U.S. Rep. John Murtha died today (Monday). He was 77.
The Pennsylvania Democrat had been suffering complications from gallbladder surgery. He died at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va., spokesman Matthew Mazonkey said.
Murtha heavily critisized the Iraq War and his congressional career was shadowed by questions about his ethics.
The Drudge Report is carrying as lead story from the U.K. Guardian that says Murtha's stance on these issues, and the unpopularity with the Democrats over-reach on Government run healthcare, automobile companies, banks and more, the Democrats now fear they will lose Murtha's seat to a Republican candidate.
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/09/john-murtha-barack-obama-democrats
*** Meanwhile ... rumors fly another Democrat Governor will step down, but NY Gov. Paterson denies it:http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/politics/100208-career-ending-scandal-for-paterson-apx
Monday, February 08, 2010
'Miss Me Yet?' Billboard With Photo Of Bush Is Real
I've seen this billboard ... YES, it exists....FROM MN Public Radio blog:
'Miss Me Yet?' Billboard With Photo Of Bush Is Real; Not An Internet Trick
12:55 pm
Who paid for it? (Courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio)
By Mark Memmott
Internet chatter had led to speculation that it might be an urban myth -- nothing more than clever digital trickery spreading via the Web.
But our friend Bob Collins at Minnesota Public Radio assures us he's seen it with his own eyes:
There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: "Miss Me Yet?"
Now, the push is on to find out who paid to have it put up.
Bob says there's no readily apparent claim of ownership on the billboard, so he's heading back to the scene to see if he can find out who's behind the message. He's also got some local politicos looking into it. He'll keep us posted.
At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn't thrilled by President Barack Obama's performance so far -- unless it's a more ironic message from those who didn't think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.
Anyone out there know anything about where it came from? Tell us and we'll pass the word to Bob. As he says, we could do a little crowdsourcing
Saturday, February 06, 2010
WSJ: For GOP, No Experience Is No Problem
From the Wall Street Journal (linked above)
For GOP, No Experience Is No Problem
Party Drafts Political Newcomers as Candidates in a Bid to Capitalize on Voters' Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Washington MoodBy SUSAN DAVIS
Scott Rigell is best known around Virginia Beach as a car dealer. Come January, he is hoping to be known by another title: congressman.
Seeking to tap into growing anti-establishment discord among voters, the Republican Party is actively seeking candidates who have never before held elected office.
Bruce O'Donoghue owns a company that makes traffic-light systems; he is challenging Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson. Jon Runyan, a former player for the Philadelphia Eagles and San Diego Chargers, is running in southern New Jersey.
."My roots run deep in Tennessee, not politics," reads the banner across the campaign Web site of Stephen Fincher, a Tennessee farmer and gospel singer heavily wooed by Washington Republicans to run this year.
Such Republicans are contesting six of the 20 most competitive House seats currently held by Democrats. At least as many are found in districts that could become more competitive as election season heats up. Filing deadlines to run for Congress are still months away in most states, so it is possible more newcomers could join the fold.
Running political newcomers is a proven strategy when the political tide swings drastically toward one side, and at times when voters have soured on Washington in general. In 1994, when Republicans won a majority of House seats after four decades in the minority, 55% of the party's 73 freshmen lawmakers had never held political office. Similarly in 2006, when Democrats took control, 45% of their new lawmakers had never held office before.
Chris Russell, campaign consultant for Mr. Runyan, called 2010 a good year to be running as an outsider. "I don't want to overstate it, but people hate politicians," he said.
The strategy could help Republicans tap into enthusiasm generated among Tea Party groups and other conservatives. Though these activists have sprung from the right, they remain antagonistic toward the GOP establishment. The movement arose in part as a backlash against the government's intervention in Wall Street and the auto industry, as well as opposition to Democratic initiatives, including a health-care overhaul.
This year, running newcomers is "absolutely the story of Republican recruiting," said David Wasserman, a House race analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Cook currently predicts the GOP will gain between 25 and 35 House seats this fall, and doesn't rule out the more distant possibility of a Republican takeover, which would require a net gain of 40 seats.
Mr. Wasserman predicted a significant number of freshmen GOP lawmakers this November would be political newcomers. Many are running on a platform of fiscal rectitude, a nod to how the economy and role of government are dominating public debate. "We really are at a defining moment," Mr. Rigell said in an interview, during which he echoed a theme of economic uncertainty voiced by other candidates. "I look at the fiscal side of this country and I am alarmed and deeply troubled."
Unlike the 1994 setback, which caught the Democrats by surprise, the party is keenly aware of the political headwinds they face in the midterms, when the president's party typically loses seats.
The House Democrats' campaign operation has a significant cash advantage over its Republican counterpart: $16.6 million to $2.7 million. And incumbents are fund-raising in anticipation of competitive contests. Florida's Mr. Grayson said Wednesday that his $861,000 fourth-quarter haul was more than any other Democratic candidate's.
Many of these newcomers will also have to survive primary elections. Mr. O'Donoghue is favored by party leaders—he expects to be endorsed by Florida's retiring Republican Sen. Mel Martinez this week—but a crowded 12-way primary awaits.
Moreover, voters aren't necessarily ready to embrace Republicans, despite GOP victories in governor's races last year in Virginia and New Jersey and an upset win in last month's Massachusetts U.S. Senate race. Those victories relied on independent voters, not party loyalists.
A January Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed 42% of Americans held a negative view of the Republican Party and 30% held a positive one. "The Republican brand is damaged," Mr. Rigell said. "I have to overcome that."
There are early signals that voters are willing to welcome new blood. In an Illinois Republican primary on Tuesday, pest-management company manager Bob Dold upset the initial party favorite, State Rep. Beth Coulson. Mr. Dold now faces Dan Seals, the Democrats' unsuccessful 2006 and 2008 nominee, in what could be one of the most competitive contests this year.
Several rookie candidates said they hope their bids will capture the enthusiasm of activists, in particular Tea Party voters.
Mike Grimm, a former undercover agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who investigated white-collar crime on Wall Street, is running in the New York district held by Democratic Rep. Mike McMahon. He said the district, in the New York City borough of Staten Island, has one of the most active Tea Party groups in the nation. While the group doesn't endorse candidates, Mr. Grimm seeks counsel from local Tea Party leader Frank Santarpia. "I pick his brain all the time," Mr. Grimm said.
Mr. Santarpia said he likes the idea of newcomers running for Congress. "There's a great deal of appeal to that. It certainly appeals to me," he said.
For GOP, No Experience Is No Problem
Party Drafts Political Newcomers as Candidates in a Bid to Capitalize on Voters' Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Washington MoodBy SUSAN DAVIS
Scott Rigell is best known around Virginia Beach as a car dealer. Come January, he is hoping to be known by another title: congressman.
Seeking to tap into growing anti-establishment discord among voters, the Republican Party is actively seeking candidates who have never before held elected office.
Bruce O'Donoghue owns a company that makes traffic-light systems; he is challenging Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson. Jon Runyan, a former player for the Philadelphia Eagles and San Diego Chargers, is running in southern New Jersey.
."My roots run deep in Tennessee, not politics," reads the banner across the campaign Web site of Stephen Fincher, a Tennessee farmer and gospel singer heavily wooed by Washington Republicans to run this year.
Such Republicans are contesting six of the 20 most competitive House seats currently held by Democrats. At least as many are found in districts that could become more competitive as election season heats up. Filing deadlines to run for Congress are still months away in most states, so it is possible more newcomers could join the fold.
Running political newcomers is a proven strategy when the political tide swings drastically toward one side, and at times when voters have soured on Washington in general. In 1994, when Republicans won a majority of House seats after four decades in the minority, 55% of the party's 73 freshmen lawmakers had never held political office. Similarly in 2006, when Democrats took control, 45% of their new lawmakers had never held office before.
Chris Russell, campaign consultant for Mr. Runyan, called 2010 a good year to be running as an outsider. "I don't want to overstate it, but people hate politicians," he said.
The strategy could help Republicans tap into enthusiasm generated among Tea Party groups and other conservatives. Though these activists have sprung from the right, they remain antagonistic toward the GOP establishment. The movement arose in part as a backlash against the government's intervention in Wall Street and the auto industry, as well as opposition to Democratic initiatives, including a health-care overhaul.
This year, running newcomers is "absolutely the story of Republican recruiting," said David Wasserman, a House race analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Cook currently predicts the GOP will gain between 25 and 35 House seats this fall, and doesn't rule out the more distant possibility of a Republican takeover, which would require a net gain of 40 seats.
