Good article from the Heritage Foundation out today ----
Get to Work Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes
Last night, during a taped interview with 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft: "I thought the economy would have gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is you're held responsible for everything. But you don't always have control of everything." President Obama is right: presidents often do get too much of the credit and too much of the blame for the economic performance of the country. But there is one aspect of the economy that President Obama does have control over: taxes. And at a time when our nation's unemployment still hovers around 10%, President Obama's tax plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
The White House wants you to believe that only the wealthy will pay higher taxes under the President's plan. Don't believe them for a second. These hikes include reducing the child tax credit, re-imposing the marriage penalty, raising taxes on small businesses (the American jobs engine), raising dividend taxes (draining seniors’ incomes), raising capital gains taxes (diverting money from job-creating investments) and raising some personal tax rates.
The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis has estimated the impacts of the Obama tax hikes and found they would: 1) decrease inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) by $1.1 trillion by 2020; 2) decrease business investment by $33 billion a year; 3) decrease personal savings by $38 billion in 2011 alone; 4) decrease consumer spending by $706 billion through 2020; and 5) kill an average of 693,000 jobs a year through 2020. Congress must Get to Work Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes. Specifically, Congress must:
Block the Obama Tax Hikes. The current lower taxes must be made permanent for all individuals, businesses and investors. Government must get out of the way so the American economy can grow and create jobs.
Permanently Eliminate the Death Tax. Congress must stick with current policy and permanently repeal the death tax once and for all.
Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. Congress has enacted temporary patches from time to time to ameliorate the impact of the AMT on a growing number of taxpayers. Congress should repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for good.
Repeal the Obamacare Taxes. As part of the repeal of the Obamacare statute, Congress should eliminate the Obamacare taxes, including the “surtax” on dividends and capital gains which hinders economic growth and job creation.
Lower Corporate Income Taxes. The top U.S. corporate tax rate should be reduced to 25% to help eliminate the incentive to move businesses and jobs overseas.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 58% of likely U.S. Voters say tax increases will hurt the economy while just 18% feel increasing taxes will help our economy. Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) told Fox News Sunday yesterday: "I am not for raising taxes in a recession, especially when it comes to the job creators that we need so desperately to start creating jobs again. I am not for sending any signal to small businesses in this country that they're going to have their tax rates go up." Conservatives must pay close attention to what this Congress does and be prepared to hold leaders accountable. That is why The Heritage Foundation has created the Solutions for America: Get to Work checklist. Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes is just one of five tasks Congress must complete – as the BARE MINIMUM REQUIRED – to fulfill its electoral mandate.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Pelosi is an Idiot....and now that she's decided to stay she will help the Republicans keep up the national momentum for conservative change!
Keeping Pelosi as a Democrat leader in the House will certainly help future job CREATION for Republican/Tea Party legislators in 2012!!!! Could the Democrats be THAT STUPID?
The Pelosi Minority
The Speaker decides to reward herself for an epic defeat..
We're beginning to wonder if any Democrats take responsibility for this week's election rout. President Obama blamed it Wednesday on a failure to communicate rather than substance, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making a bid to keep her job as House Democratic leader. Lose 61 seats? Whatever.
As an historical matter, Mrs. Pelosi's announcement yesterday was almost as extraordinary as the election itself, which saw the largest turnover of House seats since 1938. Speakers almost always resign after an electoral repudiation—even Newt Gingrich, who stepped down after the GOP lost a handful of seats in 1998 while retaining the majority. The last Speaker who accepted a demotion to minority leader was Democrat Sam Rayburn in 1946, who reclaimed the gavel two years later on Harry Truman's coattails.
Presumably Mrs. Pelosi is entertaining similar hopes, which suggests that Democrats really do believe their own post-election spin. How else to explain her bid as a matter of political logic?
Remaining in power deprives her party of one of its better opportunities to show the public that Tuesday's message was received. Even if Democrats have no plans for a policy turn, sacrificing the unpopular Mrs. Pelosi might stand as a down payment on winning back the trust of the independent and suburban voters who fled Democrats this year. Something like a dozen House Democrats ran against her as much as they did against their GOP opponents.
Nonetheless, in her letter to the Democratic caucus, Mrs. Pelosi eulogized "the most productive Congress in a half century," adding that "Our work is far from finished." (Cue the string section.) "We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she continued, citing ObamaCare, financial reregulation and job noncreation programs like the stimulus, with unspecified threats to Social Security and Medicare thrown in at no extra charge.
In other words, Mrs. Pelosi thinks she should remain in power to preserve the agenda that forfeited the House. And she may well succeed, not least because of her fund-raising and proven log-rolling skills that were necessary to pass some of the worst legislation in generations.
.The Democrats who lost in 2010 were in the swing seats that matter for controlling the House, and now that the caucus is leaner its political wavelength is more in sync with Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco liberalism than with the rare Blue Dog survivors like Heath Shuler of North Carolina or Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. Lucky for them the vote for minority leader, as opposed to Speaker, is a secret ballot.
Mrs. Pelosi's run also puts her chief lieutenants in a squeeze play. Current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland was expected to sidle into the top slot but said yesterday he's weighing a run for whip, the No. 2 in the minority leadership. But current whip James Clyburn is a liberal Pelosi loyalist closer to the rump caucus mood than is a moderate like Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Clyburn also enjoys support from his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, most of whom come from safe or gerrymandered districts.
In Mr. Clyburn's whip letter, he too writes that "we should have no regrets about the achievements of the last two years," though he was willing to concede "general acknowledgement that we lost the communications battle on too many fronts." Mr. Obama echoed that sentiment in an interview due to air Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," claiming that "over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people . . . and making an argument that people can understand."
