If Obama spent more of his time trying to really find a way to reduce the wasteful spending on Washington instead of tweeting we'd be much better off...We don't have a Presidential Leader...we have a Tweeter in Chief!
House Republican to Obama: Stop Tweeting About the Debt Ceiling
Published July 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, center, talks about the debt ceiling July 19 on Capitol Hill.
A top House Republican mocked President Obama for trying to leverage his Twitter bully pulpit to pressure Congress into approving a debt-limit deal.
The president took directly to Twitter on Friday to urge followers to inundate Congress with calls for a bipartisan compromise. The plan may have backfired -- while some followers indeed voiced their concerns to Congress, tens of thousands cut ties with the president's Twitter account after being inundated with his messages,
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the House Republican whip, urged the president to take a different approach.
"You cannot be the leader of the free world and sit on the sidelines and tweet and think you're going to get the job done," he said on "Fox News Sunday."
McCarthy criticized the president after being asked about the performance of his own party's leader, House Speaker John Boehner. Boehner had to calm a revolt in his own caucus last week in order to narrowly approve a bill that would cut the deficit and raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.
With a new compromise emerging which would roll back some of those provisions, Boehner could be compelled to seek Democratic support in the House. Asked whether that scenario could imperil his speakership, McCarthy said that Boehner has performed as a "leader" all along, insisting on significant spending cuts.
"We have been out front negotiating, "McCarthy said.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
I'd Take Ryan/Rubio or Rubio/Ryan as President/Vice President in 2012!
You have got to read/watch the Rubio Speech below...he is as pointed and as eloquent as anyone I have heard in the Senate for a long time. And Ryan is a smart as a tack....Thank God they are both Republicans!
Ryan-Rubio
Or Rubio-Ryan
7:32 PM, Jul 30, 2011 • By WILLIAM KRYSTAL
Take fifteen minutes for the sake of your country.
Take one minute to watch Paul Ryan on the floor of the House Thursday (you can also read the text below).
Take fourteen minutes to watch Marco Rubio on the floor of the Senate Saturday (you can also read the text below).
And tell me why it isn’t even more obvious today than it was at the beginning of the year that the 2012 ticket should be Ryan-Rubio.
Or, if Ryan is too much of shrinking violet ... Rubio-Ryan.
Rep. Paul Ryan: "We assume we’re going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we’re going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. I’ve got a better idea. Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can’t make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker." [...]
Sen. Marco Rubio: “Thank you, Mr. President.
“I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that's captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.
“Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive. I don't intend to become that here in the Senate.
“I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven't been here long enough to think any of the stuff that's going on is normal. And I certainly don't think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I've been here seven months has served me well in that regard.
“Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate.
“So I think it’s important to remind people what we're debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.
“And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less -- these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.
“Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it's no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.
“And so that's why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.
“So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.
“And I've heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.
“In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.
“Some people would say, well, that's because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that's not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President's party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.
“Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.
“So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here's our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I've been here.
“Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.
“You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March -- nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They've been delaying for two and a half years.
“Now the President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn't lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That's how absurd the budget was.
“Where is the President plan? We haven't seen it. We haven't seen it. Here's the President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn't have a plan. He hasn't offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.
“I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president's plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.
“So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.
“You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.
“And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words "tea party extremist," we could solve this debt problem.
“So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.
“Here's one.
“It says, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
“I found another extremist quote. This one says, "Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.
“And last but not least, here's a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, "I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that." And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.
“And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we're talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.
“The other thing I hear -- oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can't pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can't pass in the Senate.
“Well, guess what? The Senate bill can't pass in the Senate -- the Senate bill can't pass in the Senate.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”
Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I'll yield.”
Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That's become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.
“I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit -- both Republicans and Democrats alike -- is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?
“Is that not true?”
Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.
“The first is that those votes -- put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we'd be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is -- he made a mistake and he wouldn't have said that were he here today.
“My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn't have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.
“What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.
“What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.
“But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don't care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.
“And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”
Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”
Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”
Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.
“The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We've got to come to agreement. Right now there's not a lot of negotiating going on.
“I would ask the Senator, if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous difference between -- the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn't about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.
“Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”
Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it's impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn't offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?
“But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn't have a plan is relevant, but it's not the central issue here.
“I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I'd love to be a part of it.
“I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That's one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we'll able to pay our bills down the road.
“And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year in The Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.
“And those are the things, we need to do two things.
“Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we'd have more revenue for government.
“And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.
“The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let's do it.
“We've all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let's talk about that.
“I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That's a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.
“And I can tell you that history will back up what I'm about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.
“That's why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it's something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.
“So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here's the last thing I would say.
“I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.
“Compromise is fantastic.
“I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.
“I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that's not a solution is a waste of time.
“If my house was on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I'm going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.
“We either save this country or we do not.
“And to save it, we must seek solutions.”
Ryan-Rubio
Or Rubio-Ryan
7:32 PM, Jul 30, 2011 • By WILLIAM KRYSTAL
Take fifteen minutes for the sake of your country.
Take one minute to watch Paul Ryan on the floor of the House Thursday (you can also read the text below).
Take fourteen minutes to watch Marco Rubio on the floor of the Senate Saturday (you can also read the text below).
And tell me why it isn’t even more obvious today than it was at the beginning of the year that the 2012 ticket should be Ryan-Rubio.
Or, if Ryan is too much of shrinking violet ... Rubio-Ryan.
Rep. Paul Ryan: "We assume we’re going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we’re going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. I’ve got a better idea. Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion. Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Our debt is $14 trillion. Let’s come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let’s save $14 trillion. This stuff is fiscal fantasy. You can’t make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker." [...]
Sen. Marco Rubio: “Thank you, Mr. President.
“I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that's captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.
“Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive. I don't intend to become that here in the Senate.
“I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven't been here long enough to think any of the stuff that's going on is normal. And I certainly don't think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I've been here seven months has served me well in that regard.
“Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate.
“So I think it’s important to remind people what we're debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.
“And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less -- these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.
“Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it's no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.
“And so that's why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.
“So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.
“And I've heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.
“In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.
“Some people would say, well, that's because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that's not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President's party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.
“Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.
“So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here's our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I've been here.
“Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.
“You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March -- nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They've been delaying for two and a half years.
“Now the President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn't lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That's how absurd the budget was.
“Where is the President plan? We haven't seen it. We haven't seen it. Here's the President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn't have a plan. He hasn't offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.
“I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president's plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.
“So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.
“You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.
“And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words "tea party extremist," we could solve this debt problem.
“So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.
“Here's one.
“It says, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
“I found another extremist quote. This one says, "Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.
“And last but not least, here's a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, "I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that." And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.
“And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we're talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.
“The other thing I hear -- oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can't pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can't pass in the Senate.
“Well, guess what? The Senate bill can't pass in the Senate -- the Senate bill can't pass in the Senate.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”
Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I'll yield.”
Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That's become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.
“I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit -- both Republicans and Democrats alike -- is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?
“Is that not true?”
Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.
“The first is that those votes -- put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we'd be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is -- he made a mistake and he wouldn't have said that were he here today.
“My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn't have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.
“What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.
“What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.
“But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don't care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.
“And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”
Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”
Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”
Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.
“The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We've got to come to agreement. Right now there's not a lot of negotiating going on.
“I would ask the Senator, if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous difference between -- the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn't about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.
“Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”
Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it's impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn't offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?
“But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn't have a plan is relevant, but it's not the central issue here.
“I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I'd love to be a part of it.
“I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That's one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we'll able to pay our bills down the road.
“And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year in The Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.
“And those are the things, we need to do two things.
“Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we'd have more revenue for government.
“And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.
“The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let's do it.
“We've all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let's talk about that.
“I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That's a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.
“And I can tell you that history will back up what I'm about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.
“That's why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it's something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.
“So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here's the last thing I would say.
“I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.
“Compromise is fantastic.
“I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.
“I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that's not a solution is a waste of time.
“If my house was on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I'm going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.
“We either save this country or we do not.
“And to save it, we must seek solutions.”
"Dirty" Harry Reid, Obama and the Democrats are the Obstructionists...
Obstructionist Politics: Denying a Vote
July 30, 2011 By Frank Salvato
Just minutes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tabled (read: killed) the second piece of legislation presented by the House to his chamber addressing solutions to the politically manufactured debt ceiling “crisis” – legislation crafted through not only bipartisan negotiations among members of the House, but bipartisan consultation with Senate members – Mr. Reid had the unmitigated gall to infer that Republicans were being “obstructionist.”
As reported in the Washington Times:
“Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.
“‘We would be happy to have that vote tonight,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.
“But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
“He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.”
At a time when the American people are screaming – nay, demanding – that those elected to office in Washington stop with the political positioning and gamesmanship, Progressive Democrat Harry Reid, a man whose approval rating is just 27 percent, whose negatives stand at 53 percent, a man whose last election was handed to him not by the people of Nevada but by the union members of Las Vegas, represents the quintessential example of exactly the kind of behavior Americans detest.
For years, both when Mr. Reid was a minority leader and as majority leader, he would rail against Republican leadership for not allowing “up or down” votes on issues such as judicial nominees and presidential appointments, calling the legitimate blocking of ideologues to positions of incredible influence “obstructionist. Yet, Mr. Reid would go so far as to maintain sessions over holiday breaks, even on Christmas, so as to block any chance of President Bush utilizing his power of recess appointment, a power that President Obama has used several times to appoint people possessing Progressive, Socialist and even Communist ideological leanings to sensitive positions.
Now, as we face a possible downgrade to the nation’s credit rating, a downgrade directly related to not the debt ceiling but to grotesque overspending and mismanagement of national revenues, we witness Harry Reid, partisan operative and Progressive ideologue, accusing the entire opposing political party of doing exactly what he is doing, right in front of an entire nation: obstructing a path toward solution.
If partisanship in Washington, DC, is the thing that the American people most loathe about the political class in our country – and poll after poll after poll after poll reveals, without doubt and across all political declarations, that this is the case – then Mr. Reid has proven himself the best candidate for “poster boy” to that malady. That is saying quite a bit when you consider Nancy Pelosi must come in second place.
The obvious and transparent political maneuvering that is “tabling,” or killing, honestly constructed and legislated solutions in an effort to demonize, through the use of Goebbels-esque propaganda tactics, the opposing political party, especially at the expense of the nation, is beyond reprehensible. Senator Reid’s actions are inexcusable and the full weight of his party’s leadership should condemn his embrace of politically opportunistic partisanship at a time when our nation needs honest leaders.
Sadly, with what passes for leadership in the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party today, the American people are more likely to see the 10 percent of the population that is Progressive celebrating Mr. Reid’s “fiddling,” even as the nation burns.
July 30, 2011 By Frank Salvato
Just minutes after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tabled (read: killed) the second piece of legislation presented by the House to his chamber addressing solutions to the politically manufactured debt ceiling “crisis” – legislation crafted through not only bipartisan negotiations among members of the House, but bipartisan consultation with Senate members – Mr. Reid had the unmitigated gall to infer that Republicans were being “obstructionist.”
As reported in the Washington Times:
“Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.
“‘We would be happy to have that vote tonight,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.
“But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
“He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn’t insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist.”
At a time when the American people are screaming – nay, demanding – that those elected to office in Washington stop with the political positioning and gamesmanship, Progressive Democrat Harry Reid, a man whose approval rating is just 27 percent, whose negatives stand at 53 percent, a man whose last election was handed to him not by the people of Nevada but by the union members of Las Vegas, represents the quintessential example of exactly the kind of behavior Americans detest.
For years, both when Mr. Reid was a minority leader and as majority leader, he would rail against Republican leadership for not allowing “up or down” votes on issues such as judicial nominees and presidential appointments, calling the legitimate blocking of ideologues to positions of incredible influence “obstructionist. Yet, Mr. Reid would go so far as to maintain sessions over holiday breaks, even on Christmas, so as to block any chance of President Bush utilizing his power of recess appointment, a power that President Obama has used several times to appoint people possessing Progressive, Socialist and even Communist ideological leanings to sensitive positions.
Now, as we face a possible downgrade to the nation’s credit rating, a downgrade directly related to not the debt ceiling but to grotesque overspending and mismanagement of national revenues, we witness Harry Reid, partisan operative and Progressive ideologue, accusing the entire opposing political party of doing exactly what he is doing, right in front of an entire nation: obstructing a path toward solution.
If partisanship in Washington, DC, is the thing that the American people most loathe about the political class in our country – and poll after poll after poll after poll reveals, without doubt and across all political declarations, that this is the case – then Mr. Reid has proven himself the best candidate for “poster boy” to that malady. That is saying quite a bit when you consider Nancy Pelosi must come in second place.
The obvious and transparent political maneuvering that is “tabling,” or killing, honestly constructed and legislated solutions in an effort to demonize, through the use of Goebbels-esque propaganda tactics, the opposing political party, especially at the expense of the nation, is beyond reprehensible. Senator Reid’s actions are inexcusable and the full weight of his party’s leadership should condemn his embrace of politically opportunistic partisanship at a time when our nation needs honest leaders.