Mr. Wasserman predicted a significant number of freshmen GOP lawmakers this November would be political newcomers. Many are running on a platform of fiscal rectitude, a nod to how the economy and role of government are dominating public debate. "We really are at a defining moment," Mr. Rigell said in an interview, during which he echoed a theme of economic uncertainty voiced by other candidates. "I look at the fiscal side of this country and I am alarmed and deeply troubled."
Unlike the 1994 setback, which caught the Democrats by surprise, the party is keenly aware of the political headwinds they face in the midterms, when the president's party typically loses seats.
The House Democrats' campaign operation has a significant cash advantage over its Republican counterpart: $16.6 million to $2.7 million. And incumbents are fund-raising in anticipation of competitive contests. Florida's Mr. Grayson said Wednesday that his $861,000 fourth-quarter haul was more than any other Democratic candidate's.
Many of these newcomers will also have to survive primary elections. Mr. O'Donoghue is favored by party leaders—he expects to be endorsed by Florida's retiring Republican Sen. Mel Martinez this week—but a crowded 12-way primary awaits.
Moreover, voters aren't necessarily ready to embrace Republicans, despite GOP victories in governor's races last year in Virginia and New Jersey and an upset win in last month's Massachusetts U.S. Senate race. Those victories relied on independent voters, not party loyalists.
A January Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed 42% of Americans held a negative view of the Republican Party and 30% held a positive one. "The Republican brand is damaged," Mr. Rigell said. "I have to overcome that."
There are early signals that voters are willing to welcome new blood. In an Illinois Republican primary on Tuesday, pest-management company manager Bob Dold upset the initial party favorite, State Rep. Beth Coulson. Mr. Dold now faces Dan Seals, the Democrats' unsuccessful 2006 and 2008 nominee, in what could be one of the most competitive contests this year.
Several rookie candidates said they hope their bids will capture the enthusiasm of activists, in particular Tea Party voters.
Mike Grimm, a former undercover agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who investigated white-collar crime on Wall Street, is running in the New York district held by Democratic Rep. Mike McMahon. He said the district, in the New York City borough of Staten Island, has one of the most active Tea Party groups in the nation. While the group doesn't endorse candidates, Mr. Grimm seeks counsel from local Tea Party leader Frank Santarpia. "I pick his brain all the time," Mr. Grimm said.
Mr. Santarpia said he likes the idea of newcomers running for Congress. "There's a great deal of appeal to that. It certainly appeals to me," he said.
Sarah Palin Keynote Speech at Tea Party Convention
Seems the left resorts to tired tactics to try to discredit those that point out the truth:
Thursday, February 04, 2010
ABC News: White House Prepares for Possibility of 2 Supreme Court Vacancies
SCOTUS Watchers Believe Justices Stevens and Ginsburg Could Decide to Step Aside
Lawyers for President Obama have been working behind the scenes to prepare for the possibility of one, and maybe two Supreme Court vacancies this spring.
Associate justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are seen during a Supreme Court group photograph, Sept. 2009 in Washington. Court watchers believe either or both could decide to step aside and give President Obama his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court.
Last week, when Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of criticizing the court's opinion in a major campaign finance case during his State of the Union speech, some believed he was showcasing for the American people that presidential elections, and Supreme Court nominations count
AFP: Is US bullying Toyota on recall?
(Story linked above)
By Mira Oberman (AFP) – 8 hours ago
CHICAGO — The US transportation chief's public rebukes of Toyota's handling of a massive safety recall have raised eyebrows, given the US government's major stake in rivals General Motors and Chrysler.
"The optics are terrible because -- and this is what happens when a government owns a company - the two companies that are going to gain the most out of this are General Motors and Chrysler," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's business school.
"But their behavior is consistent with the general policy of the US government, whether it's dealing with coffeemakers or cars."
Safety officials understand that product design mistakes are inevitable and will work to help companies correct the problem and alert consumers. But they will not tolerate a slow or weak response, Morici told AFP.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sat down with reporters Wednesday to lay out a timeline of how US officials had "pushed Toyota to take corrective actions" on its pedal problems since 2007.
The meeting came a day after he issued a statement accusing the Japanese automaker of dragging its feet on recalling vehicles in danger of sudden, unintended acceleration due to pedals which could get trapped under floor mats or become "sticky."
He also caused a brief panic when he told a congressional panel that owners of 5.3 million Toyota vehicles affected by the recalls should "stop driving" them.
LaHood later sought to tone down his remarks, telling reporters: "What I meant to say and what I thought I said was if you own one of these cars or if you're in doubt, take it to the dealer and they're going to fix it."
But he insisted that safety officials "will continue to hold Toyota's feet to the fire to make sure that they are doing everything they have promised to make their vehicles safe."
Legislators meanwhile signaled that they would expand their probe, demanding answers on why Toyota's Tacoma trucks -- which have a different pedal assembly than the 5.3 million vehicles recalled -- were also experiencing problems with sudden, unintended acceleration.
Toyota's top US official, Yoshimi Inaba, is set to testify at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
LaHood's strong initial comments could cause some "hysteria, but to some extent, we are such a litigious society, he has no choice but to say that because of the lawsuits that are lined up," said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Global Insight.
"If one more person is killed, they can say that the government didn't act; Toyota did not act."
Weston Konishi, an expert on Japan at the Mansfield Foundation think-tank, said he doubted either Washington or Tokyo wanted the Toyota flap to escalate.
"Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy -- think of its auto plants and jobs -- so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating," he added.
Konishi said he could only see Toyota becoming the governments' business if the company cut off contracts with US manufacturers due to lack of confidence in quality control after the problems with the US-made pedals.
David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports magazine, said the reaction to the recall was overblown.
"When you look at the statistics we are putting an awful lot of effort on a very small risk," he said.
"There has been something like 2,000 complaints of unintended acceleration in some 20 million Toyota vehicles -- it's almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack."
Champion lamented as "unfortunate" that it took the death of an off-duty California state trooper and three members of his family to prompt Toyota to issue a mass recall in September to address the problem.
But he said a congressional investigation was an "overreaction" and noted that the "sticky" pedal problem that caused Toyota to halt production and sales of eight models last month was not linked to any accidents or injuries.
"I'm sure it's going to hurt Toyota in the short term over the next year or so," Champion said.
"But if their products are as good as they have been in the past, we're going to see that Toyota's going to bounce back as Ford has from the Firestone (tire recall) fiasco."
And from FOX:
By Mira Oberman (AFP) – 8 hours ago
CHICAGO — The US transportation chief's public rebukes of Toyota's handling of a massive safety recall have raised eyebrows, given the US government's major stake in rivals General Motors and Chrysler.
"The optics are terrible because -- and this is what happens when a government owns a company - the two companies that are going to gain the most out of this are General Motors and Chrysler," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's business school.
"But their behavior is consistent with the general policy of the US government, whether it's dealing with coffeemakers or cars."
Safety officials understand that product design mistakes are inevitable and will work to help companies correct the problem and alert consumers. But they will not tolerate a slow or weak response, Morici told AFP.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sat down with reporters Wednesday to lay out a timeline of how US officials had "pushed Toyota to take corrective actions" on its pedal problems since 2007.
The meeting came a day after he issued a statement accusing the Japanese automaker of dragging its feet on recalling vehicles in danger of sudden, unintended acceleration due to pedals which could get trapped under floor mats or become "sticky."
He also caused a brief panic when he told a congressional panel that owners of 5.3 million Toyota vehicles affected by the recalls should "stop driving" them.
LaHood later sought to tone down his remarks, telling reporters: "What I meant to say and what I thought I said was if you own one of these cars or if you're in doubt, take it to the dealer and they're going to fix it."
But he insisted that safety officials "will continue to hold Toyota's feet to the fire to make sure that they are doing everything they have promised to make their vehicles safe."
Legislators meanwhile signaled that they would expand their probe, demanding answers on why Toyota's Tacoma trucks -- which have a different pedal assembly than the 5.3 million vehicles recalled -- were also experiencing problems with sudden, unintended acceleration.
Toyota's top US official, Yoshimi Inaba, is set to testify at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
LaHood's strong initial comments could cause some "hysteria, but to some extent, we are such a litigious society, he has no choice but to say that because of the lawsuits that are lined up," said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Global Insight.
"If one more person is killed, they can say that the government didn't act; Toyota did not act."
Weston Konishi, an expert on Japan at the Mansfield Foundation think-tank, said he doubted either Washington or Tokyo wanted the Toyota flap to escalate.
"Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy -- think of its auto plants and jobs -- so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating," he added.
Konishi said he could only see Toyota becoming the governments' business if the company cut off contracts with US manufacturers due to lack of confidence in quality control after the problems with the US-made pedals.
David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports magazine, said the reaction to the recall was overblown.
"When you look at the statistics we are putting an awful lot of effort on a very small risk," he said.