All of which explains how the Democrats made themselves a House minority in a modern record of a mere four years. In his Weekend Interview with the Journal last week, retiring Democrat Brian Baird of Washington state described what he called the "authoritarian, closed leadership" and "general groupthink" that has prevailed under Speaker Pelosi. Nothing confirms Mr. Baird's judgment more than her decision to reward herself for an epic defeat by once again vouchsafing her leadership upon her Members.
The Pelosi Minority
The Speaker decides to reward herself for an epic defeat..
We're beginning to wonder if any Democrats take responsibility for this week's election rout. President Obama blamed it Wednesday on a failure to communicate rather than substance, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making a bid to keep her job as House Democratic leader. Lose 61 seats? Whatever.
As an historical matter, Mrs. Pelosi's announcement yesterday was almost as extraordinary as the election itself, which saw the largest turnover of House seats since 1938. Speakers almost always resign after an electoral repudiation—even Newt Gingrich, who stepped down after the GOP lost a handful of seats in 1998 while retaining the majority. The last Speaker who accepted a demotion to minority leader was Democrat Sam Rayburn in 1946, who reclaimed the gavel two years later on Harry Truman's coattails.
Presumably Mrs. Pelosi is entertaining similar hopes, which suggests that Democrats really do believe their own post-election spin. How else to explain her bid as a matter of political logic?
Remaining in power deprives her party of one of its better opportunities to show the public that Tuesday's message was received. Even if Democrats have no plans for a policy turn, sacrificing the unpopular Mrs. Pelosi might stand as a down payment on winning back the trust of the independent and suburban voters who fled Democrats this year. Something like a dozen House Democrats ran against her as much as they did against their GOP opponents.
Nonetheless, in her letter to the Democratic caucus, Mrs. Pelosi eulogized "the most productive Congress in a half century," adding that "Our work is far from finished." (Cue the string section.) "We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she continued, citing ObamaCare, financial reregulation and job noncreation programs like the stimulus, with unspecified threats to Social Security and Medicare thrown in at no extra charge.
In other words, Mrs. Pelosi thinks she should remain in power to preserve the agenda that forfeited the House. And she may well succeed, not least because of her fund-raising and proven log-rolling skills that were necessary to pass some of the worst legislation in generations.
.The Democrats who lost in 2010 were in the swing seats that matter for controlling the House, and now that the caucus is leaner its political wavelength is more in sync with Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco liberalism than with the rare Blue Dog survivors like Heath Shuler of North Carolina or Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. Lucky for them the vote for minority leader, as opposed to Speaker, is a secret ballot.
Mrs. Pelosi's run also puts her chief lieutenants in a squeeze play. Current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland was expected to sidle into the top slot but said yesterday he's weighing a run for whip, the No. 2 in the minority leadership. But current whip James Clyburn is a liberal Pelosi loyalist closer to the rump caucus mood than is a moderate like Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Clyburn also enjoys support from his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, most of whom come from safe or gerrymandered districts.
In Mr. Clyburn's whip letter, he too writes that "we should have no regrets about the achievements of the last two years," though he was willing to concede "general acknowledgement that we lost the communications battle on too many fronts." Mr. Obama echoed that sentiment in an interview due to air Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," claiming that "over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people . . . and making an argument that people can understand."
All of which explains how the Democrats made themselves a House minority in a modern record of a mere four years. In his Weekend Interview with the Journal last week, retiring Democrat Brian Baird of Washington state described what he called the "authoritarian, closed leadership" and "general groupthink" that has prevailed under Speaker Pelosi. Nothing confirms Mr. Baird's judgment more than her decision to reward herself for an epic defeat by once again vouchsafing her leadership upon her Members.
Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors ...Obama's Grand Trip...He Doesn't Get It!
Bomb-proof tunnel with air conditioning: Obama's security go to extraordinary measures for his tour of the Gandhi museum
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:08 PM on 6th November 2010
American warships to patrol off Mumbai during visit
Coconuts removed from trees as a precaution
250 U.S. business executives with Obama on 'biggest ever trade mission'
$200million Asia trip cost denied but the President will have huge entourage
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle arrived in India's commercial hub of Mumbai on Saturday, days after voters punished his Democrats in mid-term elections.
Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.
While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance.
The President and First Lady clasped hands as they arrived in Mumbai Saturday morning with their huge entourage
The red carpet was literally rolled out for the President and First Lady when their jumbo jet landed
Obama arrives in India at the start of a ten-day tour of Asia. At the heart of the White House caravan is ‘The Beast’, a gigantic, ‘pimped-up’ General Motors Cadillac which security experts say is, short of an actual battle tank, probably the safest road vehicle on the planet.
But an outlandish car is only the start. Mr Obama will fly, of course, on Air Force One, the presidential private jumbo jet, which, boasting double beds and suites, is fitted out more like a luxury yacht. Some reports suggest it costs around $50,000 (£31,000) an hour to operate.
Of course threats can come from any direction, so a squadron of U.S. naval ships will patrol offshore. Some reports have claimed that 34 ships, including two aircraft carriers, will be involved (not far off the size of the Royal Navy’s entire Surface Fleet) but the White House has denied this.
The pair were greeted with flowers and gifts as they stepped off the plane
The full extent of the President's entourage On land, as well as The Beast, Mr Obama’s entourage will travel in a fleet of 45 U.S.-built armoured limousines, half of which will be decoys. He will also travel with 30 elite sniffer dogs, mostly German Shepherds.
The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented. This hotel was the main target of the 2008 attacks by Pakistani militants which left 166 dead.