Sadly, with what passes for leadership in the Progressive Movement and the Democrat Party today, the American people are more likely to see the 10 percent of the population that is Progressive celebrating Mr. Reid’s “fiddling,” even as the nation burns.
You've got to love Paul Ryan...
Paul Ryan is not only very smart....he's a great communicator...when he speaks average Americans understand him....
Nancy Pelosi is just NUTS!!!!
Nancy Pelosi is NUTS!!!....simply NUTS!!!!....She deserves Noone's Respect!...and it's now obvious the Reid bill is going NO WHERE!
MORE TAXPAYER WASTE.....
More Gross Taxpayer Waste!!!.....Who's reviewing these bills before they are paid???
U.S. Contractor in Iraq Charges Pentagon $900 for $7 Control Switch, Report Finds
Published July 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
A U.S. government contractor in Iraq charged the Pentagon a whopping amount of money for inexpensive items, including $900 for a $7 control switch, according to a new report from a U.S. watchdog.
U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said review found that Anham, LLC, which is based in suburban Washington, allowed its subcontractors in Iraq to also charge $3,000 for a $100 circuit breaker, and $80 for a piece of plumbing equipment worth $1.41.
As a result, Bowen's inspectors are seeking to review all Anham contracts with the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan, which total about $3.9 billion.
Hassan S. Judeh, the administration director at Anham's headquarters in Vienna, Va., declined to respond to Bowen's examples because he said the company has not seen the report. But Judeh said Anham has a history of providing competitive prices for services, resulting so far in $132 million in savings to the government.
"Anham prides itself on the fact that it watches every penny and strives to always give the government the best cost-benefit in a remarkably hostile war environment," Judeh said in a statement.
A spokesman for the U.S. military didn’t comment on the overcharges but issued a statement regarding the rest of the report, which found that frequent bombings, assassinations and a resurgence in violence by Shiite militias have made Iraq more dangerous now than it was just a year ago.
“We anticipated, and stated many times, that there would be militant and terrorist groups trying to take advantage of this period as U.S. forces prepare to fulfill our commitments under the Security Agreement. These groups attack both Iraqi and U.S. forces,” U.S. military spokesman Jeffrey Buchanan said.
“From our standpoint, Iraq’s security continues to be an important and complex issue and one that is difficult to summarize in short-term trends and figures.”
The findings come during what Bowen called "a summer of uncertainty" in Baghdad over whether American forces will stay past a year-end withdrawal deadline and continue military aid for the unstable nation.
"Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work," Bowen concluded in his 172-page quarterly report to Congress and the Obama administration on progress -- and setbacks -- in Iraq. "It is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago."
The report cited the deaths of 15 U.S. soldiers in June, the bloodiest month for the U.S. military in Iraq in two years. Nearly all of them were killed in attacks by Shiite militias bent on forcing out American troops on schedule.
It also noted an increase in rockets launched against the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, where government offices and foreign embassies are located, as well as constant assassination attempts against Iraqi political leaders, security forces and judges.
Bowen accused the U.S. military of glossing over Iraq's instability, noting a statement in late May by the U.S. military that described Iraq's security trends as "very, very positive" -- but only when compared to 2007, when the country was on the brink of civil war. In contrast, Bowen talked of "the very real fragility" of national security in Iraq today.
If the U.S. military leaves on schedule, the American Embassy in Baghdad will pick up the responsibility of training Iraqi police. Bowen called the job "challenging" for the fewer than 200 advisers who would be based in three sites but tasked with supporting Iraqi police in 10 of Iraq's 18 provinces. There are an estimated 400,000 policemen in Iraq.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
U.S. Contractor in Iraq Charges Pentagon $900 for $7 Control Switch, Report Finds
Published July 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
A U.S. government contractor in Iraq charged the Pentagon a whopping amount of money for inexpensive items, including $900 for a $7 control switch, according to a new report from a U.S. watchdog.
U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said review found that Anham, LLC, which is based in suburban Washington, allowed its subcontractors in Iraq to also charge $3,000 for a $100 circuit breaker, and $80 for a piece of plumbing equipment worth $1.41.
As a result, Bowen's inspectors are seeking to review all Anham contracts with the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan, which total about $3.9 billion.
Hassan S. Judeh, the administration director at Anham's headquarters in Vienna, Va., declined to respond to Bowen's examples because he said the company has not seen the report. But Judeh said Anham has a history of providing competitive prices for services, resulting so far in $132 million in savings to the government.
"Anham prides itself on the fact that it watches every penny and strives to always give the government the best cost-benefit in a remarkably hostile war environment," Judeh said in a statement.
A spokesman for the U.S. military didn’t comment on the overcharges but issued a statement regarding the rest of the report, which found that frequent bombings, assassinations and a resurgence in violence by Shiite militias have made Iraq more dangerous now than it was just a year ago.
“We anticipated, and stated many times, that there would be militant and terrorist groups trying to take advantage of this period as U.S. forces prepare to fulfill our commitments under the Security Agreement. These groups attack both Iraqi and U.S. forces,” U.S. military spokesman Jeffrey Buchanan said.
“From our standpoint, Iraq’s security continues to be an important and complex issue and one that is difficult to summarize in short-term trends and figures.”
The findings come during what Bowen called "a summer of uncertainty" in Baghdad over whether American forces will stay past a year-end withdrawal deadline and continue military aid for the unstable nation.
"Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work," Bowen concluded in his 172-page quarterly report to Congress and the Obama administration on progress -- and setbacks -- in Iraq. "It is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago."
The report cited the deaths of 15 U.S. soldiers in June, the bloodiest month for the U.S. military in Iraq in two years. Nearly all of them were killed in attacks by Shiite militias bent on forcing out American troops on schedule.
It also noted an increase in rockets launched against the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, where government offices and foreign embassies are located, as well as constant assassination attempts against Iraqi political leaders, security forces and judges.
Bowen accused the U.S. military of glossing over Iraq's instability, noting a statement in late May by the U.S. military that described Iraq's security trends as "very, very positive" -- but only when compared to 2007, when the country was on the brink of civil war. In contrast, Bowen talked of "the very real fragility" of national security in Iraq today.
If the U.S. military leaves on schedule, the American Embassy in Baghdad will pick up the responsibility of training Iraqi police. Bowen called the job "challenging" for the fewer than 200 advisers who would be based in three sites but tasked with supporting Iraqi police in 10 of Iraq's 18 provinces. There are an estimated 400,000 policemen in Iraq.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz..a Disgrace to America!
Debbie Wasserman Schultz....A LADY?...I think Not...A Bitch?...Certainly...
Perry's ready to get in...and he'll compete...
Perry's going to get in and he's going to compete!
Perry slams Obama administration at conservative summit
The Washington Times 11:36 p.m., Friday, July 29, 2011
DENVER — Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged conservatives Friday to “push more liberals into the private sector” in the 2012 election - including the president - but the oft-mentioned potential presidential candidate declined to say whether he had decided to enter the race himself.
Speaking to a packed house at the Western Conservative Summit, Mr. Perry continued to leave his supporters guessing as to his political future, although he did refer repeatedly to the importance of the 2012 election. At one point, he suggested that President Obama should be defeated so that he could take up a career on the Sunday morning talk shows.
“The mixture of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American and a threat to every job in the private sector,” said Mr. Perry.
The 11-year Texas governor further fueled speculation when he asked a member of the audience to take out their cell phones and text the word “forward” to 95613. “You’re sending it to me,” he explained, prompting speculation that he could be building a campaign mailing list.
Mr. Perry’s appearance in Colorado is significant for several reasons. Colorado is expected to emerge as a swing state that could serve as a harbinger of the election’s outcome. Republican strategist Karl Rove told a Denver audience in June that “as goes Colorado, so goes the nation.”
Summit organizers have also placed Mr. Perry on a straw poll ballot of announced and unannounced candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. The results are slated to be released Sunday [July 31].
Other Republican presidential hopefuls appearing at the summit include former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who spoke Friday evening immediately before Mr. Perry, and businessman Herman Cain, who is scheduled to deliver his remarks Sunday.
Mr. Santorum said he was spending three weeks in Iowa prior to the Ames straw poll Aug. 13, and that he hoped the results would “show the pundits” that he’s a legitimate threat for the nomination.
“I’m committed to this. I believe this is the most important election since the election of 1860,” said Mr. Santorum, referring to the presidential race immediately preceding the Civil War.
Event organizer John Andrews, director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, introduced a surprise guest whom he described as “America’s most famous non-candidate.” Moments later, there were gasps from the sold-out dinner crowd of about 1,000 when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared to take the podium.
It turns out it wasn’t Mrs. Palin, but a uncanny lookalike named Cecilia Thompson, a graduate of Colorado Christian University. Mr. Andrews said the resemblance was so striking that even Mrs. Palin had remarked that, “‘Wow, I feel like I’m looking in a mirror.’”
While his plans for 2012 remain a mystery, Mr. Perry left little doubt as to where he stands on the debt-ceiling debate.
“They spend their time arguing about the debt ceiling instead of making cuts,” said Mr. Perry. “I for one think it should be called the ‘escalator ceiling’ because it keeps going up.”
Perry slams Obama administration at conservative summit
The Washington Times 11:36 p.m., Friday, July 29, 2011
DENVER — Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged conservatives Friday to “push more liberals into the private sector” in the 2012 election - including the president - but the oft-mentioned potential presidential candidate declined to say whether he had decided to enter the race himself.
Speaking to a packed house at the Western Conservative Summit, Mr. Perry continued to leave his supporters guessing as to his political future, although he did refer repeatedly to the importance of the 2012 election. At one point, he suggested that President Obama should be defeated so that he could take up a career on the Sunday morning talk shows.
“The mixture of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American and a threat to every job in the private sector,” said Mr. Perry.
The 11-year Texas governor further fueled speculation when he asked a member of the audience to take out their cell phones and text the word “forward” to 95613. “You’re sending it to me,” he explained, prompting speculation that he could be building a campaign mailing list.
Mr. Perry’s appearance in Colorado is significant for several reasons. Colorado is expected to emerge as a swing state that could serve as a harbinger of the election’s outcome. Republican strategist Karl Rove told a Denver audience in June that “as goes Colorado, so goes the nation.”
Summit organizers have also placed Mr. Perry on a straw poll ballot of announced and unannounced candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. The results are slated to be released Sunday [July 31].
Other Republican presidential hopefuls appearing at the summit include former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who spoke Friday evening immediately before Mr. Perry, and businessman Herman Cain, who is scheduled to deliver his remarks Sunday.
Mr. Santorum said he was spending three weeks in Iowa prior to the Ames straw poll Aug. 13, and that he hoped the results would “show the pundits” that he’s a legitimate threat for the nomination.
“I’m committed to this. I believe this is the most important election since the election of 1860,” said Mr. Santorum, referring to the presidential race immediately preceding the Civil War.
Event organizer John Andrews, director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, introduced a surprise guest whom he described as “America’s most famous non-candidate.” Moments later, there were gasps from the sold-out dinner crowd of about 1,000 when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared to take the podium.
It turns out it wasn’t Mrs. Palin, but a uncanny lookalike named Cecilia Thompson, a graduate of Colorado Christian University. Mr. Andrews said the resemblance was so striking that even Mrs. Palin had remarked that, “‘Wow, I feel like I’m looking in a mirror.’”
While his plans for 2012 remain a mystery, Mr. Perry left little doubt as to where he stands on the debt-ceiling debate.
“They spend their time arguing about the debt ceiling instead of making cuts,” said Mr. Perry. “I for one think it should be called the ‘escalator ceiling’ because it keeps going up.”
MORE Taxpayer Money Wasted AGAIN!
We're BROKE as a nation and we are wasting our taxpayer money like this...trust me there are Trillions of dollars that could be cut from our spending without effecting anything material....
Group Calls on Congress to Suspend NIH Grants After China Receives $90 Million
Published July 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
A conservative group is calling on Congress to temporarily suspend funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) after releasing a study that found the agency wasted half a billion dollars in taxpayer money on "bizarre projects," and gave more than $90 million to China, America’s largest creditor, over the last decade for other research.
The Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 churches across the country, sent a letter to Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress this week urging them to freeze funding for six months while investigating the agency’s research practices that are "striking working families across America as wasteful, illicit, and in many cases outright offensive."
As part of its six-month investigation into NIH’s budget, the coalition discovered that the agency awarded more than $90 million to the Chinese government over the last decade, including $30 million in the last two and half years alone to scientists working at Chinese universities and institutions to research medical issues that affect Chinese citizens.
The coalition has also found that NIH has paid more than half a billion in funding grants to researchers to “conduct bizarre projects such as trying to find out if a mother rat will abandon her babies if given cocaine, and asking individuals to mail in their toenail clippings.”
"As our country heads to fiscal ruin, why are we giving millions in taxpayer dollars to Chinese science – which benefits China and its institutions – when they hold more than $1 trillion in American debt?" asked Andrea Lafferty, president of the TVC.
"It is simply unacceptable for the NIH to pay Chinese researchers to study acupuncture, or fund international research, when we are struggling to pay our own debts," she said. "That China, our biggest creditor, is the recipient makes this waste all the more credible."