"There has been something like 2,000 complaints of unintended acceleration in some 20 million Toyota vehicles -- it's almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack."
Champion lamented as "unfortunate" that it took the death of an off-duty California state trooper and three members of his family to prompt Toyota to issue a mass recall in September to address the problem.
But he said a congressional investigation was an "overreaction" and noted that the "sticky" pedal problem that caused Toyota to halt production and sales of eight models last month was not linked to any accidents or injuries.
"I'm sure it's going to hurt Toyota in the short term over the next year or so," Champion said.
"But if their products are as good as they have been in the past, we're going to see that Toyota's going to bounce back as Ford has from the Firestone (tire recall) fiasco."
And from FOX:
Fortune:Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security
Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security
Sponsored by
by Allan Sloan
Thursday, February 4, 2010
provided by
Don't look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.
The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).
This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.
Social Security hasn't been cash-negative since the early 1980s, when it came so close to running out of money that it was making plans to stop sending out benefit checks. That led to the famous Greenspan Commission report, which recommended trimming benefits and raising taxes, which Congress did. Those actions produced hefty cash surpluses, which until this year have helped finance the rest of the government.
But even then, it was clear the surpluses would be temporary. Now, years earlier than projected, Social Security is adding to the government's borrowing needs, even though the program still shows a surplus on paper.
If you go to the aforementioned pages in the CBO update and consult the tables on them, you see that the budget office projects smaller cash deficits (about $19 billion annually) for fiscal 2011 and 2012. Then the program approaches break-even for a while before the deficits resume.
Social Security currently provides more than half the income for a majority of retirees. Given the declines in stock prices and home values that have whacked millions of people, the program seems likely to become more important in the future as a source of retirement income, rather than less important.
It would have been a lot simpler to fix the system years ago, when we could have used Social Security's cash surpluses to buy non-Treasury securities, such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls. Now it's too late.
Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security's days of being flush are over
(link to full story above)
Sponsored by
by Allan Sloan
Thursday, February 4, 2010
provided by
Don't look now. But even as the bank bailout is winding down, another huge bailout is starting, this time for the Social Security system.
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
No one has officially announced that Social Security will be cash-negative this year. But you can figure it out for yourself, as I did, by comparing two numbers in the recent federal budget update that the nonpartisan CBO issued last week.
The first number is $120 billion, the interest that Social Security will earn on its trust fund in fiscal 2010 (see page 74 of the CBO report). The second is $92 billion, the overall Social Security surplus for fiscal 2010 (see page 116).
This means that without the interest income, Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Why disregard the interest? Because as people like me have said repeatedly over the years, the interest, which consists of Treasury IOUs that the Social Security trust fund gets on its holdings of government securities, doesn't provide Social Security with any cash that it can use to pay its bills. The interest is merely an accounting entry with no economic significance.
Social Security hasn't been cash-negative since the early 1980s, when it came so close to running out of money that it was making plans to stop sending out benefit checks. That led to the famous Greenspan Commission report, which recommended trimming benefits and raising taxes, which Congress did. Those actions produced hefty cash surpluses, which until this year have helped finance the rest of the government.
But even then, it was clear the surpluses would be temporary. Now, years earlier than projected, Social Security is adding to the government's borrowing needs, even though the program still shows a surplus on paper.
If you go to the aforementioned pages in the CBO update and consult the tables on them, you see that the budget office projects smaller cash deficits (about $19 billion annually) for fiscal 2011 and 2012. Then the program approaches break-even for a while before the deficits resume.
Social Security currently provides more than half the income for a majority of retirees. Given the declines in stock prices and home values that have whacked millions of people, the program seems likely to become more important in the future as a source of retirement income, rather than less important.
It would have been a lot simpler to fix the system years ago, when we could have used Social Security's cash surpluses to buy non-Treasury securities, such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls. Now it's too late.
Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security's days of being flush are over
(link to full story above)
My Way: House faces tough vote on $1.9 trillion more debt
WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing a politically excruciating vote, House Democratic leaders are counting on new budget deficit curbs to help smooth the way for a bill allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper into debt over the next year - or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident.
The debt measure set for a House vote Thursday would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.
Already, the accumulated debt amounts to $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.
Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous "no" vote from GOP members present.
(See full story through link above)
The debt measure set for a House vote Thursday would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That's enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.
Already, the accumulated debt amounts to $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.
Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous "no" vote from GOP members present.
(See full story through link above)
AP: First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 480,000 as layoffs continue, jobs remain scarce
By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer , On Thursday February 4, 2010, 9:41 am EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, evidence that layoffs are continuing and jobs remain scarce.
The rise is the fourth in the past five weeks. Most economists hoped that claims would resume a downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.
The Labor Department said Thursday that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000, according to Thomson Reuters.
The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the third straight week to 468,750.
The figure is the highest in the past two months. Initial claims dropped sharply in late December, raising hopes among economists that layoffs were nearing an end and the economy would soon start generating net gains in jobs.
The figures come a day before the Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs. The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10.1 percent.
The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.
But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.
(see full story at link above)
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Baltimore Sun: Vulnerable Dems seek distance from Obama
As Congress begins picking through President Obama's vast election year budget, many Democratic incumbents and candidates seem to be finding something they love — to campaign against.
A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget's sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And an endangered Senate Democrat denounced proposed cuts in farm subsidies.
A headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), blares her opposition to Obama's farm budget: ``Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families,'' it says.
Heading into an election season in which Republicans are trying to tie Democrats to Obama's unpopular policies, Obama's budget gives his fellow Democrats an unlikely campaign tool — a catalogue of ways to establish their distance from controversial aspects of his administration.
It is a time-tested campaign tactic for politicians to declare their independence of party leaders. But the tactic is particularly important for Democrats this year, because their party dominates Washington, and being an insider is a political liability in an anti-incumbent climate.
Underscoring that dynamic, Obama held a question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, drawing polite challenges from a procession of incumbents up for reelection.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a recent party-switcher, questioned trade policies battering the steel industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked about health care for first responders involved in the Sept. 11attack. The message from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.): ``California is hurting.''
All that underscores a potential gap between Obama's governing agenda and congressional Democrats' political interest in the election. While Democrats on the ballot encounter stiff headwinds, Obama is asking them look at the big picture on the budget, take on tough issues, and let the politics take care of themselves.
``If anybody's searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you, the answer is not to do nothing," Obama told the Senate Democrats. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."
Since his State of the Union address last week, Obama has offered a spirited defense of his agenda, his feisty demeanor an implicit promise of support for those Democrats who work with him. At a time when some might be thinking about parting ways with his agenda, Obama is pressing his case that now is not the time to abandon the ideals that swept him into office.
While Democrats agree with Obama's broad goals, they do not agree with all it takes to achieve them – especially in his budget, which makes little short-term progress in deficit reduction yet calls for spending cuts in many programs.
Lincoln is a dedicated proponent of fiscal responsibility. But she sharply denounced the cuts in farm subsidies that are so important to her state. That is not only good constituent service, but good 2010 politics in a state that voted heavily against Obama in the 2008 election.
Wednesday's meeting with Obama gave Lincoln a televised opportunity to challenge Obama on a broader question. As one of eight Democrats hand-picked by party leaders to question the president, all but one up for re-election this year, Lincoln urged Obama to ``to push back against people in our own party that want extremes.''
Then, in short order, her campaign website featured a news report: ``Lincoln challenges Obama on liberal `extremes.'"
Elsewhere around the country, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas — a freshman Democrat from a Republican leaning part of Florida — minced no words in complaining about Obama's proposed cuts to the NASA budget. The space industry is one of the largest employers in her district.
``The president's proposal lacks a bold vision for space exploration and begs for the type of leadership that he has described as critical for inspiring innovation for the 21st century,'' said Kosmas.
In the swing state of Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan wasted no time this week denouncing Obama's budget as profligate.
``I'm disappointed in the president's budget recommendation,'' she said. ``Missouri families have to balance their checkbooks and our government is no different.''
Democrats trumpet that split between their candidate and Obama as Carnahan tries to run as an outsider. But Republicans have tagged her ``Rubberstamp Robin'' for supporting Obama's health care bill and other congressional initiatives.
Probably no vulnerable Democrat has more of a burden in defending Obama's budget than Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), the House Budget Committee Chairman who is facing a strong opponent in his Republican-leaning district.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has already run an ad attacking him for his record in handling deficit-laden budgets. But Spratt has not shied from his association with the volatile issue. When Obama's budget was delivered to Capitol Hill Monday, Spratt joined in a ``photo op'' for its reception.
The photo was run on a conservative blog under the headline: ``Budget now in Spratt's liberal hands.''
A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget's sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And an endangered Senate Democrat denounced proposed cuts in farm subsidies.
A headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), blares her opposition to Obama's farm budget: ``Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families,'' it says.
Heading into an election season in which Republicans are trying to tie Democrats to Obama's unpopular policies, Obama's budget gives his fellow Democrats an unlikely campaign tool — a catalogue of ways to establish their distance from controversial aspects of his administration.
It is a time-tested campaign tactic for politicians to declare their independence of party leaders. But the tactic is particularly important for Democrats this year, because their party dominates Washington, and being an insider is a political liability in an anti-incumbent climate.
Underscoring that dynamic, Obama held a question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, drawing polite challenges from a procession of incumbents up for reelection.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), a recent party-switcher, questioned trade policies battering the steel industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) asked about health care for first responders involved in the Sept. 11attack. The message from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.): ``California is hurting.''
All that underscores a potential gap between Obama's governing agenda and congressional Democrats' political interest in the election. While Democrats on the ballot encounter stiff headwinds, Obama is asking them look at the big picture on the budget, take on tough issues, and let the politics take care of themselves.
``If anybody's searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you, the answer is not to do nothing," Obama told the Senate Democrats. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."
Since his State of the Union address last week, Obama has offered a spirited defense of his agenda, his feisty demeanor an implicit promise of support for those Democrats who work with him. At a time when some might be thinking about parting ways with his agenda, Obama is pressing his case that now is not the time to abandon the ideals that swept him into office.
While Democrats agree with Obama's broad goals, they do not agree with all it takes to achieve them – especially in his budget, which makes little short-term progress in deficit reduction yet calls for spending cuts in many programs.
Lincoln is a dedicated proponent of fiscal responsibility. But she sharply denounced the cuts in farm subsidies that are so important to her state. That is not only good constituent service, but good 2010 politics in a state that voted heavily against Obama in the 2008 election.
Wednesday's meeting with Obama gave Lincoln a televised opportunity to challenge Obama on a broader question. As one of eight Democrats hand-picked by party leaders to question the president, all but one up for re-election this year, Lincoln urged Obama to ``to push back against people in our own party that want extremes.''
Then, in short order, her campaign website featured a news report: ``Lincoln challenges Obama on liberal `extremes.'"
Elsewhere around the country, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas — a freshman Democrat from a Republican leaning part of Florida — minced no words in complaining about Obama's proposed cuts to the NASA budget. The space industry is one of the largest employers in her district.
``The president's proposal lacks a bold vision for space exploration and begs for the type of leadership that he has described as critical for inspiring innovation for the 21st century,'' said Kosmas.
In the swing state of Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan wasted no time this week denouncing Obama's budget as profligate.
``I'm disappointed in the president's budget recommendation,'' she said. ``Missouri families have to balance their checkbooks and our government is no different.''
Democrats trumpet that split between their candidate and Obama as Carnahan tries to run as an outsider. But Republicans have tagged her ``Rubberstamp Robin'' for supporting Obama's health care bill and other congressional initiatives.
Probably no vulnerable Democrat has more of a burden in defending Obama's budget than Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), the House Budget Committee Chairman who is facing a strong opponent in his Republican-leaning district.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has already run an ad attacking him for his record in handling deficit-laden budgets. But Spratt has not shied from his association with the volatile issue. When Obama's budget was delivered to Capitol Hill Monday, Spratt joined in a ``photo op'' for its reception.
The photo was run on a conservative blog under the headline: ``Budget now in Spratt's liberal hands.''
AFP:US debt to hit proposed ceiling by end-February: Treasury
WASHINGTON — The US debt is on track to hit a congressionally proposed debt ceiling of 14.3 trillion dollars by the end of February, the Treasury said Wednesday, a day ahead of a key vote to raise it to that level.
"Based on current projections, Treasury expects to reach the debt ceiling as early as the end of February. However, the government's cash flows are volatile, making it difficult to forecast a precise date," the Treasury said in a statement.
The current limit on the public debt of the United States is 12.374 trillion dollars.
The US debt exceeded 12.349 trillion dollars on Monday, according to Treasury data.
The US House of Representatives will vote Thursday on whether to raise the US debt limit to a historic 14.3 trillion dollars, allowing the United States to borrow another 1.9 trillion dollars.
(full story linked above)
DEMOCRATS FIND THIS HUMOROUS: Youtube:
"Based on current projections, Treasury expects to reach the debt ceiling as early as the end of February. However, the government's cash flows are volatile, making it difficult to forecast a precise date," the Treasury said in a statement.
The current limit on the public debt of the United States is 12.374 trillion dollars.
The US debt exceeded 12.349 trillion dollars on Monday, according to Treasury data.
The US House of Representatives will vote Thursday on whether to raise the US debt limit to a historic 14.3 trillion dollars, allowing the United States to borrow another 1.9 trillion dollars.
(full story linked above)
DEMOCRATS FIND THIS HUMOROUS: Youtube:
Monday, February 01, 2010
Election 2010: Florida Republican Primary for Senate
Election 2010: Florida Republican Primary for Senate
Florida GOP Senate: Rubio 49%, Crist 37%
Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio has now jumped to a 12-point lead over Governor Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided.
The new numbers mark a stunning turnaround. Crist was the strong favorite when he first announced for the Senate seat, and Rubio was viewed as a long-shot challenger.
But Crist’s support fell from 53% in August to 49% in October. By December, the two men were tied at 43% apiece.
Rubio leads Crist by 17 points among men and by seven among women. He also carries 52% of the conservative GOP vote, while moderates prefer Crist.
Crist’s fortunes appear to be tied in part to national unhappiness over President Obama and his policies. Many conservatives began rebelling against Crist when he became one of the few Republican governors to embrace Obama’s $787-billion economic stimulus plan last year. The national Republican party establishment endorsed Crist early on, but a number of prominent national party conservatives have since announced their support for Rubio. Nationally, the GOP’s Florida Senate race is being watched as a test of the new “Tea Party” mood among many conservative and traditionally Republican voters.
In Florida's Senate general election contest, Crist and Rubio both hold a double-digit lead over their likely Democratic opponent, Congressman Kendrick Meek, in the latest Rasmussen Reports polling of likely voters in the state.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of GOP Primary voters have a favorable view of Crist while 37% regard the governor unfavorably. Those figures include 19% with a very favorable opinion and 11% who have a very unfavorable view of him.
Rubio is viewed favorably by 67% of primary voters and unfavorably by only14%. These numbers include 35% with a very favorable opinion of the Cuban-American candidate versus four percent (4%) with a very unfavorable view.
Perhaps more telling for Crist is that just 56% of Republican Primary voters approve of the job he is now doing as governor. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove of his job performance.
Both men are vying to be the Republican nominee in next year’s race to fill the seat vacated by retiring GOP Senator Mel Martinez. In August, Crist as governor named his chief of staff, George LeMiuex, to serve the remainder of Martinez’s term, but LeMieux is not running for a full term next year. Florida’s Republican Primary is scheduled for August 24.
Democratic Senate incumbents who currently trail their challengers include Harry Reid in Nevada, Michael Bennet in Colorado, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Barbara Boxer from California, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin find themselves in more competitive races than usual.
Republicans lead open-seat Senate races in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Ohio. Democrats lead in Connecticut, and the race is close in Illinois. North Carolina incumbent Republican Senator Richard Burr is ahead but potentially vulnerable. Following last month's upset GOP Senate win in Massachusetts, political analyst Larry Sabato wrote that if the election were held today, “The (59-seat) Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats.”
Posted using ShareThis
Florida GOP Senate: Rubio 49%, Crist 37%
Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio has now jumped to a 12-point lead over Governor Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided.
The new numbers mark a stunning turnaround. Crist was the strong favorite when he first announced for the Senate seat, and Rubio was viewed as a long-shot challenger.
But Crist’s support fell from 53% in August to 49% in October. By December, the two men were tied at 43% apiece.
Rubio leads Crist by 17 points among men and by seven among women. He also carries 52% of the conservative GOP vote, while moderates prefer Crist.
Crist’s fortunes appear to be tied in part to national unhappiness over President Obama and his policies. Many conservatives began rebelling against Crist when he became one of the few Republican governors to embrace Obama’s $787-billion economic stimulus plan last year. The national Republican party establishment endorsed Crist early on, but a number of prominent national party conservatives have since announced their support for Rubio. Nationally, the GOP’s Florida Senate race is being watched as a test of the new “Tea Party” mood among many conservative and traditionally Republican voters.
In Florida's Senate general election contest, Crist and Rubio both hold a double-digit lead over their likely Democratic opponent, Congressman Kendrick Meek, in the latest Rasmussen Reports polling of likely voters in the state.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of GOP Primary voters have a favorable view of Crist while 37% regard the governor unfavorably. Those figures include 19% with a very favorable opinion and 11% who have a very unfavorable view of him.
