Yesterday was no exception when the Obama Administration announced it would release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This is part of an agreement with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to put a total of 60 million barrels on the market in the next 30 days. Another 27 nations will make up the other half of the oil needed.
President Obama and the IEA first explained this irresponsible action by noting a supply disruption as a result of the war in Libya. However, this disruption does not justify the depletion of the SPR, and the Administration doesn't have the legal rationale, either. The White House slightly changed its tune late yesterday when Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters it was meant as protection against increasing gas prices over the summer driving season.
Clearly, President Obama is putting politics and polls ahead of responsible governance and a smart energy policy. Even The Washington Post's editorial board agrees. This morning, in a scathing editorial entitled "The wrong reason for depleting the strategic oil reserve," the Post argues the White House is likely more focused on a "political emergency" and "the government should not tap the reserve absent a genuine crisis."
So what is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? The SPR is a national security inventory designed to protect the U.S. against a "severe energy supply disruption." In order to use it, three conditions must be met:
An emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;
A severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and
Such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.
These conditions have not been met.
Let's also put the release of 30 million barrels in perspective. The entire global market uses more than 84 million barrels a day, and this action would supply only two million of those for 30 days. The President's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. production in the Gulf has declined by 220,000 barrels a day since Obama's moratorium (which still persists) began.
The SPR has more than 726 million barrels of oil in reserve. It holds roughly 30 days'worth of total U.S. daily consumption, and the private sector holds another 30 days. According to international agreements, the U.S. is obligated to have in reserve 90 days' worth of imported crude. Current public/private reserves make up roughly 115 days of import protection.
Due to these obligations, the U.S. must replace any oil it releases, and according to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it must do so expeditiously. Releasing the oil requires a strategy for replacing it as well.
Libya—supposedly the source of the problem—produces roughly 1.5 million barrels a day, and most of that oil is delivered to Europe. Libyan production has been offline for almost three months without having a significant effect on already high oil prices. And most observers do not expect the Libyan crisis to end in 30 days. So is there a significant reduction in supply as a result of Libya? No.
Congressman Ed Markey (D–MA), no stranger to irresponsible and costly energy policy, hailed the President's decision, saying: "This is the one tool America has at her disposal to immediately help drive down prices at the pump." Nothing could be further from the truth.
The SPR is not a "tool." The SPR is a national security asset that should remain protected against short-term political manipulation. President Obama has the ability to offer relief at the pump without sacrificing energy security.
As Heritage energy expert Nick Loris points out:
Releasing reserves now simply allows the Administration to avoid addressing the underlying problems with U.S. energy policy that exacerbate the market impact of global supply disruptions. The problem is that the Obama Administration is artificially constraining supply to the market by denying Americans access to domestic oil.
In the past two years, President Obama shut down drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The EIA estimates that oil production will decline significantly in 2011 and 2012. His Administration was so negligent in issuing drilling permits that the Department of Interior was held in contempt of federal court. The Environmental Protection Agency has imposed costly regulations on refiners, and the Administration has rejected agreements with Canada to open up less expensive crude supplies.
If President Obama simply stopped being a roadblock, the U.S. would increase its energy supply, oil prices would decrease, and taxpayers would stop losing royalty revenue. The Gulf economy would rebound, and jobs would be created (or recreated). If Obama simply got out of the way.
With gas prices soaring, unemployment remaining high, and a government spending crisis looming, President Obama is under pressure to turn one of these economic indicators positive. Stealing some political goodwill from the SPR will have that desired effect in the short term—and Administration officials hinted yesterday they may do it again. Unfortunately for the President, bad poll numbers are not one of the conditions necessary for a drawdown.
When it comes to making bad energy policy decisions, President Obama is a pro. Yesterday was no exception when the Obama Administration announced it would release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This is part of an agreement with the International Energy Agency (IEA) to put a total of 60 million barrels on the market in the next 30 days. Another 27 nations will make up the other half of the oil needed.
President Obama and the IEA first explained this irresponsible action by noting a supply disruption as a result of the war in Libya. However, this disruption does not justify the depletion of the SPR, and the Administration doesn't have the legal rationale, either. The White House slightly changed its tune late yesterday when Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters it was meant as protection against increasing gas prices over the summer driving season.
Clearly, President Obama is putting politics and polls ahead of responsible governance and a smart energy policy. Even The Washington Post's editorial board agrees. This morning, in a scathing editorial entitled "The wrong reason for depleting the strategic oil reserve," the Post argues the White House is likely more focused on a "political emergency" and "the government should not tap the reserve absent a genuine crisis."
So what is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? The SPR is a national security inventory designed to protect the U.S. against a "severe energy supply disruption." In order to use it, three conditions must be met:
An emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration;
A severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation; and
Such price increase is likely to cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.
These conditions have not been met.
Let's also put the release of 30 million barrels in perspective. The entire global market uses more than 84 million barrels a day, and this action would supply only two million of those for 30 days. The President's own Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. production in the Gulf has declined by 220,000 barrels a day since Obama's moratorium (which still persists) began.
The SPR has more than 726 million barrels of oil in reserve. It holds roughly 30 days'worth of total U.S. daily consumption, and the private sector holds another 30 days. According to international agreements, the U.S. is obligated to have in reserve 90 days' worth of imported crude. Current public/private reserves make up roughly 115 days of import protection.