China has also received a $718,000 EPA grant over the last decade for “air pollution” efforts.
The NIH-funded projects include $2 million for Chinese and American scientists to develop a vaccine against parasites that affect water buffalo, snails and about 1 million Chinese citizens.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, NIH defended its practices and research in China, saying "Americans benefit enormously from research that has taken place around the world."
For example, NIH spokesman John Burklow said, China, with the world’s largest population, "represents an important opportunity to examine a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention."
"International research on HIV/AIDS is essential, because this disease is a global epidemic that does not stop at national boundaries," he said.
He also said the study to develop a vaccine against parasites "will benefit many people around the world, including the many people in the U.S. who suffer from parasitic diseases."
Group Calls on Congress to Suspend NIH Grants After China Receives $90 Million
Published July 30, 2011 | FoxNews.com
A conservative group is calling on Congress to temporarily suspend funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) after releasing a study that found the agency wasted half a billion dollars in taxpayer money on "bizarre projects," and gave more than $90 million to China, America’s largest creditor, over the last decade for other research.
The Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 churches across the country, sent a letter to Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress this week urging them to freeze funding for six months while investigating the agency’s research practices that are "striking working families across America as wasteful, illicit, and in many cases outright offensive."
As part of its six-month investigation into NIH’s budget, the coalition discovered that the agency awarded more than $90 million to the Chinese government over the last decade, including $30 million in the last two and half years alone to scientists working at Chinese universities and institutions to research medical issues that affect Chinese citizens.
The coalition has also found that NIH has paid more than half a billion in funding grants to researchers to “conduct bizarre projects such as trying to find out if a mother rat will abandon her babies if given cocaine, and asking individuals to mail in their toenail clippings.”
"As our country heads to fiscal ruin, why are we giving millions in taxpayer dollars to Chinese science – which benefits China and its institutions – when they hold more than $1 trillion in American debt?" asked Andrea Lafferty, president of the TVC.
"It is simply unacceptable for the NIH to pay Chinese researchers to study acupuncture, or fund international research, when we are struggling to pay our own debts," she said. "That China, our biggest creditor, is the recipient makes this waste all the more credible."
China has also received a $718,000 EPA grant over the last decade for “air pollution” efforts.
The NIH-funded projects include $2 million for Chinese and American scientists to develop a vaccine against parasites that affect water buffalo, snails and about 1 million Chinese citizens.
In a statement to FoxNews.com, NIH defended its practices and research in China, saying "Americans benefit enormously from research that has taken place around the world."
For example, NIH spokesman John Burklow said, China, with the world’s largest population, "represents an important opportunity to examine a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention."
"International research on HIV/AIDS is essential, because this disease is a global epidemic that does not stop at national boundaries," he said.
He also said the study to develop a vaccine against parasites "will benefit many people around the world, including the many people in the U.S. who suffer from parasitic diseases."
Al Sharpton...the latest NBC New "talent"....He just like to hear himself talk!!!
Here's the kind of "talent" MSNBC puts on....Al Sharpton certainly won't help MSNBC's already lousy ratings.....He can't even speak good english!...All he likes to do is hear himself speak!
Boehner's in a Tough Spot...And he's done OK!
Boehner's been in a tough spot, but all in all I think he's handled it alright...he's a little too much a professional politician for me and lacks the passion and values of the more conservative House Republican members....But again all in all he's done ok...
"Queen" Michelle is ready to tell you what you can and can't eat....She knows best!
Are you ready for "queen" Michelle to tell you what you can and can't eat?...Are you ready for "king" Barack Hussien to begin to tax you on all food he thinks you shouldn't eat?....All the while they are personally living high on the hog in the White House eating all the best gormet foods while entertaining all of Hollywood.....These folks are a disgrace to America...they have no regard to for our freedoms....
Reid Bill Won't get Through the Senate!!!
Four Republicans did NOT sign McConnell's letter and need to be sent home at the NEXT ELECTION...they are the two RINO's from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe...that RINO from Mass. Scott Brown AND Lisa Murkowski....I would encourage everyone to write to each of them and express your discontent AGAIN with their bahavior....
Reid's bill is dead in the Senate...and why should the republicans even consider compromising on the Reid bill IF it never even gets passed in the Democrat controlled Senate...After all the House has proposed AND passed two pieces of legislation to avoid the debt ceiling crisis....Leave it to Reid and Obama to pick which of the two already passed pieces they want to move forward on...
What most Americans DO NOT understand is that all these negotiations are being based off of a basic assumption that national spending will increase by 7.5% over each of the next three years at least....How many American Families are planning to increase their spending by 7.5% each....I can tell you my family is spending less, not more....so even with the money Boehner is proposing in his last bill we will increase the debt in American by another $7 Trillion over the next ten years....so what's very obvious is that the current negotiations are not even touching the real issue of climbing debt.....With Obama and Democrats insisting on higher taxes and even more spending the Republicans cannot even begin to really address the crisis....
It's imperative that we win more elections...and it's imperative that in 2012 we win both control of the Senate AND the White House....Only then can the real problem begin to be addressed....
Congressional leaders struggle to work out bipartisan debt deal
By Lori Montgomery, Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez, Saturday, July 30, 12:47 PM
With just three days to go before Congress’s deadline to raise the debt ceiling and avoid sending the country into default, leaders continued to struggle Saturday to work out a bipartisan deal that can pass both chambers and be signed into law by President Obama.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) delivered a letter Saturday afternoon to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), signed by 43 Republicans, declaring that Reid’s debt-limit legislation was unacceptable.
Needing 60 votes to clear a filibuster hurdle, Reid’s current draft is assured of failure in a 1 a.m. vote Sunday. McConnell demanded that President Obama re-engage in negotiations. “It isn’t going to pass,” McConnell said Saturday in a floor speech. “Let’s get talking to the administration.”
Obama, meanwhile, repeated his call that Republicans must compromise and accept a “bipartisan” deal if the nation is to avoid its first-ever default.
“It must have the support of both parties that were sent here to represent the American people – not just one faction of one party,” the president said in his weekly address Saturday. “There are multiple ways to resolve this problem. Congress must find common ground on a plan that can get support from both parties in the House. And it’s got to be a plan that I can sign by Tuesday.”
The House was expected to vote around 2 p.m. on Reid’s debt ceiling plan. The vote will be on Reid’s original plan, not the re-worked version he presented in the Senate on Friday night — and it is expected to fail easily., just as House Speaker John Boehner’s plan failed late Friday in the Senate.
House GOP leaders won narrow approval of that plan to raise the federal debt limit Friday after revising the measure to appeal to rebellious conservatives.
Heading into the final weekend before the Treasury expects to begin running short of cash to pay the nation’s bills, Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a new version of his plan to grant the government additional borrowing authority into 2013, setting up a crucial vote in the Senate shortly after midnight Saturday.
Democrats conceded that they still lack the votes to repel a GOP filibuster. Reid beseeched his Republican counterpart, McConnell, to join him in reworking the measure so the Senate could pass it and send it back to the House before slumping financial markets open Monday morning.
But in a phone call Friday evening, McConnell told Reid he wanted the White House at the table and expressed frustration that President Obama had rejected an emerging compromise between the two Senate leaders last weekend. Aides said McConnell expected to speak with administration officials Friday night and tamped down talk of an impasse. But Senate Democratic leaders reacted with outrage, accusing McConnell of blocking a deal.
“Unless there is a compromise or they accept my bill, we’re headed for economic disaster,” Reid said.
The late-night jousting in the Senate followed a vote on House Speaker John A. Boehner’s debt-limit measure, which would extend the Treasury’s borrowing power until early next year and force another economy-rattling fistfight within a few months.
Drafted largely by aides to Reid and McConnell last weekend, the measure was originally designed to appeal to the more centrist Senate. But Boehner (R-Ohio) could not rally enough support from his tea-party-influenced caucus and had to rewrite it at the 11th hour to add a provision that would compel Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
The change swayed a handful of holdouts, and the measure passed 218 to 210, with every Democrat and more than 20 Republicans voting no. But the episode was a loss of face for the speaker and his leadership team, demonstrating a lack of clout within their own conference. Even their allies in the Senate were stunned.
“Yes, people can be critical of what we’ve done, but where are the other ideas?” Boehner said on the House floor. “At this point in time, the House is going to act and we’re going to act together.”
Ultimately, it was for naught. Within two hours, the Senate tabled the measure, 59 to 41, with six conservative Republicans joining all 53 senators in the Democratic caucus in voting against the bill.
Throughout the day, senators in both parties held out hope for a bipartisan compromise to resolve the relatively small, but significant, differences between the House and Senate bills.
“We’ve gone through all this acrimony. It’s been painful for everybody to watch, I know,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) “But I’m very confident that soon we’re going to get to a place where we’ll have a bill that can pass both chambers. And I’m totally confident that the American people have nothing to worry about as it relates to Tuesday.”
Before the House vote, President Obama added to the chorus calling for compromise. He argued that the two parties are not “miles apart” and that he was prepared to work “all weekend long until we find a solution.”
At their core, the House and Senate bills are strikingly similar, having emerged from the same bipartisan talks last weekend. Both call for cutting deeply into agency budgets over the next decade and creating a new 12-member committee of lawmakers tasked with identifying trillions of dollars in additional cuts by the end of this year.
But Reid’s bill would justify a larger increase in the debt limit by counting more than $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, savings Republicans dismiss as an accounting gimmick.
Boehner’s bill would give the Treasury a much shorter reprieve and require the committee to come up with $1.8 trillion in additional savings before the government could be granted additional borrowing power.
A new version of the legislation Reid unveiled Friday went a small part of the way to bridging the difference by aligning the size of the debt-limit increase and the spending cuts at $2.4 trillion. He kept the war savings, a sticking point for Republicans, but added a two-stage process for Obama to raise the debt limit without explicit congressional approval.
In brief remarks at the White House, Obama said the two sides are “in rough agreement” about the size of the first round of spending cuts and “the next step” to rein in borrowing. “If we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I’ll support that, too, if it’s done in a smart and balanced way,” Obama said.
Future cuts
Talks have been underway for weeks about how to structure a plan so that both parties are encouraged to engage seriously in negotiations over future debt reduction. Democrats want to require both tax hikes and across-the-board spending cuts — which would be unattractive to many lawmakers — if the committee refuses to come up with recommendations for added savings. But Republicans have rejected any trigger that includes a tax hike.
On Friday, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the design of that mechanism “is what all the negotiations are about.” He added, “That’s going to part of the endgame.”
Without such an agreement, Obama warned that the United States stands to lose its sterling AAA credit rating — “not because we didn’t have the capacity to pay our bills. We do. But because we didn’t have a triple-A political system to match our triple-A credit rating.”
Obama again urged Americans to contact their representatives, clogging Capitol Hill switchboards for a second time this week. The White House also tweeted a number of Twitter handles for Republican lawmakers so voters could press them to “get past this.”
The president’s lobbying campaign appeared to have little effect in the House, where attempts by Boehner to move toward the center were forcefully rebuffed.
GOP divisions
Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had staked their personal reputations on the ability to deliver an all-Republican majority for the legislation.
They explained to their rank and file that despite broad Republican support in the House for a balanced-budget amendment, an earlier bill including the proposal could not pass the Senate. And the leaders pleaded with GOP lawmakers to support Boehner’s legislation, arguing that a majority for the bill would give McConnell leverage to push it through the Senate — or at least to force concessions from Reid.
Aides described the vote on the bill as nothing short of a vote of confidence in the leadership. All three leaders predicted victory.
But Thursday night, they were still short by as many as a dozen votes. So they pulled the bill and rewrote it to meet the demands of the conservative rebels. The balanced-budget amendment was put back into the bill.
For 23 hours, neither Boehner nor any other Republican leader issued a formal statement or paused in the Capitol hallways to explain to reporters what had happened. On Friday, a chastened Boehner spoke in favor of the rewrite and defended his earlier effort to cut a far-reaching debt-reduction deal with Obama.
“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile,” Boehner said. “But a lot of people in this town can never say yes.”
Democrats openly mocked Boehner’s inability to lead his caucus.
“He didn’t have a plan. By Tuesday, they announced they couldn’t call a vote. Well, maybe Wednesday. No, on Wednesday, they couldn’t call a vote. And then on Thursday, again, they failed to have the majority to call a vote. And so we waited,” Durbin told reporters.
Even some Senate Republicans were perplexed by the disarray in the House.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) re-affirmed his criticism of the balanced-budget amendment as “bizarro.”
And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who served under Boehner in House leadership until his election to the Senate last year, said the rewritten House bill “may be more of a repeat” of the failed “cut, cap, balance” approach championed by conservatives “instead of a movement to being part of the solution.”
Boehner was “upbeat” during a luncheon with Senate Republicans, participants said, but senators exiting the meeting readily conceded that the House bill would not survive in the Senate. Blunt said talks were focused on finding a compromise that could pass the Democratic Senate and win support from a majority of Boehner’s Republicans.
“Not all of his members, but a majority,” Blunt said.