Rubio is viewed favorably by 67% of primary voters and unfavorably by only14%. These numbers include 35% with a very favorable opinion of the Cuban-American candidate versus four percent (4%) with a very unfavorable view.
Perhaps more telling for Crist is that just 56% of Republican Primary voters approve of the job he is now doing as governor. Forty-three percent (43%) disapprove of his job performance.
Both men are vying to be the Republican nominee in next year’s race to fill the seat vacated by retiring GOP Senator Mel Martinez. In August, Crist as governor named his chief of staff, George LeMiuex, to serve the remainder of Martinez’s term, but LeMieux is not running for a full term next year. Florida’s Republican Primary is scheduled for August 24.
Democratic Senate incumbents who currently trail their challengers include Harry Reid in Nevada, Michael Bennet in Colorado, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Barbara Boxer from California, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin find themselves in more competitive races than usual.
Republicans lead open-seat Senate races in Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Ohio. Democrats lead in Connecticut, and the race is close in Illinois. North Carolina incumbent Republican Senator Richard Burr is ahead but potentially vulnerable. Following last month's upset GOP Senate win in Massachusetts, political analyst Larry Sabato wrote that if the election were held today, “The (59-seat) Democratic majority in the Senate would be reduced to just 52 seats.”
Posted using ShareThis
Obama submits $3.8 trillion budget with record $1.6 trillion deficit
And from Rueters
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131White House to paint grim fiscal picture: source
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year and more big shortfalls for the next decade in its upcoming budget proposal, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.
Barack Obama
In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.
According to the estimate, deficits will narrow to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before gradually rising back to $1.0 trillion by the end of the decade, the source said.
President Barack Obama will seek to strike a balance between reducing the deficit over the long term and stimulating the economy in the short term to ease the pain of double-digit unemployment.
Criticized by Republicans as a big spender, Obama used his State of the Union address last week to tell Americans he would dig the country out of a "massive fiscal hole."
That hole is even deeper than previously believed, according to the estimate by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
The estimate for the current fiscal year is significantly higher than the $1.35 trillion figure forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week.
Despite the difference, both estimates indicate that the deficit will continue to hover at a level not seen since World War Two, when measured as a percentage of the economy. Last year the government posted a $1.4 trillion deficit.
THREE-YEAR FREEZE WON'T BE ENOUGH
In his budget, Obama will propose a three-year freeze on some domestic programs to save $20 billion next year and $250 billion over the coming decade.
But that will not be enough to get deficits down permanently to the 3 percent of gross domestic product that most economists consider sustainable.
Deficits are projected to fall as the economy recovers, but they will still average roughly 4.5 percent of GDP over the coming decade, according to the estimate.
Deficits are expected to rise again toward the end of the decade due to the increasing cost of retirement and healthcare programs as the "baby boom" generation retires.
Obama has warned that the burgeoning U.S. debt could unnerve U.S. financial markets, driving up borrowing costs and putting future economic growth at risk.
China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries, has urged the United States to get its fiscal house in order.
The grim forecast could help build support for a bipartisan commission proposed by the White House that would recommend ways to address long-term budget problems.
Obama and his fellow Democrats face a growing voter backlash for the aggressive spending measures they have taken to stimulate the economy.
But Democrats point out that most of the fiscal mess has been inherited from the previous administration of Republican George W. Bush, who cut taxes and created an expensive prescription drug-benefit while pursuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The recession, which began in December 2007 and ended last year, also worsened the fiscal picture by depressing government revenues while forcing up spending on unemployment benefits and other safety-net programs
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Carver County employees unionize/probe of county environment continues
Developing ... Carver County Government has unionized its staff.
At the same time, the investigation into how the county has handled environmental matters with regard to the Lakeside Ballroom septic continues.
More to follow
At the same time, the investigation into how the county has handled environmental matters with regard to the Lakeside Ballroom septic continues.
More to follow
State of the Union: A scolding for protecting free speech
From the Politico (link http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html):
POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."
The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.
Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.
"All you have to do is read the dissent, the four justices who said this will defintely open the floodgates to big corporate special interests. Anybody who thinks that's not true is out of touch with the American political process." Van Hollen said.
Van Hollen told POLITICO he expects to unveil the package in the next 10 days to two weeks.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was glad the president called out the Supreme Court.
"He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn't like it he can mouth whatever they want," Weiner said. "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on it."
But one conservative legal expert took sides with Alito -- at least on the substance of Obama's comments.
“The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, in The Corner blog on Nationalreview.com.
Posted by Martin Kady II 10:08 PM
UK Guardian reports on Democrat misgivings
Democratic anger goes public in prime timeDigg it
AP foreign, Thursday January 28 2010
LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democrat-vs.-Democrat anger roiling the ranks of Congress is being wrapped in smiles and standing ovations Wednesday as President Barack Obama outlines the nation's top priorities in his first State of the Union speech.
But for most of the Democrats cramming the House chamber, there is no issue more pressing than getting re-elected in November. And it's not clear that pursuing Obama's priorities will help them achieve theirs.
In personal and profane terms, House and Senate Democrats have huddled behind closed doors to list the debacles: The stunner in Massachusetts that cost the Democrats a Senate seat. The slow-motion collapse of health care talks. A government bailout of Wall Street while unemployment sits in double-digits.
"It just stinks to the high heaven what happened here," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., railed earlier in the day at Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.
He was talking about the bailout, but the statement could well describe the Democrats' attitude about Obama's performance and the toll it's taken on their political standing. And Wednesday night, they were expected to put on a smile and applaud a president and an agenda many have questioned.
Republicans were making a studied effort to stay out of the way and avoid a "You lie" moment that stole the show during Obama's last address to Congress. The House's three top Republican leaders — Reps. John Boehner of Ohio, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana — all lectured their troops before the address that the president should be treated with respect.
Democrats for days were questioning whether to stand with the president, congressional leaders or neither.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., did more than ask. In a private meeting the day after Republican Scott Brown won Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, Titus used a profanity to describe to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman lawmakers the Democratic Party's prospects in the midterm elections if it ignores the lessons of Massachusetts.
Some House Democrats have privately blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who faces a tough re-election fight in Nevada, for the party's woes and the health care bill's poor prospects.
"We have to wait for the House of Lords to do their contemplating," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. "We're also not getting much guidance from the mother ship about what the White House really wants and what they're prepared to push for."
The administration has not stayed above the blamefest.
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., who is retiring at the end of the year, said of Obama what some Americans have said all year, "'You're trying to do too much too quickly.'"
"Maybe we should listen to them," Berry said. "If we don't listen to them, then they will make you listen to them in November."
AP foreign, Thursday January 28 2010
LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democrat-vs.-Democrat anger roiling the ranks of Congress is being wrapped in smiles and standing ovations Wednesday as President Barack Obama outlines the nation's top priorities in his first State of the Union speech.
But for most of the Democrats cramming the House chamber, there is no issue more pressing than getting re-elected in November. And it's not clear that pursuing Obama's priorities will help them achieve theirs.
In personal and profane terms, House and Senate Democrats have huddled behind closed doors to list the debacles: The stunner in Massachusetts that cost the Democrats a Senate seat. The slow-motion collapse of health care talks. A government bailout of Wall Street while unemployment sits in double-digits.
"It just stinks to the high heaven what happened here," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., railed earlier in the day at Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.
He was talking about the bailout, but the statement could well describe the Democrats' attitude about Obama's performance and the toll it's taken on their political standing. And Wednesday night, they were expected to put on a smile and applaud a president and an agenda many have questioned.
Republicans were making a studied effort to stay out of the way and avoid a "You lie" moment that stole the show during Obama's last address to Congress. The House's three top Republican leaders — Reps. John Boehner of Ohio, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana — all lectured their troops before the address that the president should be treated with respect.
Democrats for days were questioning whether to stand with the president, congressional leaders or neither.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., did more than ask. In a private meeting the day after Republican Scott Brown won Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, Titus used a profanity to describe to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman lawmakers the Democratic Party's prospects in the midterm elections if it ignores the lessons of Massachusetts.
Some House Democrats have privately blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who faces a tough re-election fight in Nevada, for the party's woes and the health care bill's poor prospects.
"We have to wait for the House of Lords to do their contemplating," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. "We're also not getting much guidance from the mother ship about what the White House really wants and what they're prepared to push for."
The administration has not stayed above the blamefest.
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., who is retiring at the end of the year, said of Obama what some Americans have said all year, "'You're trying to do too much too quickly.'"
"Maybe we should listen to them," Berry said. "If we don't listen to them, then they will make you listen to them in November."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wall Street Journal: Obama's SLIDE: Approval rate below Bush
Copy and Illustrations from the Wall Street Journal (linked in heading above):
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.