Republicans assert their power to a humbled Obama as Democrats eke out two more victories
More bad news, Mr President... Obama no longer 'world's most powerful man'
China warns a flood of new U.S. dollars could spark a fresh global economic crisis
As to the cost of all this, the White House will not reveal details – which has allowed Mr Obama’s political foes to bandy about sums including a widely-quoted $200million (£123million) a day. Whatever the figure, it makes the costs associated with the Royal Train and the late Royal Yacht Britannia seem like small change.
It is also reported that a bomb-proof tunnel will be erected for Mr Obama ahead of his visit to Mani Bhavan - the Gandhi museum - on Saturday.
According to Daily News & Analysis, U.S. secret service agents visited the museum on Monday to plan Mr Obama's security during his tour.
They were accompanied by Mumbai Police officers and civic officials of the D ward where Mani Bhavan is located.
While they were inspecting the route and the buildings lining the path to the museum, U.S. security officers noticed a nearby skyscraper in the highly populated area that could pose a threat.
To the amazement of the Indians accompanying the U.S. agents, it was apparently decided to erect a bomb-proof over-ground tunnel, which will be installed by U.S. military engineers in just an hour.
The kilometre-long tunnel will measure 12ft by 12ft and will have air-conditioning, close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point.
It's being built so it is large enough for Mr Obama's cavalcade to pass through and will be manned at its entry and exit points.
Security measures: A kilometer long bomb-proof tunnel will reportedly be erected on the route to Mani Bhavan - the Gandhi Museum - ahead of President Obama's tour of the building on Saturday
The material that the tunnel would be made of has not been released but officials said that the structure would be dismantled immediately after Mr Obama and his party leaves the area.
Meanwhile the furore over reports that his Asia trip is going to cost taxpayers $200million a day has been dismissed by the Obama administration who called the figure 'wildly inflated'.
Last week an Indian government source told the NDTV channel: 'The huge amount of around $200million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit.'
The claim was immediately seized upon by talk show hosts and rights wing politicians who relished the opportunity to rub salt into Mr Obama's wounds saying the trip was a waste of government funds during the country's recession.
But the White House have refused to reveal the true cost of the three-day trip to Mumbai and Delhi.
'The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality', White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Enlarge US security department officials stand near their vehicles outside the Taj Mahal Palace hotel in Mumbai this afternoon
He added: 'Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated'.
The White House have said these claims are exaggerated but with any presidential trip, Mr Obama travels with a large number of staff and security detail includes his own aircraft and fleet of secure vehicles.
There will also be tens of thousands of Indian police and members of the military protecting the US delegation.
Secret Service agents travelled to India last week to address security concerns at locations the president is likely to visit.
Mr Obama will visit India, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and China as part of a 10-day state tour of Asia.
Indian policemen await deployment orders outside the Taj Mahal hotel. President Obama is scheduled to stay at the hotel this weekend
Tense: An Indian policeman guards the Chhatrapati Shivaji train station in Mumbai, one of the targets of Islamist militants during the 2008 attacks
The trip has sparked some criticism in the U.S., which is battling high unemployment and stagnant economic growth.
Mr Obama will spend three days in India, and will also visit New Delhi.
The White House will be hoping to secure more than $10 billion in new business for American firms in what is the biggest trade mission in US history.
Mr Obama is bringing 250 U.S. executives including GE chief Jeffrey Immelt and Honeywell's David Cote, which the U.S. India Business Council says is the largest such delegation to ever accompany a president on a foreign visit.
The presidents of six universities, including Georgetown and Duke, are also set to come.
Last fiscal year, India's $11 billion worth of investments in the U.S. matched U.S. investments in India for the first time ever, according to the U.S. India Business Council.
But sentiment has frayed since the two countries signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008.
Then-President George W. Bush pushed through that deal, which allowed nuclear trade with India despite its weapons programme and seemed to herald a new era of cross-continental commerce.
It hasn't been that simple.
The job creating power of India's big, fast-growing market is hampered by its restrictions on foreign access to key sectors like retail, finance, education and insurance.
Multinationals are wary of the shape-shifting rules that seem to govern things like taxes and environmental permits in India.
And the large defence contracts that headline the wish list of deals for Obama's visit come burdened with offsets and foreign investment caps.
The Americans who accepted outsourcing of IT and back office functions in boom times as a way to free up capital for job creation at home seem less certain of the strategy's benefits during a bust.
With U.S. unemployment at 9.6 pe rcent, India's putative role as a driver of job insecurity has leaked into campaign rhetoric - Barbara Boxer's attacks on Carly Fiorina for sending Hewlett-Packard jobs to India and China helped her win the California Senate race - and popular culture alike.
NBC's new sitcom, 'Outsourced', tells the story of a Kansas City company that sends most of its jobs to India.
Indian companies keep insisting, quietly, that they're not really the problem: If you don't like jobs getting sent overseas, better to direct your anger at major U.S. corporations whose race for low cost competitiveness drives India's $50 billion software services sector.
'We strongly believe the global delivery model is beneficial to customers,' said Infosys chief executive S. Gopalakrishnan.
'It increases their competitiveness. It reduces costs. It gives them access to a scalable high quality
talent pool and to emerging markets. That's why it's growing.'
Unwelcome: Some Indian Shiite Muslims are unhappy about Mr Obama's trip and held an effigy of him before setting it on fire as they gather for a protest after Friday prayers outside a mosque in Lucknow, India today
The U.S. Congress seemed to disagree, hiking visa fees for Indian outsourcing companies by about $2000 per worker in August, provoking howls of discontent here.
'It's tens of millions of dollars,' said Tata Consultancy Services chief executive N. Chandrasekaran.
The law pinches Indian outsourcers where it hurts, at the heart of the industry's hopes for future growth in its most important global market.