Boehner is likely to suffer defections if he brings up a Senate-passed compromise, and he would need House Democrats to fill in the gaps — a difficult position for him politically. But GOP senators said they believe Boehner stands ready to do what it takes to avoid a default.
“I think things are moving better than they appear to be moving,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “There’s agreement on cuts. And there’s almost unanimous knowledge that default is not in the cards. That’s the heart of the issue. The rest of it’s details.”
Reid's bill is dead in the Senate...and why should the republicans even consider compromising on the Reid bill IF it never even gets passed in the Democrat controlled Senate...After all the House has proposed AND passed two pieces of legislation to avoid the debt ceiling crisis....Leave it to Reid and Obama to pick which of the two already passed pieces they want to move forward on...
What most Americans DO NOT understand is that all these negotiations are being based off of a basic assumption that national spending will increase by 7.5% over each of the next three years at least....How many American Families are planning to increase their spending by 7.5% each....I can tell you my family is spending less, not more....so even with the money Boehner is proposing in his last bill we will increase the debt in American by another $7 Trillion over the next ten years....so what's very obvious is that the current negotiations are not even touching the real issue of climbing debt.....With Obama and Democrats insisting on higher taxes and even more spending the Republicans cannot even begin to really address the crisis....
It's imperative that we win more elections...and it's imperative that in 2012 we win both control of the Senate AND the White House....Only then can the real problem begin to be addressed....
Congressional leaders struggle to work out bipartisan debt deal
By Lori Montgomery, Paul Kane and Felicia Sonmez, Saturday, July 30, 12:47 PM
With just three days to go before Congress’s deadline to raise the debt ceiling and avoid sending the country into default, leaders continued to struggle Saturday to work out a bipartisan deal that can pass both chambers and be signed into law by President Obama.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) delivered a letter Saturday afternoon to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), signed by 43 Republicans, declaring that Reid’s debt-limit legislation was unacceptable.
Needing 60 votes to clear a filibuster hurdle, Reid’s current draft is assured of failure in a 1 a.m. vote Sunday. McConnell demanded that President Obama re-engage in negotiations. “It isn’t going to pass,” McConnell said Saturday in a floor speech. “Let’s get talking to the administration.”
Obama, meanwhile, repeated his call that Republicans must compromise and accept a “bipartisan” deal if the nation is to avoid its first-ever default.
“It must have the support of both parties that were sent here to represent the American people – not just one faction of one party,” the president said in his weekly address Saturday. “There are multiple ways to resolve this problem. Congress must find common ground on a plan that can get support from both parties in the House. And it’s got to be a plan that I can sign by Tuesday.”
The House was expected to vote around 2 p.m. on Reid’s debt ceiling plan. The vote will be on Reid’s original plan, not the re-worked version he presented in the Senate on Friday night — and it is expected to fail easily., just as House Speaker John Boehner’s plan failed late Friday in the Senate.
House GOP leaders won narrow approval of that plan to raise the federal debt limit Friday after revising the measure to appeal to rebellious conservatives.
Heading into the final weekend before the Treasury expects to begin running short of cash to pay the nation’s bills, Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a new version of his plan to grant the government additional borrowing authority into 2013, setting up a crucial vote in the Senate shortly after midnight Saturday.
Democrats conceded that they still lack the votes to repel a GOP filibuster. Reid beseeched his Republican counterpart, McConnell, to join him in reworking the measure so the Senate could pass it and send it back to the House before slumping financial markets open Monday morning.
But in a phone call Friday evening, McConnell told Reid he wanted the White House at the table and expressed frustration that President Obama had rejected an emerging compromise between the two Senate leaders last weekend. Aides said McConnell expected to speak with administration officials Friday night and tamped down talk of an impasse. But Senate Democratic leaders reacted with outrage, accusing McConnell of blocking a deal.
“Unless there is a compromise or they accept my bill, we’re headed for economic disaster,” Reid said.
The late-night jousting in the Senate followed a vote on House Speaker John A. Boehner’s debt-limit measure, which would extend the Treasury’s borrowing power until early next year and force another economy-rattling fistfight within a few months.
Drafted largely by aides to Reid and McConnell last weekend, the measure was originally designed to appeal to the more centrist Senate. But Boehner (R-Ohio) could not rally enough support from his tea-party-influenced caucus and had to rewrite it at the 11th hour to add a provision that would compel Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.
The change swayed a handful of holdouts, and the measure passed 218 to 210, with every Democrat and more than 20 Republicans voting no. But the episode was a loss of face for the speaker and his leadership team, demonstrating a lack of clout within their own conference. Even their allies in the Senate were stunned.
“Yes, people can be critical of what we’ve done, but where are the other ideas?” Boehner said on the House floor. “At this point in time, the House is going to act and we’re going to act together.”
Ultimately, it was for naught. Within two hours, the Senate tabled the measure, 59 to 41, with six conservative Republicans joining all 53 senators in the Democratic caucus in voting against the bill.
Throughout the day, senators in both parties held out hope for a bipartisan compromise to resolve the relatively small, but significant, differences between the House and Senate bills.
“We’ve gone through all this acrimony. It’s been painful for everybody to watch, I know,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) “But I’m very confident that soon we’re going to get to a place where we’ll have a bill that can pass both chambers. And I’m totally confident that the American people have nothing to worry about as it relates to Tuesday.”
Before the House vote, President Obama added to the chorus calling for compromise. He argued that the two parties are not “miles apart” and that he was prepared to work “all weekend long until we find a solution.”
At their core, the House and Senate bills are strikingly similar, having emerged from the same bipartisan talks last weekend. Both call for cutting deeply into agency budgets over the next decade and creating a new 12-member committee of lawmakers tasked with identifying trillions of dollars in additional cuts by the end of this year.
But Reid’s bill would justify a larger increase in the debt limit by counting more than $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, savings Republicans dismiss as an accounting gimmick.
Boehner’s bill would give the Treasury a much shorter reprieve and require the committee to come up with $1.8 trillion in additional savings before the government could be granted additional borrowing power.
A new version of the legislation Reid unveiled Friday went a small part of the way to bridging the difference by aligning the size of the debt-limit increase and the spending cuts at $2.4 trillion. He kept the war savings, a sticking point for Republicans, but added a two-stage process for Obama to raise the debt limit without explicit congressional approval.
In brief remarks at the White House, Obama said the two sides are “in rough agreement” about the size of the first round of spending cuts and “the next step” to rein in borrowing. “If we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I’ll support that, too, if it’s done in a smart and balanced way,” Obama said.
Future cuts
Talks have been underway for weeks about how to structure a plan so that both parties are encouraged to engage seriously in negotiations over future debt reduction. Democrats want to require both tax hikes and across-the-board spending cuts — which would be unattractive to many lawmakers — if the committee refuses to come up with recommendations for added savings. But Republicans have rejected any trigger that includes a tax hike.
On Friday, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the design of that mechanism “is what all the negotiations are about.” He added, “That’s going to part of the endgame.”
Without such an agreement, Obama warned that the United States stands to lose its sterling AAA credit rating — “not because we didn’t have the capacity to pay our bills. We do. But because we didn’t have a triple-A political system to match our triple-A credit rating.”
Obama again urged Americans to contact their representatives, clogging Capitol Hill switchboards for a second time this week. The White House also tweeted a number of Twitter handles for Republican lawmakers so voters could press them to “get past this.”
The president’s lobbying campaign appeared to have little effect in the House, where attempts by Boehner to move toward the center were forcefully rebuffed.
GOP divisions
Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had staked their personal reputations on the ability to deliver an all-Republican majority for the legislation.
They explained to their rank and file that despite broad Republican support in the House for a balanced-budget amendment, an earlier bill including the proposal could not pass the Senate. And the leaders pleaded with GOP lawmakers to support Boehner’s legislation, arguing that a majority for the bill would give McConnell leverage to push it through the Senate — or at least to force concessions from Reid.
Aides described the vote on the bill as nothing short of a vote of confidence in the leadership. All three leaders predicted victory.
But Thursday night, they were still short by as many as a dozen votes. So they pulled the bill and rewrote it to meet the demands of the conservative rebels. The balanced-budget amendment was put back into the bill.
For 23 hours, neither Boehner nor any other Republican leader issued a formal statement or paused in the Capitol hallways to explain to reporters what had happened. On Friday, a chastened Boehner spoke in favor of the rewrite and defended his earlier effort to cut a far-reaching debt-reduction deal with Obama.
“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile,” Boehner said. “But a lot of people in this town can never say yes.”
Democrats openly mocked Boehner’s inability to lead his caucus.
“He didn’t have a plan. By Tuesday, they announced they couldn’t call a vote. Well, maybe Wednesday. No, on Wednesday, they couldn’t call a vote. And then on Thursday, again, they failed to have the majority to call a vote. And so we waited,” Durbin told reporters.
Even some Senate Republicans were perplexed by the disarray in the House.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) re-affirmed his criticism of the balanced-budget amendment as “bizarro.”
And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who served under Boehner in House leadership until his election to the Senate last year, said the rewritten House bill “may be more of a repeat” of the failed “cut, cap, balance” approach championed by conservatives “instead of a movement to being part of the solution.”
Boehner was “upbeat” during a luncheon with Senate Republicans, participants said, but senators exiting the meeting readily conceded that the House bill would not survive in the Senate. Blunt said talks were focused on finding a compromise that could pass the Democratic Senate and win support from a majority of Boehner’s Republicans.
“Not all of his members, but a majority,” Blunt said.
Boehner is likely to suffer defections if he brings up a Senate-passed compromise, and he would need House Democrats to fill in the gaps — a difficult position for him politically. But GOP senators said they believe Boehner stands ready to do what it takes to avoid a default.
“I think things are moving better than they appear to be moving,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). “There’s agreement on cuts. And there’s almost unanimous knowledge that default is not in the cards. That’s the heart of the issue. The rest of it’s details.”
Friday, July 29, 2011
If we lose our AAA Credit Rating, it's because of Obama...
Time to start looking in the mirror Barack...You and your policies are the problem...you have not led at all in the crisis, just like you have not led in any other crisis we've had since you became President!
Once again you are the "teflon" man...you take NO responsiblity..all you do is blame others....it's either Bushs' fault...or it's Wall St's fault...or it's the Bankers fault...or it's the republicans fault....Look in the MIRROR BARACK...it's YOUR FAULT!
Once again you are the "teflon" man...you take NO responsiblity..all you do is blame others....it's either Bushs' fault...or it's Wall St's fault...or it's the Bankers fault...or it's the republicans fault....Look in the MIRROR BARACK...it's YOUR FAULT!
Allen West is Correct!
As much as I like the hard position of the Tea Party diehards, I think that Allen West's position is the right one...with this ideological, stubborn President and the nut-case Democrats this is probably one of the best offers we can get right now...it's just a battle...the war is not OVER!!!...
Not voting for the Boehner plan is just voting with "dirty" Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama...and that is not acceptable....
This debt issue will not really be resolved UNTIL we get control of the Senate in addition to the House, and then get the Presidency in 2012...the election of 2010 has had consequences already...with victories in the next election we can finally be in the position to get this problem really handled in the name of the American People....
Not voting for the Boehner plan is just voting with "dirty" Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama...and that is not acceptable....
This debt issue will not really be resolved UNTIL we get control of the Senate in addition to the House, and then get the Presidency in 2012...the election of 2010 has had consequences already...with victories in the next election we can finally be in the position to get this problem really handled in the name of the American People....
Lack of Presidential Leadership...Obama doesn't even know the root of the problems....
Struggle to Solve Debt Limit Crisis Goes On
Last night, the House of Representatives was set to vote on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) plan to raise the debt ceiling, as the projected August 2 deadline looms. Failing to round up enough votes to secure the bill’s passage, House Republicans closed up shop for the night and are scheduled to reconvene this morning, hoping to bring a bill back to the House floor with enough support to pass, as Politico reports. Inside baseball, last-minute vote wrangling aside, a much larger problem remains: Even if the Boehner bill passed and became law, America would continue its downward spiral into a fiscal abyss with no end in sight.
One reason is a lack of presidential leadership.
Why can't the Congress take these issues seriously? President Barack Obama has attempted to portray himself as taking America’s spending crisis head on while calling for “shared sacrifices” to return the country to a course of fiscal sanity. Yet the President has replaced leadership with spectatorship. While the House passes bill after bill on the budget, the President can only carp, while the Senate can only bluster and stew.
Leadership requires speaking plainly and directly to the American people. Instead, the President prefers code to disguise his intentions. To the President, the phrase “shared sacrifices” means tax increases, and his end goal is to keep up his big spending ways. After all, he sees government spending as the best way to create his vision of society in the long term and the best way to spur economic growth in the short run—even though his hundreds and billions of dollars in stimulus spending have left the economy stuck in the mud. Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent, and economic growth is stagnating. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that U.S. GDP rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter (lower than economists’ expectations), and first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4 percent gain from 1.9 percent.
The President’s strategy is no surprise. Heritage called Obama out on his fiscal policies at the start of his Administration, noting he was pursuing a “glut the beast” strategy: Pump spending up as high as possible, trigger a crisis, and use the crisis to force through higher taxes. Obama has, at least, played true to form.