M.E. Cohen.Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.
Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.
While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.
And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.
There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.
While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.
Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.
Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.
Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.
Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
M.E. Cohen.Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.
Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.
While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.
And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.
There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.
While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.
Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.
Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.
Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.
Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Avitar – Yes – great special effects, but this is definitely an overdose of Left Wing Hollywood propaganda. An epic battle on another planet between the U.S. Marines & Big Business on one side(portrayed as murdering, braindead idiots) and tree-hugging natives on the other side. As the movie ends, the tree-hugging natives have routed the Marines and sent what’s left of them and their free enterprise allies back to their “dying planet” (Earth).
Has anyone noticed that Hollywood has not the guts to place a spotlight on the REAL evildoers in this world? Islamic Fascists!
Vince Beaudette
Has anyone noticed that Hollywood has not the guts to place a spotlight on the REAL evildoers in this world? Islamic Fascists!
Vince Beaudette
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
WSJ: The Death Book for Veterans
Wallstreet Journal online:
Ex-soldiers don't need to be told they're a burden to society.
By JIM TOWEY
If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."
When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?
One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.
I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.
Many years ago I created an advance care planning document called "Five Wishes" that is today the most widely used living will in America, with 13 million copies in national circulation. Unlike the VA's document, this one does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care. It meets the legal requirements of at least 43 states, and it runs exactly 12 pages.
After a decade of observing end-of-life discussions, I can attest to the great fear that many patients have, particularly those with few family members and financial resources. I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care.
If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on "Your Life, Your Choices." He should make sure in the future that VA decisions are guided by values that treat the lives of our veterans as gifts, not burdens.
Mr. Towey, president of Saint Vincent College, was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (2002-2006) and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity.
Ex-soldiers don't need to be told they're a burden to society.
By JIM TOWEY
If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."
When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?
One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.
I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").
This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.
Many years ago I created an advance care planning document called "Five Wishes" that is today the most widely used living will in America, with 13 million copies in national circulation. Unlike the VA's document, this one does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care. It meets the legal requirements of at least 43 states, and it runs exactly 12 pages.
After a decade of observing end-of-life discussions, I can attest to the great fear that many patients have, particularly those with few family members and financial resources. I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care.
If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on "Your Life, Your Choices." He should make sure in the future that VA decisions are guided by values that treat the lives of our veterans as gifts, not burdens.
Mr. Towey, president of Saint Vincent College, was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (2002-2006) and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity.
Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?
Jon Voight, the Academy Award winner has been cogitating about the state of America, the Washington Times reports in a column today.
"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.
"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."
Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.
"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.
"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?"
"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.
"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?"
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Washington Times EDITORIAL: Obama's mad science adviser
Compulsory abortion and sterilization aren't youthful indiscretionsWhen it comes to having past views that should frighten every American citizen, Ezekiel Emanuel (see above editorial) has nothing on the president's "chief science adviser," John P. Holdren. The combination of Mr. Holdren with Dr. Emanuel should make the public seriously concerned with this administration's moral compass concerning care for the old and weak.
Earlier this month, Mr. Holdren served as co-chairman when the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology met for the first time. It's a disgrace that Mr. Holdren is even on the council. In "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book he co-authored in 1977 with noted doomsayers Paul R. and Anne H. Erlich, Mr. Holdren wrote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
In case compulsory abortion wasn't enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men," they wrote. "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."
It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods." After noting that, well, yes, there were "very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. "To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements," they wrote. "It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have "evolved," health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president.
Earlier this month, Mr. Holdren served as co-chairman when the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology met for the first time. It's a disgrace that Mr. Holdren is even on the council. In "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a book he co-authored in 1977 with noted doomsayers Paul R. and Anne H. Erlich, Mr. Holdren wrote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
In case compulsory abortion wasn't enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. "A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men," they wrote. "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."
It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods." After noting that, well, yes, there were "very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. "To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements," they wrote. "It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock."
Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have "evolved," health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
PRUDEN: Finding no buyers for snake oil
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Master politician that he is, Barack Obama is a lousy calculator. He spectacularly misjudged the American public's appetite for a government nanny. Or maybe he miscalculated the power of his slippery tongue to sell government snake oil.
His apparent willingness to abandon the attempt - for now - to nationalize the health-care industry appears to defer the Democratic first step in remaking the home of the brave and the land of the free into Little America, cutting it down to a size incapable of intimidating the likes of Switzerland or Swaziland.
But only if the opposition keeps up unremitting pressure. The president signals a change in tactics, not objectives. His concession that the so-called "government option" is temporarily dead does not mean the dream of "postalizing" health care, of making it as responsive as the Post Office, is dead. It's merely that the tenderizing pain in certain Democratic keesters is so acute that somebody had to find a way to get a little relief. Running up a fake white flag might do it; when the opposition puts down its guns the postalizers will fire at will.
The president never actually said he would defer to public sentiment. The special gift of snake-oil salesmen is their ability to say one thing and make audiences hear something else. "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," he told an audience on Sunday in Colorado. "This is just one sliver of it."
The leftmost fringe of his party is having none of this apparent concession to reasonableness and moderation. House Democrats recall their ecstasy of waking up on the morning after the 2008 elections, imagining that with their 78-seat margin it's now or never, and they can't wait to get started on the plastic surgery to alter the face of America the Beautiful. They've been sharpening scalpels and carving knives since.
This puts the House leaders, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her liege man, Steny Hoyer, in a particular bind. They owe their 78-seat margin to men and women moderate enough to win in conservative districts; many of these freshmen know they will never be sophomores if they vote for a health care plan that dooms the private insurance coverage that works well enough for the middle class.
One of them, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, is a confirmed nanny-state Democrat who understands what a vote for Obamacare is likely to cost him. "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful. I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
The early Democratic strategy of trying to shout down the opposition, painting critics as Nazis waving swastikas (Nancy Pelosi), as "evil-mongers" (Senate Leader Harry Reid), as "un-American" (Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas), as over-dressed snobs and bounders (Sen. Barbara Boxer of California), clearly failed.
So has the attempt to portray critics as ignorant yahoos too thick to understand how well government health schemes have worked in places like Canada and Great Britain. The more we learn about the Canadian and British schemes the less they look like models for anyone.
The new president of the Canadian Medical Association says Canadian doctors must recognize how sick the Canadian system is and figure out how to fix it. "We all agree that the system is imploding," says Dr. Anne Doig, "and we all agree that things are more precarious than Canadians perhaps realize."
Stephen Glover, a columnist for the London Daily Mail, defends Britain's National Health Service but concedes that Americans wouldn't like it.
"Consult any American who has encountered the National Health Service," he writes. "Often [visiting Americans] cannot believe ... the squalor, the looming threat, the long waiting lists and especially the target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours, the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favor by taking down your personal details. Most Americans, let's face it, are used to much higher standards of health care than we enjoy."
Americans aren't as dumb as the politicians often think they are, and nothing educates politicians like a well-aimed two-by-four square across the noggin. That's the hard lesson of the summer of '09.
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Master politician that he is, Barack Obama is a lousy calculator. He spectacularly misjudged the American public's appetite for a government nanny. Or maybe he miscalculated the power of his slippery tongue to sell government snake oil.
His apparent willingness to abandon the attempt - for now - to nationalize the health-care industry appears to defer the Democratic first step in remaking the home of the brave and the land of the free into Little America, cutting it down to a size incapable of intimidating the likes of Switzerland or Swaziland.
But only if the opposition keeps up unremitting pressure. The president signals a change in tactics, not objectives. His concession that the so-called "government option" is temporarily dead does not mean the dream of "postalizing" health care, of making it as responsive as the Post Office, is dead. It's merely that the tenderizing pain in certain Democratic keesters is so acute that somebody had to find a way to get a little relief. Running up a fake white flag might do it; when the opposition puts down its guns the postalizers will fire at will.
The president never actually said he would defer to public sentiment. The special gift of snake-oil salesmen is their ability to say one thing and make audiences hear something else. "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," he told an audience on Sunday in Colorado. "This is just one sliver of it."
The leftmost fringe of his party is having none of this apparent concession to reasonableness and moderation. House Democrats recall their ecstasy of waking up on the morning after the 2008 elections, imagining that with their 78-seat margin it's now or never, and they can't wait to get started on the plastic surgery to alter the face of America the Beautiful. They've been sharpening scalpels and carving knives since.
This puts the House leaders, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her liege man, Steny Hoyer, in a particular bind. They owe their 78-seat margin to men and women moderate enough to win in conservative districts; many of these freshmen know they will never be sophomores if they vote for a health care plan that dooms the private insurance coverage that works well enough for the middle class.