The companies have been trying to diversify into health care and government work and move up the delivery chain to higher value areas like consulting. All require workers, with visas or U.S. passports, in the United States.
Many here fear the backlash will get worse by the 2012 elections, barring a turnaround in the U.S. labour market.
Indian outsourcers - and their clients in corporate America - are happy to move jobs to the U.S. as long as it doesn't disrupt their low-cost business model.
That translates into very few jobs.
Indian policemen report for duty allocation ahead of US President Barack Obama's visit in Mumbai
Lobby group Nasscom says India's software services exporters have created 35,000 high-paying U.S. jobs in the last five years.
Industry leader Tata Consultancy Services is looking to hire 1,000 Americans this fiscal year. Less than one per cent of its global work force are American, according to company data.
Infosys is also looking to hire 1,000 Americans. Its 1,600 permanent U.S. employees - not counting an additional 600 or so who work for two U.S. subsidiaries - make up 1.3 per cent of the company's global work force.
'We can't replace all the people from here with people from the United States and have the same value proposition,' said Chandrasekaran.
From the U.S. side, perhaps most disillusioning is a law passed by India's parliament that extends liability to the suppliers of nuclear plants, making it difficult for private companies to compete against their state owned French and Russian peers in India's multibillion dollar nuclear reactor build-out.
Backers of the civil nuclear deal in Washington, he said, 'made believe India was a true ally and would never let us down'.
U.S. India Business Council president Ron Somers said India's signing last week of an International Atomic Energy Agency convention on liability is a step forward and will require Indian laws to conform to international norms, which do not make private companies liable unless there is malfeasance.
Even India's purchase of 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, expected to be finalised during Obama's visit, will probably be worth less than the anticipated $5.8 billion because of fewer add-ons, said Guy Anderson, lead analyst at Jane's Defence Industry.
India is second only to China in ramping up military procurement, making it an attractive market for U.S. defense companies.
But the bureaucracy is so inefficient the government doesn't manage to spend the money earmarked for military procurement each year, and Russia still dominates sales in a country where some, especially in the older generation, continue to regard U.S. intentions with skepticism.
Somers says naysayers are too impatient and points out that from 2007 to 2009, the U.S. sold India $4.3 billion worth of defense equipment - a huge jump from the $342 million sold from 2001 to 2006.
'We've come a long way,' he said.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:08 PM on 6th November 2010
American warships to patrol off Mumbai during visit
Coconuts removed from trees as a precaution
250 U.S. business executives with Obama on 'biggest ever trade mission'
$200million Asia trip cost denied but the President will have huge entourage
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle arrived in India's commercial hub of Mumbai on Saturday, days after voters punished his Democrats in mid-term elections.
Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.
While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance.
The President and First Lady clasped hands as they arrived in Mumbai Saturday morning with their huge entourage
The red carpet was literally rolled out for the President and First Lady when their jumbo jet landed
Obama arrives in India at the start of a ten-day tour of Asia. At the heart of the White House caravan is ‘The Beast’, a gigantic, ‘pimped-up’ General Motors Cadillac which security experts say is, short of an actual battle tank, probably the safest road vehicle on the planet.
But an outlandish car is only the start. Mr Obama will fly, of course, on Air Force One, the presidential private jumbo jet, which, boasting double beds and suites, is fitted out more like a luxury yacht. Some reports suggest it costs around $50,000 (£31,000) an hour to operate.
Of course threats can come from any direction, so a squadron of U.S. naval ships will patrol offshore. Some reports have claimed that 34 ships, including two aircraft carriers, will be involved (not far off the size of the Royal Navy’s entire Surface Fleet) but the White House has denied this.
The pair were greeted with flowers and gifts as they stepped off the plane
The full extent of the President's entourage On land, as well as The Beast, Mr Obama’s entourage will travel in a fleet of 45 U.S.-built armoured limousines, half of which will be decoys. He will also travel with 30 elite sniffer dogs, mostly German Shepherds.
The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented. This hotel was the main target of the 2008 attacks by Pakistani militants which left 166 dead.
Republicans assert their power to a humbled Obama as Democrats eke out two more victories
More bad news, Mr President... Obama no longer 'world's most powerful man'
China warns a flood of new U.S. dollars could spark a fresh global economic crisis
As to the cost of all this, the White House will not reveal details – which has allowed Mr Obama’s political foes to bandy about sums including a widely-quoted $200million (£123million) a day. Whatever the figure, it makes the costs associated with the Royal Train and the late Royal Yacht Britannia seem like small change.
It is also reported that a bomb-proof tunnel will be erected for Mr Obama ahead of his visit to Mani Bhavan - the Gandhi museum - on Saturday.
According to Daily News & Analysis, U.S. secret service agents visited the museum on Monday to plan Mr Obama's security during his tour.
They were accompanied by Mumbai Police officers and civic officials of the D ward where Mani Bhavan is located.
While they were inspecting the route and the buildings lining the path to the museum, U.S. security officers noticed a nearby skyscraper in the highly populated area that could pose a threat.
To the amazement of the Indians accompanying the U.S. agents, it was apparently decided to erect a bomb-proof over-ground tunnel, which will be installed by U.S. military engineers in just an hour.
The kilometre-long tunnel will measure 12ft by 12ft and will have air-conditioning, close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point.
It's being built so it is large enough for Mr Obama's cavalcade to pass through and will be manned at its entry and exit points.
Security measures: A kilometer long bomb-proof tunnel will reportedly be erected on the route to Mani Bhavan - the Gandhi Museum - ahead of President Obama's tour of the building on Saturday
The material that the tunnel would be made of has not been released but officials said that the structure would be dismantled immediately after Mr Obama and his party leaves the area.