Sacrifices, though, aren’t the only things he would like to share. With the nation’s focus now squarely set on massive deficits, the President has attempted to shift the blame for the country’s woes away from his policies—namely, to prior Administrations. The President repeatedly claims that “neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem” and often points to the George W. Bush Administration as the root cause of the crisis.
That’s simply not true. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year. Without a doubt, deficits during the Bush Administration were too high, especially in the early years, and more should have been done to restrain spending. But those deficits were puny compared to what Obama and his congressional allies have inflicted.
Obama’s budget would set America on a dangerous fiscal course that leads to massive deficits well into the future—hitting $1.2 trillion in 2012 and, after dipping slightly, rising back to $1.2 trillion again by 2021. (You can see an illustration of where those deficits are headed here.) Even after the massive tax hikes included in Obama’s budget, federal deficits total $9.5 trillion. Under the President’s budget, the national debt would more than double in just 10 years, pushing America over a fiscal cliff.
The problem, in short, is too much spending—not a shortage of taxes. And the biggest driver of that spending is entitlements (though Obama’s stimulus certainly didn’t help). Terrifyingly, those entitlements (which include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will consume all tax revenues by 2049 if taxes remain at their historical norms, as this chart shows. And even under the President’s budget for 2012, entitlements consume 58 percent of spending.
Disastrous entitlement spending has fallen by the wayside in the debt limit debate. President Obama speaks grandly of America coming together to solve this collective problem, but he ignores the real long-term problem, all while economic growth slows and unemployment remains high in the Obama economy. As the White House and Congress continue to focus on a fix to the debt ceiling crisis, they ought to take a look in the mirror and see the real cause of America’s fiscal mess.
Last night, the House of Representatives was set to vote on House Speaker John Boehner’s (R–OH) plan to raise the debt ceiling, as the projected August 2 deadline looms. Failing to round up enough votes to secure the bill’s passage, House Republicans closed up shop for the night and are scheduled to reconvene this morning, hoping to bring a bill back to the House floor with enough support to pass, as Politico reports. Inside baseball, last-minute vote wrangling aside, a much larger problem remains: Even if the Boehner bill passed and became law, America would continue its downward spiral into a fiscal abyss with no end in sight.
One reason is a lack of presidential leadership.
Why can't the Congress take these issues seriously? President Barack Obama has attempted to portray himself as taking America’s spending crisis head on while calling for “shared sacrifices” to return the country to a course of fiscal sanity. Yet the President has replaced leadership with spectatorship. While the House passes bill after bill on the budget, the President can only carp, while the Senate can only bluster and stew.
Leadership requires speaking plainly and directly to the American people. Instead, the President prefers code to disguise his intentions. To the President, the phrase “shared sacrifices” means tax increases, and his end goal is to keep up his big spending ways. After all, he sees government spending as the best way to create his vision of society in the long term and the best way to spur economic growth in the short run—even though his hundreds and billions of dollars in stimulus spending have left the economy stuck in the mud. Unemployment remains at 9.2 percent, and economic growth is stagnating. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that U.S. GDP rose at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter (lower than economists’ expectations), and first-quarter growth was revised down sharply to a 0.4 percent gain from 1.9 percent.
The President’s strategy is no surprise. Heritage called Obama out on his fiscal policies at the start of his Administration, noting he was pursuing a “glut the beast” strategy: Pump spending up as high as possible, trigger a crisis, and use the crisis to force through higher taxes. Obama has, at least, played true to form.
Sacrifices, though, aren’t the only things he would like to share. With the nation’s focus now squarely set on massive deficits, the President has attempted to shift the blame for the country’s woes away from his policies—namely, to prior Administrations. The President repeatedly claims that “neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem” and often points to the George W. Bush Administration as the root cause of the crisis.
That’s simply not true. One simple number explains it well: the budget deficit figure in 2007, the last Bush year prior to the recession. The tax cuts were in full effect, both wars were raging, and the recession had not yet struck, yet the budget deficit in 2007 was $160 billion, or about a tenth of Obama’s deficit this year. Without a doubt, deficits during the Bush Administration were too high, especially in the early years, and more should have been done to restrain spending. But those deficits were puny compared to what Obama and his congressional allies have inflicted.
Obama’s budget would set America on a dangerous fiscal course that leads to massive deficits well into the future—hitting $1.2 trillion in 2012 and, after dipping slightly, rising back to $1.2 trillion again by 2021. (You can see an illustration of where those deficits are headed here.) Even after the massive tax hikes included in Obama’s budget, federal deficits total $9.5 trillion. Under the President’s budget, the national debt would more than double in just 10 years, pushing America over a fiscal cliff.
The problem, in short, is too much spending—not a shortage of taxes. And the biggest driver of that spending is entitlements (though Obama’s stimulus certainly didn’t help). Terrifyingly, those entitlements (which include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will consume all tax revenues by 2049 if taxes remain at their historical norms, as this chart shows. And even under the President’s budget for 2012, entitlements consume 58 percent of spending.
Disastrous entitlement spending has fallen by the wayside in the debt limit debate. President Obama speaks grandly of America coming together to solve this collective problem, but he ignores the real long-term problem, all while economic growth slows and unemployment remains high in the Obama economy. As the White House and Congress continue to focus on a fix to the debt ceiling crisis, they ought to take a look in the mirror and see the real cause of America’s fiscal mess.
Piers Morgan needs to be OFF American Television...
I listened to Piers last night on CNN...it might have well been MSNBC from it's obvious liberal bent...this guy shouldn't be on American Television...At Least not in any news capacity...he's ok as a judge on America's Got Talent, but that's it....Another Reason why no one watches CNN...
Obama's a LOSER!
They've Lost That Lovin' Feeling Obama still has supporters, but theirs is a grim support
By PEGGY NONNAN
The Republican establishment reasserted itself this week, and good thing, too, because the establishment was right. It said Republicans in the House should back and pass the Boehner bill on the debt ceiling because it goes in the right directions, contains spending cuts but not taxes, and is viable. So accept victory, avert crisis, and get it to the Senate.
The establishment was being conservative in the Burkean sense: acknowledges reality, respect it, and make the most progress possible within it. This has not always been true of them. They spent the first decade of this century backing things a truly conservative party would not have dreamed of—careless wars, huge spending and, most scandalously, a dreamy and unconservative assumption that it would all work out because life is sweet and the best thing always happens. They were mostly led by men and women who had never been foreclosed on and who assumed good luck, especially unearned good luck, would continue. They were fools, and they lost control of their party when the tea party rose up, rebuking and embarrassing them. Then the tea party saved them by not going third party in 2009-10. And now the establishment has come forward to save the tea party, by inching it away from the cliff and reminding it the true battles are in 2012, and after. Let's hope the tea party takes the opportunity.
As this is written the White House seems desperate to be seen as consequential. They're trotting out Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat as he insists President Obama is still at the table, still manning the phones and calling shots. Much is uncertain, but the Republicans have made great strides on policy. If they emerge victorious, they had better not crow. The nation is in a continuing crisis, our credit rating is not secure, and no one's interested in he-man gangster dialogue from "The Town." What might thrill America would be a little modesty: "We know we helped get America into some of this trouble, and we hope we've made some progress today in getting us out of it."
But that actually is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.
It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.
The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."
Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don't care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.
The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people. The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The "Analytics Department" is looking for "predictive Modeling/Data Mining" specialists to join the campaign's "multi-disciplinary team of statisticians," which will use "predictive modeling" to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. "We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions."
This wasn't the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of '92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?
Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation's longing for unity. We're not divided into red states and blue, he said, we're Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: "You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we've been dealing with? I won't do that. I'm not Bush."
The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.
And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.
So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.
By PEGGY NONNAN
The Republican establishment reasserted itself this week, and good thing, too, because the establishment was right. It said Republicans in the House should back and pass the Boehner bill on the debt ceiling because it goes in the right directions, contains spending cuts but not taxes, and is viable. So accept victory, avert crisis, and get it to the Senate.
The establishment was being conservative in the Burkean sense: acknowledges reality, respect it, and make the most progress possible within it. This has not always been true of them. They spent the first decade of this century backing things a truly conservative party would not have dreamed of—careless wars, huge spending and, most scandalously, a dreamy and unconservative assumption that it would all work out because life is sweet and the best thing always happens. They were mostly led by men and women who had never been foreclosed on and who assumed good luck, especially unearned good luck, would continue. They were fools, and they lost control of their party when the tea party rose up, rebuking and embarrassing them. Then the tea party saved them by not going third party in 2009-10. And now the establishment has come forward to save the tea party, by inching it away from the cliff and reminding it the true battles are in 2012, and after. Let's hope the tea party takes the opportunity.
As this is written the White House seems desperate to be seen as consequential. They're trotting out Press Secretary Jay Carney, who stands there looking like a ferret with flop sweat as he insists President Obama is still at the table, still manning the phones and calling shots. Much is uncertain, but the Republicans have made great strides on policy. If they emerge victorious, they had better not crow. The nation is in a continuing crisis, our credit rating is not secure, and no one's interested in he-man gangster dialogue from "The Town." What might thrill America would be a little modesty: "We know we helped get America into some of this trouble, and we hope we've made some progress today in getting us out of it."
But that actually is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about something that started to become apparent to me during the debt negotiations. It's something I've never seen in national politics.
It is that nobody loves Obama. This is amazing because every president has people who love him, who feel deep personal affection or connection, who have a stubborn, even beautiful refusal to let what they know are just criticisms affect their feelings of regard. At the height of Bill Clinton's troubles there were always people who'd say, "Look, I love the guy." They'd often be smiling—a wry smile, a shrugging smile. Nobody smiles when they talk about Mr. Obama. There were people who loved George W. Bush when he was at his most unpopular, and they meant it and would say it. But people aren't that way about Mr. Obama. He has supporters and bundlers and contributors, he has voters, he may win. But his support is grim support. And surely this has implications.
The past few weeks I've asked Democrats who supported him how they feel about him. I got back nothing that showed personal investment. Here are the words of a hard-line progressive and wise veteran of the political wars: "I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did 'love' him, I can't think of anyone who still does." Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? "Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring." With Bush, "if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is 'genuine.'" He "doesn't exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine."
Maybe Mr. Obama is living proof of the political maxim that they don't care what you know unless they know that you care. But the idea that he is aloof and so inspires aloofness may be too pat. No one was colder than FDR, deep down. But he loved the game and did a wonderful daily impersonation of jut-jawed joy. And people loved him.
The secret of Mr. Obama is that he isn't really very good at politics, and he isn't good at politics because he doesn't really get people. The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The "Analytics Department" is looking for "predictive Modeling/Data Mining" specialists to join the campaign's "multi-disciplinary team of statisticians," which will use "predictive modeling" to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. "We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions."
This wasn't the passionate, take-no-prisoners Clinton War Room of '92, it was high-tech and bloodless. Is that what politics is now? Or does the Obama re-election effort reflect the candidate and his flaws?
Mr. Obama seemed brilliant at politics when he first emerged in 2004. He understood the nation's longing for unity. We're not divided into red states and blue, he said, we're Big Purple, we can solve our problems together. Four years later he read the lay of the land perfectly—really, perfectly. The nation and the Democratic Party were tired of the Clinton machine. He came from nowhere and dismantled it. It was breathtaking. He went into the 2008 general election with a miraculously unified party and took down another machine, bundling up all the accrued resentment of eight years with one message: "You know the two losing wars and the economic collapse we've been dealing with? I won't do that. I'm not Bush."
The fact is, he's good at dismantling. He's good at critiquing. He's good at not being the last guy, the one you didn't like. But he's not good at building, creating, calling into being. He was good at summoning hope, but he's not good at directing it and turning it into something concrete that answers a broad public desire.
And so his failures in the debt ceiling fight. He wasn't serious, he was only shrewd—and shrewdness wasn't enough. He demagogued the issue—no Social Security checks—until he was called out, and then went on the hustings spouting inanities. He left conservatives scratching their heads: They could have made a better, more moving case for the liberal ideal as translated into the modern moment, than he did. He never offered a plan. In a crisis he was merely sly. And no one likes sly, no one respects it.
So he is losing a battle in which he had superior forces—the presidency, the U.S. senate. In the process he revealed that his foes have given him too much mystique. He is not a devil, an alien, a socialist. He is a loser. And this is America, where nobody loves a loser.
Great Job Barack.....NOT!
You and your policies are really getting the economy moving Barack.....NOT!...You do NOT deserve another term as President....you need to be soundly beaten in the 2012 election...
Q2 growth tepid; Q1 revised down sharply
WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:09am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy came perilously close to flat-lining in the first quarter and grew at a meager 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June period as consumer spending barely rose.
The Commerce Department data on Friday also showed the current lull in the economy began earlier than had been thought, with the growth losing steam late last year.
That could raise questions on the long held view by both Federal Reserve officials and independent economists that the slowdown in growth as the year started was largely the result of transitory factors.
Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from a 1.9 percent increase.
Economists had expected the economy to expand at a 1.8 percent rate in the second quarter. Fourth-quarter growth was revised to a 2.3 percent rate from 3.1 percent.