One of them, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, is a confirmed nanny-state Democrat who understands what a vote for Obamacare is likely to cost him. "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful. I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
The early Democratic strategy of trying to shout down the opposition, painting critics as Nazis waving swastikas (Nancy Pelosi), as "evil-mongers" (Senate Leader Harry Reid), as "un-American" (Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas), as over-dressed snobs and bounders (Sen. Barbara Boxer of California), clearly failed.
So has the attempt to portray critics as ignorant yahoos too thick to understand how well government health schemes have worked in places like Canada and Great Britain. The more we learn about the Canadian and British schemes the less they look like models for anyone.
The new president of the Canadian Medical Association says Canadian doctors must recognize how sick the Canadian system is and figure out how to fix it. "We all agree that the system is imploding," says Dr. Anne Doig, "and we all agree that things are more precarious than Canadians perhaps realize."
Stephen Glover, a columnist for the London Daily Mail, defends Britain's National Health Service but concedes that Americans wouldn't like it.
"Consult any American who has encountered the National Health Service," he writes. "Often [visiting Americans] cannot believe ... the squalor, the looming threat, the long waiting lists and especially the target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours, the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favor by taking down your personal details. Most Americans, let's face it, are used to much higher standards of health care than we enjoy."
Americans aren't as dumb as the politicians often think they are, and nothing educates politicians like a well-aimed two-by-four square across the noggin. That's the hard lesson of the summer of '09.
Debate's Path Caught Obama by Surprise
Washington Post:
President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.
Administration officials insisted that they have not shied away from their support for a public option to compete with private insurance companies, an idea they said Obama still prefers to see in a final bill.
But at a time when the president had hoped to be selling middle-class voters on how insurance reforms would benefit them, the White House instead finds itself mired in a Democratic Party feud over an issue it never intended to spotlight.
"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform." ...
President Obama's advisers acknowledged Tuesday that they were unprepared for the intraparty rift that occurred over the fate of a proposed public health insurance program, a firestorm that has left the White House searching for a way to reclaim the initiative on the president's top legislative priority.
Administration officials insisted that they have not shied away from their support for a public option to compete with private insurance companies, an idea they said Obama still prefers to see in a final bill.
But at a time when the president had hoped to be selling middle-class voters on how insurance reforms would benefit them, the White House instead finds itself mired in a Democratic Party feud over an issue it never intended to spotlight.
"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform." ...
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper
Vancover Sun:
Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
UK health care: Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
Daily Mail:
A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.
Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.
But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city's nearby Royal Infirmary.
Her daughter Mariah was delivered on a pavement outside the hospital by a passer-by, just before ambulance crews arrived.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0ObTsm4SN
A young mother gave birth on a pavement outside a hospital after she was told to make her own way there.
Mother-of-three Carmen Blake called her midwife to ask for an ambulance when she went into labour unexpectedly with her fourth child.
But the 27-year-old claims she was refused an ambulance and told to walk the 100m from her house in Leicester to the city's nearby Royal Infirmary.
Her daughter Mariah was delivered on a pavement outside the hospital by a passer-by, just before ambulance crews arrived.
'They said they were not sending an ambulance and told me I hadRead more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0ObTzK4Mb
had nine months to sort out a lift.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0ObTsm4SN
.Cantor: Stimulus not working as well as advertised
AP:
WASHINGTON – A member of the House Republican leadership says he doesn't think the $787 billion economic stimulus program the Obama administration pushed through Congress earlier this year has worked as advertised.
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Richmond said Tuesday that no one should be touting the benefits of stimulus — as Vice President Joe Biden has — at a time when national unemployment is at 9.4 percent.
Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," he said that when the administration pressed Congress to act immediately, it projected joblessness no higher than 8.5 percent. Cantor said at a job fair recently, some 3,200 people showed up in 90-degree weather and said people are still worried job security.
WASHINGTON – A member of the House Republican leadership says he doesn't think the $787 billion economic stimulus program the Obama administration pushed through Congress earlier this year has worked as advertised.
House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Richmond said Tuesday that no one should be touting the benefits of stimulus — as Vice President Joe Biden has — at a time when national unemployment is at 9.4 percent.
Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show," he said that when the administration pressed Congress to act immediately, it projected joblessness no higher than 8.5 percent. Cantor said at a job fair recently, some 3,200 people showed up in 90-degree weather and said people are still worried job security.
AARP loses members over health care stance
USA Today
Updated
President Obama addresses a town hall-style health care event in Washington on July 28, as AARP's president, Jennie Chin Hansen, listens. A spokesman for AARP said Monday the group had lost 60,000 members for its support of health care overhaul.
WASHINGTON (AP) — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday...
Updated
President Obama addresses a town hall-style health care event in Washington on July 28, as AARP's president, Jennie Chin Hansen, listens. A spokesman for AARP said Monday the group had lost 60,000 members for its support of health care overhaul.
WASHINGTON (AP) — About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday...
DNA evicdence can be fabricated, scientists show
from the NY Times:
Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.
The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.
Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.
Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.
“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”
John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”
The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.
Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.
The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.
Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.
The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.
From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.
Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.
Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”
Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.
The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.
Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.
Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.
“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”
John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”
The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.
Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.
The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.
Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.
The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.
From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.
Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.
Cap and Trade: "It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” energy workers say
Houston Chronicle:
Energy workers rally against climate plan
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” says James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Local energy workers jammed a downtown Houston theater today to protest climate change legislation that the U.S. Senate will take up in the coming weeks.
The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.
About 3,500 people, or 1,500 more than expected, filed into the facility, many donning yellow T-shirts that were being handed out that read "I'm an energy citizen." Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. was the keynote speaker.
Organizers of the event, billed as a dialogue on energy and the environment, told the Chronicle on Monday that legislation the U.S. House passed last spring will destroy millions of U.S. jobs and raise costs without reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” said James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Hackett said he supports reducing greenhouse emissions and developing alternative sources of fuel.
“But I do think there's a virtual reality that's being portrayed to most American citizens about how quickly we get there and how we get there,” Hackett said.
The rally is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown, with doors open at 11:30.
The climate change bill the House passed earlier this year sets a steadily decreasing cap on emissions from factories, power plants and other industrial sources and lets companies trade any excess emissions allowances. The price of those emissions allowances would most likely be passed on to consumers.
The measure also would set up a system for creating extra allowances, called offsets, through other projects that reduce emissions, and would include incentives for renewable energy sources and home and business energy efficiency.
Energy workers rally against climate plan
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” says James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Local energy workers jammed a downtown Houston theater today to protest climate change legislation that the U.S. Senate will take up in the coming weeks.
The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.
About 3,500 people, or 1,500 more than expected, filed into the facility, many donning yellow T-shirts that were being handed out that read "I'm an energy citizen." Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. was the keynote speaker.
Organizers of the event, billed as a dialogue on energy and the environment, told the Chronicle on Monday that legislation the U.S. House passed last spring will destroy millions of U.S. jobs and raise costs without reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.
“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” said James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.
Hackett said he supports reducing greenhouse emissions and developing alternative sources of fuel.
“But I do think there's a virtual reality that's being portrayed to most American citizens about how quickly we get there and how we get there,” Hackett said.
The rally is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown, with doors open at 11:30.
The climate change bill the House passed earlier this year sets a steadily decreasing cap on emissions from factories, power plants and other industrial sources and lets companies trade any excess emissions allowances. The price of those emissions allowances would most likely be passed on to consumers.
The measure also would set up a system for creating extra allowances, called offsets, through other projects that reduce emissions, and would include incentives for renewable energy sources and home and business energy efficiency.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
FOX News Offers White House Examples of Unsolicited E-Mails on Health Reform - Political News - FOXNews.com
Thursday, August 13, 2009
KSTP, KAAL sue to see uncounted ballots/Health care debate moves online
From MN Independent:
Hubbard sues Ramsey County: In June, Hubbard Broadcasting — owner of KSTP, KAAL and others — filed a data practices request to see all uncounted ballots in the protracted Norm Coleman/Al Franken Senate contest. Now, after Coleman conceded defeat and with Al Franken serving his fifth week as Minnesota’s second senator, the company has filed suit against Ramsey County to get their hands on unopened absentee ballots. This week they did the same in St. Louis County.
Health care debate goes online: Local social media types, fed up with mayhem wrought at public forums on health care by anti-Obama activists, are hoping for a calmer discussion of the issues online. Blogger and online media consultant Paul Saarinen has started a video conversation on “What bothers you about the health care debate?” Video commenters so far include Mediation blogger Taylor Carik and Matt Thompson, online journalist and former deputy web editor at the Star Tribune. All are welcome to participate.