Meanwhile the furore over reports that his Asia trip is going to cost taxpayers $200million a day has been dismissed by the Obama administration who called the figure 'wildly inflated'.
Last week an Indian government source told the NDTV channel: 'The huge amount of around $200million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit.'
The claim was immediately seized upon by talk show hosts and rights wing politicians who relished the opportunity to rub salt into Mr Obama's wounds saying the trip was a waste of government funds during the country's recession.
But the White House have refused to reveal the true cost of the three-day trip to Mumbai and Delhi.
'The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality', White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Enlarge US security department officials stand near their vehicles outside the Taj Mahal Palace hotel in Mumbai this afternoon
He added: 'Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated'.
The White House have said these claims are exaggerated but with any presidential trip, Mr Obama travels with a large number of staff and security detail includes his own aircraft and fleet of secure vehicles.
There will also be tens of thousands of Indian police and members of the military protecting the US delegation.
Secret Service agents travelled to India last week to address security concerns at locations the president is likely to visit.
Mr Obama will visit India, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan and China as part of a 10-day state tour of Asia.
Indian policemen await deployment orders outside the Taj Mahal hotel. President Obama is scheduled to stay at the hotel this weekend
Tense: An Indian policeman guards the Chhatrapati Shivaji train station in Mumbai, one of the targets of Islamist militants during the 2008 attacks
The trip has sparked some criticism in the U.S., which is battling high unemployment and stagnant economic growth.
Mr Obama will spend three days in India, and will also visit New Delhi.
The White House will be hoping to secure more than $10 billion in new business for American firms in what is the biggest trade mission in US history.
Mr Obama is bringing 250 U.S. executives including GE chief Jeffrey Immelt and Honeywell's David Cote, which the U.S. India Business Council says is the largest such delegation to ever accompany a president on a foreign visit.
The presidents of six universities, including Georgetown and Duke, are also set to come.
Last fiscal year, India's $11 billion worth of investments in the U.S. matched U.S. investments in India for the first time ever, according to the U.S. India Business Council.
But sentiment has frayed since the two countries signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008.
Then-President George W. Bush pushed through that deal, which allowed nuclear trade with India despite its weapons programme and seemed to herald a new era of cross-continental commerce.
It hasn't been that simple.
The job creating power of India's big, fast-growing market is hampered by its restrictions on foreign access to key sectors like retail, finance, education and insurance.
Multinationals are wary of the shape-shifting rules that seem to govern things like taxes and environmental permits in India.
And the large defence contracts that headline the wish list of deals for Obama's visit come burdened with offsets and foreign investment caps.
The Americans who accepted outsourcing of IT and back office functions in boom times as a way to free up capital for job creation at home seem less certain of the strategy's benefits during a bust.
With U.S. unemployment at 9.6 pe rcent, India's putative role as a driver of job insecurity has leaked into campaign rhetoric - Barbara Boxer's attacks on Carly Fiorina for sending Hewlett-Packard jobs to India and China helped her win the California Senate race - and popular culture alike.
NBC's new sitcom, 'Outsourced', tells the story of a Kansas City company that sends most of its jobs to India.
Indian companies keep insisting, quietly, that they're not really the problem: If you don't like jobs getting sent overseas, better to direct your anger at major U.S. corporations whose race for low cost competitiveness drives India's $50 billion software services sector.
'We strongly believe the global delivery model is beneficial to customers,' said Infosys chief executive S. Gopalakrishnan.
'It increases their competitiveness. It reduces costs. It gives them access to a scalable high quality
talent pool and to emerging markets. That's why it's growing.'
Unwelcome: Some Indian Shiite Muslims are unhappy about Mr Obama's trip and held an effigy of him before setting it on fire as they gather for a protest after Friday prayers outside a mosque in Lucknow, India today
The U.S. Congress seemed to disagree, hiking visa fees for Indian outsourcing companies by about $2000 per worker in August, provoking howls of discontent here.
'It's tens of millions of dollars,' said Tata Consultancy Services chief executive N. Chandrasekaran.
The law pinches Indian outsourcers where it hurts, at the heart of the industry's hopes for future growth in its most important global market.
The companies have been trying to diversify into health care and government work and move up the delivery chain to higher value areas like consulting. All require workers, with visas or U.S. passports, in the United States.
Many here fear the backlash will get worse by the 2012 elections, barring a turnaround in the U.S. labour market.
Indian outsourcers - and their clients in corporate America - are happy to move jobs to the U.S. as long as it doesn't disrupt their low-cost business model.
That translates into very few jobs.
Indian policemen report for duty allocation ahead of US President Barack Obama's visit in Mumbai
Lobby group Nasscom says India's software services exporters have created 35,000 high-paying U.S. jobs in the last five years.
Industry leader Tata Consultancy Services is looking to hire 1,000 Americans this fiscal year. Less than one per cent of its global work force are American, according to company data.
Infosys is also looking to hire 1,000 Americans. Its 1,600 permanent U.S. employees - not counting an additional 600 or so who work for two U.S. subsidiaries - make up 1.3 per cent of the company's global work force.
'We can't replace all the people from here with people from the United States and have the same value proposition,' said Chandrasekaran.
From the U.S. side, perhaps most disillusioning is a law passed by India's parliament that extends liability to the suppliers of nuclear plants, making it difficult for private companies to compete against their state owned French and Russian peers in India's multibillion dollar nuclear reactor build-out.
Backers of the civil nuclear deal in Washington, he said, 'made believe India was a true ally and would never let us down'.
U.S. India Business Council president Ron Somers said India's signing last week of an International Atomic Energy Agency convention on liability is a step forward and will require Indian laws to conform to international norms, which do not make private companies liable unless there is malfeasance.