"The second quarter disappointed, but the first-quarter downward revision is more disturbing. It advances the pangs of concern. The debt ceiling nonsense is not going to help us. We're already in an economy that is subpar," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida.
"Gasoline price increasing from $3 to $4, that really slapped the consumer back considerably."
U.S. stock index futures added to losses and government debt prices extended gains after the weak GDP data. The dollar fell to a four-month low against the yen, while the Swiss franc hit a record high against the greenback.
FUNDAMENTAL SLOWDOWN?
Economists had expected the economy would show signs of perking up by now with Japan supply constraints easing and gasoline prices off their high, but data has disappointed.
This and the sharp downward revisions to the prior quarters suggest a more troubling and fundamental slowdown might be underway.
There is also heightened uncertainty over the outlook because of the impasse in talks to raise the nation's borrowing limit and avoid a damaging government debt default.
The Treasury says the government will soon run out of money to pay all its bills.
Economists have warned that a debt default could push the fragile economy over the edge.
"Clearly this is evidence of a mid-cycle slowdown. The only question now is do we see a pick up in the second half and so far the economic data to date doesn't suggest that," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management in Bedford Hills, New York.
Data released on Friday showed the 2007-2009 recession was much more severe than prior measures had found, with economic output declining a cumulative of 5.1 percent instead of 4.1 percent.
The annual revisions of GDP data from the Commerce Department showed the economy contracted at an annual average rate of 0.3 percent between 2007 and 2010. Output over that stretch had previously been estimated to have been flat.
The economy needs to grow at a rate of 2.5 percent or better on a sustained basis to chip away at the nation's 9.2 percent unemployment rate.
CONSUMER SPENDING BRAKED SHARPLY
The March earthquake in Japan severely disrupted U.S. auto production. The resulting shortage of motor vehicles weighed on retail sales as consumers were unable to find the models they wanted. That combined with high gasoline costs to curb spending.
Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, decelerated sharply to a 0.1 percent rate -- the weakest since the recession ended two years ago.
Spending grew at a 2.1 percent pace in the first quarter.
Motor vehicle production subtracted 0.12 percentage point from gross domestic product growth in the second quarter, after adding 1.08 percentage points to first-quarter GDP growth.
The composition of growth in the April-June quarter was weak and could prompt economists to dial down their expectations for a quick and solid rebound in the third quarter.
A smaller trade deficit, as imports slowed, was one of the main contributors to the rise in second-quarter growth, with businesses spending and inventory investment also adding to output.
Government spending declined again in the second quarter as state and local authorities continued to pare their budgets, even though defense expenditures rebounded at 7.3 percent rate after contracting at a 12.6 percent rate in the first three months of the year.
Home building rose at a 3.8 percent pace, while investment in nonresidential structures increased at an 8.1 percent rate.
The easing of the auto parts disruptions and a drop in gasoline prices could be a tail wind to third-quarter growth, but economists are concerned that June data was rather weak.
The report also showed a moderation in inflation pressures, with the personal consumption expenditure price index rising at a 3.1 percent rate after rising 3.9 percent in the first quarter. Excluding food and energy, the core PCE index rose 2.1 percent, the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2009, after rising 1.6 percent in the first quarter. It overshot the Federal Reserve's preferred 2.0 percent level.
Q2 growth tepid; Q1 revised down sharply
WASHINGTON | Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:09am EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy came perilously close to flat-lining in the first quarter and grew at a meager 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June period as consumer spending barely rose.
The Commerce Department data on Friday also showed the current lull in the economy began earlier than had been thought, with the growth losing steam late last year.
That could raise questions on the long held view by both Federal Reserve officials and independent economists that the slowdown in growth as the year started was largely the result of transitory factors.
Growth in gross domestic product -- a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders - rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate. First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from a 1.9 percent increase.
Economists had expected the economy to expand at a 1.8 percent rate in the second quarter. Fourth-quarter growth was revised to a 2.3 percent rate from 3.1 percent.
"The second quarter disappointed, but the first-quarter downward revision is more disturbing. It advances the pangs of concern. The debt ceiling nonsense is not going to help us. We're already in an economy that is subpar," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James in St. Petersburg, Florida.
"Gasoline price increasing from $3 to $4, that really slapped the consumer back considerably."
U.S. stock index futures added to losses and government debt prices extended gains after the weak GDP data. The dollar fell to a four-month low against the yen, while the Swiss franc hit a record high against the greenback.
FUNDAMENTAL SLOWDOWN?
Economists had expected the economy would show signs of perking up by now with Japan supply constraints easing and gasoline prices off their high, but data has disappointed.
This and the sharp downward revisions to the prior quarters suggest a more troubling and fundamental slowdown might be underway.
There is also heightened uncertainty over the outlook because of the impasse in talks to raise the nation's borrowing limit and avoid a damaging government debt default.
The Treasury says the government will soon run out of money to pay all its bills.
Economists have warned that a debt default could push the fragile economy over the edge.
"Clearly this is evidence of a mid-cycle slowdown. The only question now is do we see a pick up in the second half and so far the economic data to date doesn't suggest that," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management in Bedford Hills, New York.
Data released on Friday showed the 2007-2009 recession was much more severe than prior measures had found, with economic output declining a cumulative of 5.1 percent instead of 4.1 percent.
The annual revisions of GDP data from the Commerce Department showed the economy contracted at an annual average rate of 0.3 percent between 2007 and 2010. Output over that stretch had previously been estimated to have been flat.
The economy needs to grow at a rate of 2.5 percent or better on a sustained basis to chip away at the nation's 9.2 percent unemployment rate.
CONSUMER SPENDING BRAKED SHARPLY
The March earthquake in Japan severely disrupted U.S. auto production. The resulting shortage of motor vehicles weighed on retail sales as consumers were unable to find the models they wanted. That combined with high gasoline costs to curb spending.
Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, decelerated sharply to a 0.1 percent rate -- the weakest since the recession ended two years ago.
Spending grew at a 2.1 percent pace in the first quarter.
Motor vehicle production subtracted 0.12 percentage point from gross domestic product growth in the second quarter, after adding 1.08 percentage points to first-quarter GDP growth.
The composition of growth in the April-June quarter was weak and could prompt economists to dial down their expectations for a quick and solid rebound in the third quarter.
A smaller trade deficit, as imports slowed, was one of the main contributors to the rise in second-quarter growth, with businesses spending and inventory investment also adding to output.
Government spending declined again in the second quarter as state and local authorities continued to pare their budgets, even though defense expenditures rebounded at 7.3 percent rate after contracting at a 12.6 percent rate in the first three months of the year.
Home building rose at a 3.8 percent pace, while investment in nonresidential structures increased at an 8.1 percent rate.
The easing of the auto parts disruptions and a drop in gasoline prices could be a tail wind to third-quarter growth, but economists are concerned that June data was rather weak.
The report also showed a moderation in inflation pressures, with the personal consumption expenditure price index rising at a 3.1 percent rate after rising 3.9 percent in the first quarter. Excluding food and energy, the core PCE index rose 2.1 percent, the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2009, after rising 1.6 percent in the first quarter. It overshot the Federal Reserve's preferred 2.0 percent level.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Another Corrupt Democrat in Obama's Administration!
Another Corrupt Person from the Obama Administration...this has to be one of the most corrupt administrations ever in America's History!
Obama Senior Official Resigns Amid Corruption Investigation
Published July 28, 2011 | Associated Press
An assistant secretary at the Department of Labor has resigned after an internal investigation found that he improperly steered federal contracts to friends and former colleagues.
A report by the agency's inspector general says Raymond Jefferson used his position as head of the Veterans Employment and Training Service to pressure or intimidate other employees to make the awards.
Jefferson left his post on Tuesday. He was appointed by President Obama in 2009.
The report says Jefferson helped one friend get hired as a subcontractor for about $700,000. That was twice as much as other firms were paid for similar work.
The Labor Department says it has taken steps to restrict the contracting authority of officials at the agency.
Obama Senior Official Resigns Amid Corruption Investigation
Published July 28, 2011 | Associated Press
An assistant secretary at the Department of Labor has resigned after an internal investigation found that he improperly steered federal contracts to friends and former colleagues.
A report by the agency's inspector general says Raymond Jefferson used his position as head of the Veterans Employment and Training Service to pressure or intimidate other employees to make the awards.
Jefferson left his post on Tuesday. He was appointed by President Obama in 2009.
The report says Jefferson helped one friend get hired as a subcontractor for about $700,000. That was twice as much as other firms were paid for similar work.
The Labor Department says it has taken steps to restrict the contracting authority of officials at the agency.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Good News Here....Yes it's the House Republicans and here's why....
Editorial -
I think it's interesting that many of us wanted non politicians to take office in Washington and last November the nation did in fact elect a lot of non politicians to office...especially in the Republican Party on the House side!...and now we are seeing these non politicians standing up for their principles and saying no!!!....I think that's really what we want...If these were all professional politicians they would be caving by the minute...they would be going back on every campaign promise they ever made...which really tells you the that we need term limits more than ever before.
I think this is a good sign...we have people in Congress (especially the freshman republicans in the House) that have integrity and are doing everything they can do to stick to the promised they made when they were elected.
So I think that anyone/everyone that is criticizing these "tea party" republicans needs to take another look...We need more folks in Congress that are willing to take the heat and stand up for what is right and do what they have promised their consitituents they would do if elected...
On the flip side just look at the professional politicians....if they are not quitting because they have been messing around with 18 year old girls, they are just pontificating and repeating all the "talking points" their party leadership has given them.... and trust me most are looking for any way possible to do what they think they need to do to get reelected, whether it is consistent with the promises made during their last election campaign or not. Just look at Obama...he's avoided doing just about everything he has promised he would do during his 2008 campaign...
I vote for integrity and honor AND for Non-politicians in Congress and the White House...
Steve
I think it's interesting that many of us wanted non politicians to take office in Washington and last November the nation did in fact elect a lot of non politicians to office...especially in the Republican Party on the House side!...and now we are seeing these non politicians standing up for their principles and saying no!!!....I think that's really what we want...If these were all professional politicians they would be caving by the minute...they would be going back on every campaign promise they ever made...which really tells you the that we need term limits more than ever before.
I think this is a good sign...we have people in Congress (especially the freshman republicans in the House) that have integrity and are doing everything they can do to stick to the promised they made when they were elected.
So I think that anyone/everyone that is criticizing these "tea party" republicans needs to take another look...We need more folks in Congress that are willing to take the heat and stand up for what is right and do what they have promised their consitituents they would do if elected...
On the flip side just look at the professional politicians....if they are not quitting because they have been messing around with 18 year old girls, they are just pontificating and repeating all the "talking points" their party leadership has given them.... and trust me most are looking for any way possible to do what they think they need to do to get reelected, whether it is consistent with the promises made during their last election campaign or not. Just look at Obama...he's avoided doing just about everything he has promised he would do during his 2008 campaign...
I vote for integrity and honor AND for Non-politicians in Congress and the White House...
Steve
It's Time to Do What's Do'able....
Boehner says it's time to do what's do'able....And I am not sure that is not correct....Although no one would agree that the spending cuts are as big as we would like, there are NO tax increases and Obama doesn't get to put spending aside for the until after the next election...
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The President has put NOTHING on paper...
This President has put NOTHING on paper....he has not plan....he has not led...he is a pathetic excuse for a President!....he is ridiculous....AND the truth is Obama does NOT have the approval of the Democrats so even it a plan manifested itself Obama probably couldn't get it through his own party....All Obama's team is doing AGAIN is lying....
The American People Continue to Wake Up to the Total Incompetence of Obama!
New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles
July 26, 2011 | 3:04 am 99213
With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said:
"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."
This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse.
But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.
Closely read the transcript of Obama's Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner's response is right here.
An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach
Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.
The nation's top talker uttered 4,526 words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.
That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.
Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority.
Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.
Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy.
Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:
Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."
Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?
A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.
A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.
To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.
But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.
"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base," the Post reports.
Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.
July 26, 2011 | 3:04 am 99213
With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said:
"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."
This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse.
But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.
Closely read the transcript of Obama's Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner's response is right here.
An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach
Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.
The nation's top talker uttered 4,526 words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.
That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.
Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority.
Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.
Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy.
Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:
Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."
Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?
A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.
A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.
To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.
But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.
"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base," the Post reports.
Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.
It Looks like we won't get a real solution to the debt problem...who's fault??? OBAMA's Fault!
America Needs a Better Solution
Americans tuning in last night to watch President Barack Obama's primetime address from the East Room of the White House might have thought they stumbled upon yet another re-run from the networks. Instead of hearing news that Washington finally broke the debt ceiling stalemate, viewers were treated to more of the same from their President. He still had no plan for dealing with government overspending and overborrowing, and he repeated his never-ending call for tax hikes. Unfortunately, the plans proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) don't get the job done, either.
The President's speech came as America stands at a fiscal precipice, with just a week to go before the August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling. Though the credit rating agencies see America's risk of default as small (though increasing), there remains the other, more serious risk--the failure to do enough to bring down debt in order to avoid a downgraded credit rating. Standard and Poor's warns that Congress and the Administration:
[Might] agree to a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio.”