Due to these obligations, the U.S. must replace any oil it releases, and according to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it must do so expeditiously. Releasing the oil requires a strategy for replacing it as well.
Libya—supposedly the source of the problem—produces roughly 1.5 million barrels a day, and most of that oil is delivered to Europe. Libyan production has been offline for almost three months without having a significant effect on already high oil prices. And most observers do not expect the Libyan crisis to end in 30 days. So is there a significant reduction in supply as a result of Libya? No.
Congressman Ed Markey (D–MA), no stranger to irresponsible and costly energy policy, hailed the President's decision, saying: "This is the one tool America has at her disposal to immediately help drive down prices at the pump." Nothing could be further from the truth.
The SPR is not a "tool." The SPR is a national security asset that should remain protected against short-term political manipulation. President Obama has the ability to offer relief at the pump without sacrificing energy security.
As Heritage energy expert Nick Loris points out:
Releasing reserves now simply allows the Administration to avoid addressing the underlying problems with U.S. energy policy that exacerbate the market impact of global supply disruptions. The problem is that the Obama Administration is artificially constraining supply to the market by denying Americans access to domestic oil.
In the past two years, President Obama shut down drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The EIA estimates that oil production will decline significantly in 2011 and 2012. His Administration was so negligent in issuing drilling permits that the Department of Interior was held in contempt of federal court. The Environmental Protection Agency has imposed costly regulations on refiners, and the Administration has rejected agreements with Canada to open up less expensive crude supplies.
If President Obama simply stopped being a roadblock, the U.S. would increase its energy supply, oil prices would decrease, and taxpayers would stop losing royalty revenue. The Gulf economy would rebound, and jobs would be created (or recreated). If Obama simply got out of the way.
With gas prices soaring, unemployment remaining high, and a government spending crisis looming, President Obama is under pressure to turn one of these economic indicators positive. Stealing some political goodwill from the SPR will have that desired effect in the short term—and Administration officials hinted yesterday they may do it again. Unfortunately for the President, bad poll numbers are not one of the conditions necessary for a drawdown.
Obama's Lying AGAIN!
Is Obama lying to the American people AGAIN or is he just so uninvolved again in this issue as he botches it up like he always does.....The Congress and the American People need to understand the real strategy, the game plan, the exit strategy and they need the truth!
Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, June 24, 2011 - 2:19 PM Share
The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.
House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.
"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."
"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."
Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. "Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner said that he replied. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."
Locklear also said that, upon Qaddafi's removal, ground troops would be needed during the immediate period of instability, Turner said. In fact, Locklear said publicly that a "small force" might be necessary following the collapse of the Qaddafi regime in a May 30 conference in Varna, Bulgaria.
Turner joined hundreds of other lawmakers in voting against authorizing the Libya war on Friday morning. The authorization resolution was defeated 123 to 297. A subsequent vote on a bill to defund the Libya mission also failed 180-238 .
Turner has been opposed to the Libya war from the start and even introduced a resolution opposing the effort. For him, Friday's chaotic Libya debate was a direct result of the administration's neglect and disrespect of Congress throughout the debate over the mission.
"The president hasn't come to Congress and said any of this, and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Qaddafi's regime, Qaddafi himself, and contemplating ground troops following Qaddafi's removal," Turner said. "They're not being straightforward with Congress... It's outrageous."
Ignoring Congress allowed the administration to ignore the large, looming questions about the Libya war that congressmen are asking -- especially today, as another vote to defund the mission looms before the House next month, when the defense appropriations bill is set to be debated. But if the House does vote to defund the mission, Turner said, Obama will have nobody to blame but himself.
"I believe that this administration has handled this so badly, that if they had come to Congress, I think they would have done more of their homework. They have not done a full assessment of their mission, its scope, or the consequences if they're successful. Congress would have required that," Turner said. "Now it's a little late."
Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, June 24, 2011 - 2:19 PM Share
The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.
House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.
"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."
"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."
Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. "Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner said that he replied. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."
Locklear also said that, upon Qaddafi's removal, ground troops would be needed during the immediate period of instability, Turner said. In fact, Locklear said publicly that a "small force" might be necessary following the collapse of the Qaddafi regime in a May 30 conference in Varna, Bulgaria.
Turner joined hundreds of other lawmakers in voting against authorizing the Libya war on Friday morning. The authorization resolution was defeated 123 to 297. A subsequent vote on a bill to defund the Libya mission also failed 180-238 .
Turner has been opposed to the Libya war from the start and even introduced a resolution opposing the effort. For him, Friday's chaotic Libya debate was a direct result of the administration's neglect and disrespect of Congress throughout the debate over the mission.
"The president hasn't come to Congress and said any of this, and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Qaddafi's regime, Qaddafi himself, and contemplating ground troops following Qaddafi's removal," Turner said. "They're not being straightforward with Congress... It's outrageous."
Ignoring Congress allowed the administration to ignore the large, looming questions about the Libya war that congressmen are asking -- especially today, as another vote to defund the mission looms before the House next month, when the defense appropriations bill is set to be debated. But if the House does vote to defund the mission, Turner said, Obama will have nobody to blame but himself.
"I believe that this administration has handled this so badly, that if they had come to Congress, I think they would have done more of their homework. They have not done a full assessment of their mission, its scope, or the consequences if they're successful. Congress would have required that," Turner said. "Now it's a little late."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)