Even India's purchase of 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, expected to be finalised during Obama's visit, will probably be worth less than the anticipated $5.8 billion because of fewer add-ons, said Guy Anderson, lead analyst at Jane's Defence Industry.
India is second only to China in ramping up military procurement, making it an attractive market for U.S. defense companies.
But the bureaucracy is so inefficient the government doesn't manage to spend the money earmarked for military procurement each year, and Russia still dominates sales in a country where some, especially in the older generation, continue to regard U.S. intentions with skepticism.
Somers says naysayers are too impatient and points out that from 2007 to 2009, the U.S. sold India $4.3 billion worth of defense equipment - a huge jump from the $342 million sold from 2001 to 2006.
'We've come a long way,' he said.
Obama Doesn't Get It....to him Compromise is accepting his position and That's Not Going to Happen!
Compromise to Obama means accepting his position....the American People want the new Congress to oppose him tooth and nail....
Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts
By Kevin Cullum - 11/06/10 06:00 AM ET
Days after Democrats received a self-described "shellacking" at the polls, President Obama called for an end to campaigning and an embrace of compromise.
But he signaled no willingness to bend on the first challenge likely to face him from a Republican House as he advocated the permanent extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year despite the GOP's resolve to extend the tax cuts for all income brackets.
In his weekly address Saturday, Obama said that Democrats and Republicans not only agree on middle-class tax cuts but the need to rein in spending, and used this to try to drive his position on the tax cuts.
"At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans," the president said. "We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children."
Obama noted the importance of extending the tax cuts in the lame-duck session, but focused the address on digging in against the full extension sought by Republicans and some Democrats.
"If Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day," he warned.
Obama noted the discontent of the country and the "compromise" that needs to take place between both parties.
The president said that the "message was clear" from voters on Election Day, and that he was also "frustrated" by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. "You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results," Obama said. "I do too."
Obama congratulated the victors that will make up the 112th Congress. "But now, the campaign season is over," he said.
The new Congress would carry over responsibility to tackle the same challenges, he said.
“This is a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.”
Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts
By Kevin Cullum - 11/06/10 06:00 AM ET
Days after Democrats received a self-described "shellacking" at the polls, President Obama called for an end to campaigning and an embrace of compromise.
But he signaled no willingness to bend on the first challenge likely to face him from a Republican House as he advocated the permanent extension of Bush-era tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year despite the GOP's resolve to extend the tax cuts for all income brackets.
In his weekly address Saturday, Obama said that Democrats and Republicans not only agree on middle-class tax cuts but the need to rein in spending, and used this to try to drive his position on the tax cuts.
"At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans," the president said. "We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children."
Obama noted the importance of extending the tax cuts in the lame-duck session, but focused the address on digging in against the full extension sought by Republicans and some Democrats.
"If Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day," he warned.
Obama noted the discontent of the country and the "compromise" that needs to take place between both parties.
The president said that the "message was clear" from voters on Election Day, and that he was also "frustrated" by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. "You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results," Obama said. "I do too."
Obama congratulated the victors that will make up the 112th Congress. "But now, the campaign season is over," he said.
The new Congress would carry over responsibility to tackle the same challenges, he said.
“This is a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.”
Who Does Pelosi think She is?
Who does Pelosi think she is....the American People have spoken in last week's elections and they want to roll back most of the achievements Pelosi, Reid and Obama have put in place!!!!......Democrats need to start listening!
Pelosi Will Run for Leader of House Democratsby Publius
From the Associated Press:
Despite widespread complaints about massive losses that will put Democrats in the minority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she will try to stay on as leader of her party in the House.
The decision exposed a rift between Pelosi’s liberal allies and the dwindling number of moderate Democrats, who feel besieged and eager for substantive and symbolic changes in direction after Tuesday’s Republican rout. It also is likely to trigger leadership battles farther down the ladder.
Pelosi, the nation’s first female speaker, said many colleagues urged her to seek the post of minority leader in the new Congress that convenes in January. That will be the Democrats’ top post, because Republicans, who grabbed more than 60 Democratic-held seats Tuesday, will elect the next speaker. It will be John Boehner of Ohio, who will swap titles with Pelosi if she succeeds in her bid.
“We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back,” Pelosi, 70, said in a letter to her colleagues.
Pelosi Will Run for Leader of House Democratsby Publius
From the Associated Press:
Despite widespread complaints about massive losses that will put Democrats in the minority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she will try to stay on as leader of her party in the House.
The decision exposed a rift between Pelosi’s liberal allies and the dwindling number of moderate Democrats, who feel besieged and eager for substantive and symbolic changes in direction after Tuesday’s Republican rout. It also is likely to trigger leadership battles farther down the ladder.
Pelosi, the nation’s first female speaker, said many colleagues urged her to seek the post of minority leader in the new Congress that convenes in January. That will be the Democrats’ top post, because Republicans, who grabbed more than 60 Democratic-held seats Tuesday, will elect the next speaker. It will be John Boehner of Ohio, who will swap titles with Pelosi if she succeeds in her bid.
“We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back,” Pelosi, 70, said in a letter to her colleagues.
Dems Turn on Obama....Say he's Out of Touch, Unresponisve!
Even the Democrats are turning on Obama and his Administration....they are self imploding!
Sink says the White House got a huge 'wake up call' in the midterms, but took many Democrats down with them.
CloseBy JONATHAN MARTIN | 11/6/10 7:14 AM EDT Updated: 11/6/10 9:29 AM EDT
In the wake of the party’s worst election drubbing since 1994, the deep frustration felt by many centrist Democrats toward the White House and the national party is now out in the open. And it’s being aired in the battleground state that’s the biggest prize in presidential politics.
Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink pointed an accusatory finger Friday at what she called a “tone-deaf” Obama White House to explain why she narrowly lost her campaign.
In an interview with POLITICO, Sink said the administration mishandled the response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, doesn’t appreciate the political damage done by healthcare reform and argued that her GOP opponent’s strategy of tying her to the president did grave damage to her candidacy in the state’s conservative Panhandle.
“They got a huge wake-up call two days ago, but unfortunately they took a lot of Democrats down with them,” said Sink of the White House.
She added: “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics.”
Sink’s complaint can, of course, be chalked up in part to sour grapes on the part of a candidate fresh off a tough loss looking for an explanation. She lost her race by a single percentage point.
But Sink's pointed critique expressed the sentiments of other Florida Democrats after an election in which the party lost four U.S. House seats and every statewide contest Tuesday, not to mention statehouse losses that left Democrats facing GOP legislative supermajorities in one of the largest states in the nation.
Sink, the state’s elected Chief Financial Officer and a former banking executive, ran against Republican Rick Scott, a wealthy former health care CEO who spent tens of millions of his own fortune.
“I faced headwinds from Washington that I liken to a tsunami and was going up against a guy who had unlimited resources,” Sink said. “I could have overcome either one but not both.”
Sink even had the advantage of facing a GOP opponent who was a first-time candidate who had previously run a company slapped with the largest Medicare fraud fine ever issued. But Scott countered that liability with a massive ad campaign linking Sink to Obama, a very unpopular figure in the more conservative parts of the sprawling state.
“[People] preferred to vote for somebody with questionable ethics than for somebody who was associated with the Washington Democratic agenda,” the Floridian said.
Sink said there is a disconnect between the White House and the rest of the country.
"I think they were tone-deaf,” she said. “They weren't interested in hearing my opinion on what was happening on the ground with the oil spill. And they never acknowledged that they had problems with the acceptance of health care reform.”
The new law, she said, is “unpopular particularly among seniors” — a key voting bloc in the Sunshine State.
As for Scott’s hard-hitting ads depicting her as an Obama clone, Sink said the spots hurt “particularly in Northwest Florida.”
Sink, who came up just 67,000 votes short out of more than five million votes cast, lost by margins of two-to-one or worse across the most vote-rich parts of the state’s Panhandle.
White House aides and Democratic National Committee officials, however, say that without the involvement of the national party and Obama’s political arm, Organizing for America, Sink would have fared worse.
“The DNC and OFA kept that campaign afloat,” said a senior West Wing official.
The national party transferred nearly $2 million to Florida Democrats — more than any other state — rolled all the Florida OFA staffers into what became the state party’s coordinated campaign and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on black and Hispanic media buys as well as voter contact efforts to rouse constituencies that were otherwise unenthused about the former banker.
Multiple Democratic sources familiar with Sink’s campaign, however, said administration officials were more concerned about the candidate’s effort to separate herself from the White House than with helping her win.
“She needed some distance and the smart thing to do was allow her to have that distance,” said a Democratic operative familiar with the race.“That would have served their long-term interest.”
But when the candidate criticized the White House response to the oil spill and specifically a summer speech by Vice President Joe Biden in a POLITICO article, an angry administration official called her to demand she “walk back” her assessment, said two sources familiar with the situation.
Sink didn’t deny the exchange.
“I don’t follow anybody’s party line if I don’t think they’re on the right track,” she said when asked about the call.
Another heated back-and-forth took place over whether Sink would meet Obama on the Miami airport tarmac when the president arrived in August for a state party fundraiser. The White House was angry, according to Sink sympathizers, about what they saw as a snub when the candidate stayed away.
But the White House official said that if they had taken Sink’s attempts to separate herself from Obama personally, they would have gone public with their anger instead of airing it only to Sink and her aides. And, this official added, they even went so far as to offer to do a get-out-the-vote event in Miami on her behalf the weekend before the election without her present. The offer was turned down, but Obama still recorded a robocall on her behalf for South Florida.
Still, when they weren’t protecting the president’s image, Obama aides were either totally unhelpful to the campaign or trying to big-foot the operation, according to sources familiar with the contest.
In the spring, when Sink’s campaign was adrift and desperately in need of a shake-up, there was a meeting in Washington with a group of senior Democrats.
Following the meeting, a mid-level White House political official sent out a one-page memo that operatives saw as so illustrative of the Obama team’s cluelessness about the race that they had it laminated and regularly mocked it.
The document, obtained by POLITICO, included such numbered headers as “Hire Key Staff” and “Develop and present a holistic campaign plan.”
A White House official said the memo was only a summary of the conversation for the participants — not a strategic plan.
But Sink’s allies also complain that Obama aides too frequently intervened with the state party’s coordinated campaign.
A White House political affairs office staffer flew down to Florida in the spring to meet with major Obama donors to get their input on the joint funding program.
“They went around what we were trying to do and tried to get their donors to influence what the coordinated process was instead of letting us drive it,” carped one Democratic operative involved in the race.
Even as they concede that Sink made mistakes, Florida Democratic operatives who were not directly involved with the campaign make the case that she was dragged down by the national party.
“She talked about jobs, she talked about taxes, but it didn’t matter,” said veteran strategist Screven Watson. “They put Sink with Pelosi and Obama.”
“If only we had worked on jobs and the economy and maybe an energy bill — but no, we tried to do everything,” he said of the national party. “And then they do an awful job of communicating what they did. So what’s the end result? We just saw it.”
Sink says the White House got a huge 'wake up call' in the midterms, but took many Democrats down with them.