Boehner and Reid have both offered proposals to raise the debt limit in order to avoid default, but their plans leave too much undone. Of the Boehner plan, Heritage's Alison Fraser writes that though the proposal would cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending, there's no guarantee that those cuts will occur, its results would offer only modest reductions in publicly held debt under the best scenarios, and the plan would do nothing to reform entitlements—the real driver of our deficits in the future. Meanwhile, the Reid plan falls short of Boehner's by $800 billion. In short, neither plan does enough to reduce America's debt, and neither would address the concerns raised by the credit rating agencies. Fraser explains:
Neither of this week’s dueling debt ceiling proposals would pass the test from Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s for a credible, firm and actionable plan that would turn the tide of our deficits to put our debt on a manageable track. And if that holds true, then a downgrade by the rating agencies could occur smack in the very election year the President is trying to scoot through.
Because spending is set to grow so significantly over the decade, the kind of onesie-twosie approach to cutting spending and increasing the debt limit is simply not adequate. Net interest payments are projected to more than triple over the next decade. The longer Congress waits to seriously control spending, the more it will have to cut just to offset bourgeoning interest costs. And if interest rates suddenly rise? Well, we have an even bigger problem on our hands.
Last night, when President Obama attempted to explain the nation's debt problems, he said that every family knows that "a little credit card debt is manageable." With $14.294 trillion in debt, the President grossly understates the problem—and he forgets that Americans are well aware of Washington's spending addiction.
Half measures, though, won't solve America's debt crisis. They won't fool the credit ratings agencies, and they won't satisfy the American people. Heritage's David Addington writes, "Forget the McConnell, McConnell–Reid, Coburn, Gang-of-Six, Boehner, and Reid plans. Go with the American plan — cut government spending, deeply and right now, for the good of the country." That's good advice for our leaders in Washington, no matter which side of the aisle they fall on.
Americans tuning in last night to watch President Barack Obama's primetime address from the East Room of the White House might have thought they stumbled upon yet another re-run from the networks. Instead of hearing news that Washington finally broke the debt ceiling stalemate, viewers were treated to more of the same from their President. He still had no plan for dealing with government overspending and overborrowing, and he repeated his never-ending call for tax hikes. Unfortunately, the plans proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) don't get the job done, either.
The President's speech came as America stands at a fiscal precipice, with just a week to go before the August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling. Though the credit rating agencies see America's risk of default as small (though increasing), there remains the other, more serious risk--the failure to do enough to bring down debt in order to avoid a downgraded credit rating. Standard and Poor's warns that Congress and the Administration:
[Might] agree to a plan that, while avoiding a near-term default, might not, in our view, materially improve our base case expectation for the future path of the net general government debt-to-GDP ratio.”
Boehner and Reid have both offered proposals to raise the debt limit in order to avoid default, but their plans leave too much undone. Of the Boehner plan, Heritage's Alison Fraser writes that though the proposal would cut $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending, there's no guarantee that those cuts will occur, its results would offer only modest reductions in publicly held debt under the best scenarios, and the plan would do nothing to reform entitlements—the real driver of our deficits in the future. Meanwhile, the Reid plan falls short of Boehner's by $800 billion. In short, neither plan does enough to reduce America's debt, and neither would address the concerns raised by the credit rating agencies. Fraser explains:
Neither of this week’s dueling debt ceiling proposals would pass the test from Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s for a credible, firm and actionable plan that would turn the tide of our deficits to put our debt on a manageable track. And if that holds true, then a downgrade by the rating agencies could occur smack in the very election year the President is trying to scoot through.
Because spending is set to grow so significantly over the decade, the kind of onesie-twosie approach to cutting spending and increasing the debt limit is simply not adequate. Net interest payments are projected to more than triple over the next decade. The longer Congress waits to seriously control spending, the more it will have to cut just to offset bourgeoning interest costs. And if interest rates suddenly rise? Well, we have an even bigger problem on our hands.
Last night, when President Obama attempted to explain the nation's debt problems, he said that every family knows that "a little credit card debt is manageable." With $14.294 trillion in debt, the President grossly understates the problem—and he forgets that Americans are well aware of Washington's spending addiction.
Half measures, though, won't solve America's debt crisis. They won't fool the credit ratings agencies, and they won't satisfy the American people. Heritage's David Addington writes, "Forget the McConnell, McConnell–Reid, Coburn, Gang-of-Six, Boehner, and Reid plans. Go with the American plan — cut government spending, deeply and right now, for the good of the country." That's good advice for our leaders in Washington, no matter which side of the aisle they fall on.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Obama....Impeached????
I'd love to see Obama Impeached!!!
Steve King on default: Obama could be impeached
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 7/25/11 1:28 PM EDT Updated: 7/25/11 2:45 PM EDT
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Monday that President Barack Obama “would be impeached” if the nation falls into default.
“STOP talking about default,” he wrote on Twitter. “The 1st dime of each $1 of revenue services debt. Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments. C C & B!”
King is among the House Republicans who voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan that would introduce a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The Senate last week dismissed the House bill.
King isn’t the first Republican to suggest that Obama should be impeached over the debt crisis.
Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said earlier this month it would be “an impeachable offense” for Obama to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. In April, former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein drafted articles of impeachment in hopes that House Republicans would introduce them. And Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in March said the air attacks on Libya are impeachable acts.
Steve King on default: Obama could be impeached
By REID J. EPSTEIN | 7/25/11 1:28 PM EDT Updated: 7/25/11 2:45 PM EDT
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Monday that President Barack Obama “would be impeached” if the nation falls into default.
“STOP talking about default,” he wrote on Twitter. “The 1st dime of each $1 of revenue services debt. Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments. C C & B!”
King is among the House Republicans who voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan that would introduce a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The Senate last week dismissed the House bill.
King isn’t the first Republican to suggest that Obama should be impeached over the debt crisis.
Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said earlier this month it would be “an impeachable offense” for Obama to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. In April, former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein drafted articles of impeachment in hopes that House Republicans would introduce them. And Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in March said the air attacks on Libya are impeachable acts.
Obama...once again causing Havoc...not helping to avoid it...
From this morning's Heritage Foundation's Morning Call....it even more evident today that Obama doesn't really care about what's best for America, just what's best for his reelection bid....But it appears the Republicans are gaining more control by the hour...
Obama's Dangerous Debt Ceiling Strategy
President Obama kicked off the weekend with a testy Friday night press conference warning of the drastic consequences of failing to raise the debt limit, the havoc it would wreak on financial markets, and the disastrous repercussions for the poor and middle class. That message of fear was reiterated throughout the weekend, bookended this morning by a senior White House official who says there's a 50/50 chance that the standoff in Washington will not be resolved by the August 2 deadline.
But it's not fear for fear's sake. The White House is employing the same cynical, irresponsible political strategy to force Congress' hand that it started in January, using Wall Street as its foil. This morning, NPR—as usual and unsurprisingly—had the zeitgeist of the Obama White House just right. Cokie Roberts, its long-time commentator, said:
[T]here's a certain element of waiting for the markets to weigh in and show Congress that they have to get serious here...You see the Administration almost kind of, almost daring the markets to respond, yesterday saying that the Congress had to act by 4:00 yesterday afternoon before the Asian markets started to open.
How true, and how irresponsible. The Obama Administration spent all weekend trying to talk down markets, hoping to make use of any artificial drop for political purposes.
Never mind that the financial security of hundreds of millions of Americans and others would be injured in the process. The Administration needs what it has already dubbed "the Boehner drop"—named after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner—to try to get its way in the debt ceiling negotiations.
The attempt by senior members of the Administration, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to make markets even more nervous than they are was noticed by other journalists. Veteran financial journalist Charles Gasparino vented his frustration on ABC's This Week with Christian Amanpour by saying "it's irresponsible for Geithner to go out there to talk about default. If he's worried about the Asian markets tonight, why does he mention default? We are not going to default. We have cash on hand to pay bond holders."
But that is the political game the White House is playing—and it's a dangerous one. Investment adviser James Rickards wrote to Politico's Playbook, "Geithner and Obama are foolish to try to 'scare' markets over the debt ceiling. Markets are already scared. They're looking for reassurance and a more mature dialogue."
Instead, we have the President and his legion of foot soldiers running amok, hoping to threaten the markets to achieve their political ends.
But amid the maneuvering, there have been some moments of unvarnished honesty, if only accidental. Yesterday, White House deputy press secretary Dan Pfeiffer admitted on Twitter that President Obama will likely sign any debt deal Congress sends his way. Heritage's Rory Cooper writes:
This revelation came in an exchange with Stephen Gutowski, the blogger known as The College Politico. Gutowski asked Pfeiffer: 'Do you see a scenario where the house & senate pass a deal but the President doesn’t sign it?' and Pfeiffer responded: 'No, bc only something that has R and D support can pass both bodies.'
With those words, Pfeiffer highlighted a truth that has become increasingly clear. Obama is not the mediator of a grand bargain the White House has attempted to portray him to be, Cooper explains. Instead, his role in the debt ceiling debate has been subordinated to the House and the Senate, leaving him with nothing but veto threats, ultimatums, and rhetoric designed to force a resolution that suits his political ends.
Since Congress holds the cards, it's up to them to get the job done. Now they should listen to their employers—the American people—and deliver a solution that meets the test of Moody's and Standard & Poor's to bring down our debt ratio through spending cuts, not tax hikes, and preserves our nation's ability to defend itself.
Obama's Dangerous Debt Ceiling Strategy
President Obama kicked off the weekend with a testy Friday night press conference warning of the drastic consequences of failing to raise the debt limit, the havoc it would wreak on financial markets, and the disastrous repercussions for the poor and middle class. That message of fear was reiterated throughout the weekend, bookended this morning by a senior White House official who says there's a 50/50 chance that the standoff in Washington will not be resolved by the August 2 deadline.
But it's not fear for fear's sake. The White House is employing the same cynical, irresponsible political strategy to force Congress' hand that it started in January, using Wall Street as its foil. This morning, NPR—as usual and unsurprisingly—had the zeitgeist of the Obama White House just right. Cokie Roberts, its long-time commentator, said:
[T]here's a certain element of waiting for the markets to weigh in and show Congress that they have to get serious here...You see the Administration almost kind of, almost daring the markets to respond, yesterday saying that the Congress had to act by 4:00 yesterday afternoon before the Asian markets started to open.
How true, and how irresponsible. The Obama Administration spent all weekend trying to talk down markets, hoping to make use of any artificial drop for political purposes.
Never mind that the financial security of hundreds of millions of Americans and others would be injured in the process. The Administration needs what it has already dubbed "the Boehner drop"—named after Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner—to try to get its way in the debt ceiling negotiations.
The attempt by senior members of the Administration, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, to make markets even more nervous than they are was noticed by other journalists. Veteran financial journalist Charles Gasparino vented his frustration on ABC's This Week with Christian Amanpour by saying "it's irresponsible for Geithner to go out there to talk about default. If he's worried about the Asian markets tonight, why does he mention default? We are not going to default. We have cash on hand to pay bond holders."
But that is the political game the White House is playing—and it's a dangerous one. Investment adviser James Rickards wrote to Politico's Playbook, "Geithner and Obama are foolish to try to 'scare' markets over the debt ceiling. Markets are already scared. They're looking for reassurance and a more mature dialogue."
Instead, we have the President and his legion of foot soldiers running amok, hoping to threaten the markets to achieve their political ends.
But amid the maneuvering, there have been some moments of unvarnished honesty, if only accidental. Yesterday, White House deputy press secretary Dan Pfeiffer admitted on Twitter that President Obama will likely sign any debt deal Congress sends his way. Heritage's Rory Cooper writes:
This revelation came in an exchange with Stephen Gutowski, the blogger known as The College Politico. Gutowski asked Pfeiffer: 'Do you see a scenario where the house & senate pass a deal but the President doesn’t sign it?' and Pfeiffer responded: 'No, bc only something that has R and D support can pass both bodies.'
With those words, Pfeiffer highlighted a truth that has become increasingly clear. Obama is not the mediator of a grand bargain the White House has attempted to portray him to be, Cooper explains. Instead, his role in the debt ceiling debate has been subordinated to the House and the Senate, leaving him with nothing but veto threats, ultimatums, and rhetoric designed to force a resolution that suits his political ends.
Since Congress holds the cards, it's up to them to get the job done. Now they should listen to their employers—the American people—and deliver a solution that meets the test of Moody's and Standard & Poor's to bring down our debt ratio through spending cuts, not tax hikes, and preserves our nation's ability to defend itself.
Obama...Doesn't care about ANYTHING, but Himself...
More proof of just how stubborn and inflexible Obama is....who's saying no now Barack.....who can't agree to anything Barack....this President is JUST POLITICAL! He doesn't care about what's best for America!
White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis
By Jennifer Rubin Posted at 08:00 AM ET, 07/25/2011
A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”
If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.
White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis
By Jennifer Rubin Posted at 08:00 AM ET, 07/25/2011
A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”
If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.
Looks to me like Boehner and the Republicans are in the Drivers Seat Now...
Looks like Boehner is in the drivers seat now...all the dems are trying to get is a deal through 2013 to protect their reelection results....IF they stick to their work this may be done early this week...
As deadline looms, both parties craft debt plans
Coburn: Short-term deal the ‘only answer’
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Updated: 11:10 p.m. on Sunday, July 24, 2011
With no debt deal done and both sides racing an Aug. 2 deadline, Democrats and Republicans on Sunday readied separate backup plans to try to raise the government’s borrowing limit and cut spending.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, pitched his colleagues on a plan to raise the borrowing limit by about $1 trillion and match that with similar sized spending cuts — enough to last through the rest of the year, and leaving for later the heavy lifting on taxes and bigger spending items.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is working on a plan to raise the debt limit by $2.7 trillion, coupled with an equal reduction in projected future spending. In a concession to Republicans, he said that plan would not include tax increases, but that the new debt level would last through the 2012 elections.
That date has become a critical marker for Democrats — so much so that President Obama’s advisers said he would veto any bill that doesn’t last that long.
“It must be extended in a way that gives certainty to economy through ‘13 and not some short-term gimmick, where we’re right back in this fix in six or eight months,” White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program Sunday.
But Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called Mr. Obama’s threatened veto “a ridiculous position.”
“I understand why they’re saying they won’t sign a short-term. But I think they won’t have any choice, and I think that’s the only answer right now,” he said.
Leaders on both sides were testing their ideas with fellow party members Sunday.
Mr. Boehner held a conference call with House Republicans in the afternoon, while Mr. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, went to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Sunday evening.
The backup plans by Mr. Boehner and Senate Democrats reflect just how much the negotiations have shifted over the past two days, after Mr. Boehner announced he was walking away from talks with Mr. Obama.
“After over six months [of] conversations with the president about doing the ‘big deal,’ about taking a big step in the right direction, it is pretty clear to me that they are just not willing to do it — that the next election matters more than doing what is right for the country,” Mr. Boehner told “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Boehner said he would instead try to work out a deal with Mr. Reid and, barring that, write his own backup plan to raise the debt limit by about $1 trillion, which would likely last through the rest of this year, and combine that with a promise the government spends about $1 trillion less over the next decade than otherwise projected.
The Associated Press reported that Republicans would release their plan Monday.
But late Sunday, Mr. Reid said he will not accept a short-term increase, and said talks with Mr. Boehner broke down. He said that’s why he is trying to write a longer-term plan.
“We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines,” Mr. Reid said.
The Treasury Department says the government will bump up against its $14.29 trillion borrowing limit Aug. 2, and unless that ceiling is raised, many government payments will have to be suspended and the U.S. government’s top credit rating likely will be downgraded.
The White House has been reluctant to talk about which of the 80 million monthly checks the government issues would be at risk, though Mr. Obama has specifically said he can’t guarantee Social Security benefit checks will be issued.
But even before the Aug. 2 deadline, both the White House and members of Congress said international financial markets could begin to punish the U.S. by not buying U.S. Treasury bonds, by downgrading the U.S. government’s top-credit rating, or both.
Mr. Daley said the government’s creditworthiness has already suffered “enormous damage” during the months of stalemate.
In early trading Monday morning, Asian markets were down slightly, while gold was fetching record prices.
With no deal in sight, both sides have tried to insulate themselves from blame.
Democrats said that while they think Mr. Boehner is negotiating in good faith, some of his fellow House Republicans would prefer to see the government fail to raise the debt ceiling at all rather than have any taxes raised.
The GOP, though, repeatedly points to the plan the House passed last week to tie a debt-ceiling increase to deep spending reductions and a promise that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be proposed to the states for ratification.
Democrats in the Senate voted to table that plan Friday, but they have yet to produce a budget or a debt plan of their own.
As deadline looms, both parties craft debt plans
Coburn: Short-term deal the ‘only answer’
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Updated: 11:10 p.m. on Sunday, July 24, 2011
With no debt deal done and both sides racing an Aug. 2 deadline, Democrats and Republicans on Sunday readied separate backup plans to try to raise the government’s borrowing limit and cut spending.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, pitched his colleagues on a plan to raise the borrowing limit by about $1 trillion and match that with similar sized spending cuts — enough to last through the rest of the year, and leaving for later the heavy lifting on taxes and bigger spending items.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is working on a plan to raise the debt limit by $2.7 trillion, coupled with an equal reduction in projected future spending. In a concession to Republicans, he said that plan would not include tax increases, but that the new debt level would last through the 2012 elections.
That date has become a critical marker for Democrats — so much so that President Obama’s advisers said he would veto any bill that doesn’t last that long.
“It must be extended in a way that gives certainty to economy through ‘13 and not some short-term gimmick, where we’re right back in this fix in six or eight months,” White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program Sunday.
But Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called Mr. Obama’s threatened veto “a ridiculous position.”
“I understand why they’re saying they won’t sign a short-term. But I think they won’t have any choice, and I think that’s the only answer right now,” he said.
Leaders on both sides were testing their ideas with fellow party members Sunday.
Mr. Boehner held a conference call with House Republicans in the afternoon, while Mr. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, went to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Sunday evening.
The backup plans by Mr. Boehner and Senate Democrats reflect just how much the negotiations have shifted over the past two days, after Mr. Boehner announced he was walking away from talks with Mr. Obama.
“After over six months [of] conversations with the president about doing the ‘big deal,’ about taking a big step in the right direction, it is pretty clear to me that they are just not willing to do it — that the next election matters more than doing what is right for the country,” Mr. Boehner told “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Boehner said he would instead try to work out a deal with Mr. Reid and, barring that, write his own backup plan to raise the debt limit by about $1 trillion, which would likely last through the rest of this year, and combine that with a promise the government spends about $1 trillion less over the next decade than otherwise projected.
The Associated Press reported that Republicans would release their plan Monday.
But late Sunday, Mr. Reid said he will not accept a short-term increase, and said talks with Mr. Boehner broke down. He said that’s why he is trying to write a longer-term plan.
“We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines,” Mr. Reid said.
The Treasury Department says the government will bump up against its $14.29 trillion borrowing limit Aug. 2, and unless that ceiling is raised, many government payments will have to be suspended and the U.S. government’s top credit rating likely will be downgraded.
The White House has been reluctant to talk about which of the 80 million monthly checks the government issues would be at risk, though Mr. Obama has specifically said he can’t guarantee Social Security benefit checks will be issued.
But even before the Aug. 2 deadline, both the White House and members of Congress said international financial markets could begin to punish the U.S. by not buying U.S. Treasury bonds, by downgrading the U.S. government’s top-credit rating, or both.
Mr. Daley said the government’s creditworthiness has already suffered “enormous damage” during the months of stalemate.
In early trading Monday morning, Asian markets were down slightly, while gold was fetching record prices.
With no deal in sight, both sides have tried to insulate themselves from blame.
Democrats said that while they think Mr. Boehner is negotiating in good faith, some of his fellow House Republicans would prefer to see the government fail to raise the debt ceiling at all rather than have any taxes raised.
The GOP, though, repeatedly points to the plan the House passed last week to tie a debt-ceiling increase to deep spending reductions and a promise that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be proposed to the states for ratification.
Democrats in the Senate voted to table that plan Friday, but they have yet to produce a budget or a debt plan of their own.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Obama's Fixation with his Reelection Bid is getting in the Way of Finding a Way through this Crisis!!!
All that Obama is concerned about is his reelection bid...he could care less about what's best for the American People....and Hoehner is giving Obama a lot of choices to avert a crisis....there's Cut, Cap and Balance out there...there's the deal that was on the table BEFORE Obama demanded another $400 Billion in Tax hikes, and soon there will be a two stage short term fix....
Now it's up to Obama to pick a plan...afterall Obama has come up with NOTHING to resolve this issue...
Speaker Boehner: President Obama 'worried about his next election'
By Alicia M. Cohn - 07/24/11 10:48 AM ET
With his self-imposed deadline for releasing a deficit plan before overseas markets open just a few hours away, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said both sides were “not there yet" and pushed for a two-stage debt-limit vote.
“I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “If that's not possible, I and my Republican colleagues are prepared to do this alone. Today.”
Boehner pushed for a proposed two-stage debt-limit vote.
It is not “physically possible” to get everything done before the Treasury Department’s August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, Boehner said. “There is going to be a two stage process.”
“I don't want to get anywhere close to [default],” he said. “This is about what's doable at the eleventh hour.”
Boehner’s office said late Saturday that a two-vote approach was now necessary in order to raise the debt ceiling immediately while tackling deficit-reduction later.
Boehner also criticized President Obama for recommending a debt ceiling deal be timed to last beyond the next election season.
“The president’s worried about his next election, but my God, shouldn't we be worried about the country?” Boehner said. “I'm not worried about the next election. I told the president months ago: Forget about the next election!”
The administration though has indicated that the debt ceiling should be raised at least through 2012, in order to take politics out of the negotiation.
The president said in his speech Friday evening that he would be willing to work on “any plans” that lawmakers brought him over the weekend. “The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013,” President Obama said.
A GOP leadership aide indicated Saturday that Republicans would fight back if the president threatened to veto a debt limit increase because it conflicted with the election calendar.
Boehner announced on Friday that he was walking away from deficit negotiations with the White House due to the fact that that President Obama was “adamant” about raising taxes and would not agree to “fundamental changes” to entitlement programs.
"It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this deal," Obama said at the time, accusing the Republicans of not being able to say “yes” to any agreement.
“Last Sunday, I thought there was an agreement,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “On Tuesday, the president said they need more revenue. [House Leader Eric] Cantor (R-Va.) and I said no.”
Boehner said this back and forth went on all week, until on Friday he made the decision to step back from the negotiation table.
“My last offer is still out there. I've never taken my last offer off the table, and they never agreed to my last offer,” Boehner added. On the other hand, “It may be pretty hard to put humpty dumpty back together again.”
However, Boehner said he is an “optimist” when it comes to reaching a deal on the debt ceiling and believes it’s his job to find “as much common ground as we can” in order to reach an agreement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested Saturday night that Boehner’s two-vote approach was on the table.
"One option is to do something in two tiers," she said as she left the Capitol, "and I don’t think we can accomplish what we need to do in deficit reduction without revenues."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner however showed little enthusiasm for a two-tiered vote, saying on Sunday it “makes no sense” to leave the threat of a default hovering before the next election.
Now it's up to Obama to pick a plan...afterall Obama has come up with NOTHING to resolve this issue...
Speaker Boehner: President Obama 'worried about his next election'
By Alicia M. Cohn - 07/24/11 10:48 AM ET
With his self-imposed deadline for releasing a deficit plan before overseas markets open just a few hours away, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said both sides were “not there yet" and pushed for a two-stage debt-limit vote.
“I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “If that's not possible, I and my Republican colleagues are prepared to do this alone. Today.”
Boehner pushed for a proposed two-stage debt-limit vote.
It is not “physically possible” to get everything done before the Treasury Department’s August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, Boehner said. “There is going to be a two stage process.”
“I don't want to get anywhere close to [default],” he said. “This is about what's doable at the eleventh hour.”
Boehner’s office said late Saturday that a two-vote approach was now necessary in order to raise the debt ceiling immediately while tackling deficit-reduction later.
Boehner also criticized President Obama for recommending a debt ceiling deal be timed to last beyond the next election season.
“The president’s worried about his next election, but my God, shouldn't we be worried about the country?” Boehner said. “I'm not worried about the next election. I told the president months ago: Forget about the next election!”
The administration though has indicated that the debt ceiling should be raised at least through 2012, in order to take politics out of the negotiation.
The president said in his speech Friday evening that he would be willing to work on “any plans” that lawmakers brought him over the weekend. “The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013,” President Obama said.
A GOP leadership aide indicated Saturday that Republicans would fight back if the president threatened to veto a debt limit increase because it conflicted with the election calendar.
Boehner announced on Friday that he was walking away from deficit negotiations with the White House due to the fact that that President Obama was “adamant” about raising taxes and would not agree to “fundamental changes” to entitlement programs.
"It is hard to understand why Speaker Boehner would walk away from this deal," Obama said at the time, accusing the Republicans of not being able to say “yes” to any agreement.
“Last Sunday, I thought there was an agreement,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “On Tuesday, the president said they need more revenue. [House Leader Eric] Cantor (R-Va.) and I said no.”
Boehner said this back and forth went on all week, until on Friday he made the decision to step back from the negotiation table.
“My last offer is still out there. I've never taken my last offer off the table, and they never agreed to my last offer,” Boehner added. On the other hand, “It may be pretty hard to put humpty dumpty back together again.”
However, Boehner said he is an “optimist” when it comes to reaching a deal on the debt ceiling and believes it’s his job to find “as much common ground as we can” in order to reach an agreement.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested Saturday night that Boehner’s two-vote approach was on the table.
"One option is to do something in two tiers," she said as she left the Capitol, "and I don’t think we can accomplish what we need to do in deficit reduction without revenues."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner however showed little enthusiasm for a two-tiered vote, saying on Sunday it “makes no sense” to leave the threat of a default hovering before the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)