CloseBy JONATHAN MARTIN | 11/6/10 7:14 AM EDT Updated: 11/6/10 9:29 AM EDT
In the wake of the party’s worst election drubbing since 1994, the deep frustration felt by many centrist Democrats toward the White House and the national party is now out in the open. And it’s being aired in the battleground state that’s the biggest prize in presidential politics.
Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink pointed an accusatory finger Friday at what she called a “tone-deaf” Obama White House to explain why she narrowly lost her campaign.
In an interview with POLITICO, Sink said the administration mishandled the response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, doesn’t appreciate the political damage done by healthcare reform and argued that her GOP opponent’s strategy of tying her to the president did grave damage to her candidacy in the state’s conservative Panhandle.
“They got a huge wake-up call two days ago, but unfortunately they took a lot of Democrats down with them,” said Sink of the White House.
She added: “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics.”
Sink’s complaint can, of course, be chalked up in part to sour grapes on the part of a candidate fresh off a tough loss looking for an explanation. She lost her race by a single percentage point.
But Sink's pointed critique expressed the sentiments of other Florida Democrats after an election in which the party lost four U.S. House seats and every statewide contest Tuesday, not to mention statehouse losses that left Democrats facing GOP legislative supermajorities in one of the largest states in the nation.
Sink, the state’s elected Chief Financial Officer and a former banking executive, ran against Republican Rick Scott, a wealthy former health care CEO who spent tens of millions of his own fortune.
“I faced headwinds from Washington that I liken to a tsunami and was going up against a guy who had unlimited resources,” Sink said. “I could have overcome either one but not both.”
Sink even had the advantage of facing a GOP opponent who was a first-time candidate who had previously run a company slapped with the largest Medicare fraud fine ever issued. But Scott countered that liability with a massive ad campaign linking Sink to Obama, a very unpopular figure in the more conservative parts of the sprawling state.
“[People] preferred to vote for somebody with questionable ethics than for somebody who was associated with the Washington Democratic agenda,” the Floridian said.
Sink said there is a disconnect between the White House and the rest of the country.
"I think they were tone-deaf,” she said. “They weren't interested in hearing my opinion on what was happening on the ground with the oil spill. And they never acknowledged that they had problems with the acceptance of health care reform.”
The new law, she said, is “unpopular particularly among seniors” — a key voting bloc in the Sunshine State.
As for Scott’s hard-hitting ads depicting her as an Obama clone, Sink said the spots hurt “particularly in Northwest Florida.”
Sink, who came up just 67,000 votes short out of more than five million votes cast, lost by margins of two-to-one or worse across the most vote-rich parts of the state’s Panhandle.
White House aides and Democratic National Committee officials, however, say that without the involvement of the national party and Obama’s political arm, Organizing for America, Sink would have fared worse.
“The DNC and OFA kept that campaign afloat,” said a senior West Wing official.
The national party transferred nearly $2 million to Florida Democrats — more than any other state — rolled all the Florida OFA staffers into what became the state party’s coordinated campaign and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on black and Hispanic media buys as well as voter contact efforts to rouse constituencies that were otherwise unenthused about the former banker.
Multiple Democratic sources familiar with Sink’s campaign, however, said administration officials were more concerned about the candidate’s effort to separate herself from the White House than with helping her win.
“She needed some distance and the smart thing to do was allow her to have that distance,” said a Democratic operative familiar with the race.“That would have served their long-term interest.”
But when the candidate criticized the White House response to the oil spill and specifically a summer speech by Vice President Joe Biden in a POLITICO article, an angry administration official called her to demand she “walk back” her assessment, said two sources familiar with the situation.
Sink didn’t deny the exchange.
“I don’t follow anybody’s party line if I don’t think they’re on the right track,” she said when asked about the call.
Another heated back-and-forth took place over whether Sink would meet Obama on the Miami airport tarmac when the president arrived in August for a state party fundraiser. The White House was angry, according to Sink sympathizers, about what they saw as a snub when the candidate stayed away.
But the White House official said that if they had taken Sink’s attempts to separate herself from Obama personally, they would have gone public with their anger instead of airing it only to Sink and her aides. And, this official added, they even went so far as to offer to do a get-out-the-vote event in Miami on her behalf the weekend before the election without her present. The offer was turned down, but Obama still recorded a robocall on her behalf for South Florida.
Still, when they weren’t protecting the president’s image, Obama aides were either totally unhelpful to the campaign or trying to big-foot the operation, according to sources familiar with the contest.
In the spring, when Sink’s campaign was adrift and desperately in need of a shake-up, there was a meeting in Washington with a group of senior Democrats.
Following the meeting, a mid-level White House political official sent out a one-page memo that operatives saw as so illustrative of the Obama team’s cluelessness about the race that they had it laminated and regularly mocked it.
The document, obtained by POLITICO, included such numbered headers as “Hire Key Staff” and “Develop and present a holistic campaign plan.”
A White House official said the memo was only a summary of the conversation for the participants — not a strategic plan.
But Sink’s allies also complain that Obama aides too frequently intervened with the state party’s coordinated campaign.
A White House political affairs office staffer flew down to Florida in the spring to meet with major Obama donors to get their input on the joint funding program.
“They went around what we were trying to do and tried to get their donors to influence what the coordinated process was instead of letting us drive it,” carped one Democratic operative involved in the race.
Even as they concede that Sink made mistakes, Florida Democratic operatives who were not directly involved with the campaign make the case that she was dragged down by the national party.
“She talked about jobs, she talked about taxes, but it didn’t matter,” said veteran strategist Screven Watson. “They put Sink with Pelosi and Obama.”
“If only we had worked on jobs and the economy and maybe an energy bill — but no, we tried to do everything,” he said of the national party. “And then they do an awful job of communicating what they did. So what’s the end result? We just saw it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)