Hubbard sues Ramsey County: In June, Hubbard Broadcasting — owner of KSTP, KAAL and others — filed a data practices request to see all uncounted ballots in the protracted Norm Coleman/Al Franken Senate contest. Now, after Coleman conceded defeat and with Al Franken serving his fifth week as Minnesota’s second senator, the company has filed suit against Ramsey County to get their hands on unopened absentee ballots. This week they did the same in St. Louis County.
Health care debate goes online: Local social media types, fed up with mayhem wrought at public forums on health care by anti-Obama activists, are hoping for a calmer discussion of the issues online. Blogger and online media consultant Paul Saarinen has started a video conversation on “What bothers you about the health care debate?” Video commenters so far include Mediation blogger Taylor Carik and Matt Thompson, online journalist and former deputy web editor at the Star Tribune. All are welcome to participate.
The voices that were kept out of the President's townhall
Here are the photos of those who wanted to attend President Obama's recent townhall at Portsmouth High School, but were kept out (from Boston.com, the Chicago Tribune and Unionleader).
Questions have been raised as to whether the President stacked his audience with supporters, and orchestrated the event with questions penned ahead of time to favor his view.
Links:
Was Julia Hall an Obama plant?
Kansas City Star - Yael T. Abouhalkah - 1 hour ago
by their allegations that an 11-year-old girl was a plant for President Barack Obama at his recent health care town hall in Portsmouth, NH Conservatives are ...
Kansas City Star - Yael T. Abouhalkah - 1 hour ago
by their allegations that an 11-year-old girl was a plant for President Barack Obama at his recent health care town hall in Portsmouth, NH Conservatives are ...
A sedate town hall raises questions
Boston Globe - Foon Rhee - 20 hours ago
Why wasn't President Obama's town hall on healthcare in New Hampshire Tuesday as much of a shouting match as some held by members of Congress? ...
Boston Globe - Foon Rhee - 20 hours ago
Why wasn't President Obama's town hall on healthcare in New Hampshire Tuesday as much of a shouting match as some held by members of Congress? ...
And, while the Democrast accuse those attending town halls to oppose obamacare as being paid, the evidence shows the supporters are the ones who are actually getting paid. See this Craigslist post:
Rasmussen: President's approval rating hits new low
From Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is feeling the heat of the health care debate. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in an early look at the potential 2010 race. Two months ago, Specter led by double digits. Most Pennsylvania voters oppose the Congressional health care reform effort. Also, Specter’s lead is shrinking in his Democratic Primary match-up with Congressman Joe Sestak.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans disapprove along with 65% of those not affiliated with either party. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats offer their approval. Most women (51%) offer their approval while most men (56%) disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release new data on which party voters trust when it comes to health care. Premium Members can get an advance look at the data.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is feeling the heat of the health care debate. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in an early look at the potential 2010 race. Two months ago, Specter led by double digits. Most Pennsylvania voters oppose the Congressional health care reform effort. Also, Specter’s lead is shrinking in his Democratic Primary match-up with Congressman Joe Sestak.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans disapprove along with 65% of those not affiliated with either party. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats offer their approval. Most women (51%) offer their approval while most men (56%) disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release new data on which party voters trust when it comes to health care. Premium Members can get an advance look at the data.
Nationally, support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low. Just 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. Other data shows that 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Forty-one percent (41%) fear the insurance companies more. Overall, 32% favor a single-payer health care system for the U.S. while 57% are opposed.
Carver GOP voices it's opposition at the fair; Democrats whine, do not defend their policies
We had a smoking booth at the Carver County fair this year!
Instead of countering our fun poke at liberal Democrat policies at the recent Carver County Fair in Waconia, the Democrats seem unable to debate and defend their policies we believe are harming the nation.
The Carver GOP is the voice of the grassroots. We are elected by the people to fight ineptitude, foul play, and bad policy in government where we see it, and we defend free speech and all the rights set forth in our Constitution. Democrats say that makes us "extremists," but they are wrong, we are Americans.
Instead of countering our fun poke at liberal Democrat policies at the recent Carver County Fair in Waconia, the Democrats seem unable to debate and defend their policies we believe are harming the nation.
The Carver GOP is the voice of the grassroots. We are elected by the people to fight ineptitude, foul play, and bad policy in government where we see it, and we defend free speech and all the rights set forth in our Constitution. Democrats say that makes us "extremists," but they are wrong, we are Americans.
We're happy to take the risk that we will be reported by our neighbors as doing something fishy and will be honored to be added to the White House's enemies list!!
Above are the actual pictures of our dunk tank, where, YES, we dunked Sen. Al Franken -- who disenfranchised Carver County voters by refusing to count our votes in the last election,(Carver County absentee ballots remain in legal crosshairs ... ), not to mention his reliance on ACORN and finding more votes than actual voters -- as well as President Obama's healthcare reform, Cars for Clunkers program, Cap and Trade and more.
Above are the actual pictures of our dunk tank, where, YES, we dunked Sen. Al Franken -- who disenfranchised Carver County voters by refusing to count our votes in the last election,(Carver County absentee ballots remain in legal crosshairs ... ), not to mention his reliance on ACORN and finding more votes than actual voters -- as well as President Obama's healthcare reform, Cars for Clunkers program, Cap and Trade and more.
Below is the blog post of a former Democrat operative and a photoshopped picture and name-calling (the photo on the post is labeled "hate") post of our dunk tank:
This is a picture of the dunk tank that the GOP brought to the Carver County Fair. The hastily printed signs stuck around the booth railed against everything from the DMV, the ‘label right wing extremists’ and my personal favorite, the ‘price hikes of the post office’.From http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=5673:
Extremist Carver
County Republicans (And Paul Kohls?) Bring Their Hate To The County Fair!!!
Just when you think the right-wing extremists can’t sink and lower…
The group was charging $3 for a chance to throw baseballs at a distorted image of the face of Senator Al Franken. This is the kind of absolute morally bankrupt behavior that earns these people the label ‘right wing extremist’ in the first place!
Even worse, It’s advertised right there on the sign that GOP gubernatorial candidate Paul Kohls would be taking a turn in the tank!!! Why would Paul Kohls endorse this sort of extremist behavior?!?
Thanks to tipster Emily Mitchell for the pics. You can see more of the hate tank after the jump…
Oh ....And while we would have loved Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty to have come to our booth, he was not at the fair this year. Mr. Tice, you need more practice at photoshop.
Nationally, foreclosures continue to rise, home prices fall; Minnesota stabilizes
From the AP:
Foreclosures rise 7 percent in July from June
The number of U.S. households on the verge of losing their homes rose 7 percent from June to July, as the escalating foreclosure crisis continued to outpace government efforts to limit the damage.
Foreclosure filings were up 32 percent from the same month last year, RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday. More than 360,000 households, or one in every 355 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, such as a notice of default or trustee's sale. That's the highest monthly level since the foreclosure-listing firm began publishing the data more than four years ago.
Banks repossessed more than 87,000 homes in July, up from about 79,000 homes a month earlier. (more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosure_rates)
The government's foreclosure flop
Reuters Blogs - Christopher Swann - 15 hours ago
The Obama administration has attacked the problem of rising home foreclosures with a humanitarian zeal. Their program — the most ambitious in generations ...
Saving homes with a 'right to rent' Los Angeles Times
Helping with house Mortgages and Available Programs Best Syndication
TopNews United States
Home sales up 3.8% for quarter; rising foreclosures drop prices
USA Today - Stephanie Armour - 7 hours ago
But foreclosures are rising, and that's pulling down home prices. Foreclosure filings were reported on 360149 properties in July, according to a RealtyTrac ...
Housing Recovery Will Be Slow as Foreclosures Continue to Weigh on ... Money Morning
Forbes
Home prices continue to fall but at a slower rate
The Money Times - Jamie Anderson - Aug 11, 2009
Almost a third of the homes were sold at a price that did not cover even the purchase price of the home. "Foreclosure resales are buoying overall sales ...
US home prices fall, but rate slows: report Reuters
July home sales and Zillow's take on the local market Baltimore Sun
America's Best And Worst Housing Markets Forbes
in Minnesota, from Business North http://www.businessnorth.com/briefing.asp?RID=3099:
Foreclosure rate falls in Minnesota from January to June
The number of foreclosures statewide during the first half of 2009 was 15 percent below the same year-earlier period, according to a joint report by the Minnesota Home Ownership Center, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, Minnesota Housing and Family Housing Fund.
They reported 11,089 foreclosures in Minnesota through June, compared to 13,591 in the same period last year. In calendar 2008, there were 26,261 foreclosures in Minnesota.
While the report doesn’t reveal exact reasons, the decline likely is the result of actions taken by lenders, homeowners and homeownership counselors rather than due to improved housing and economic conditions.
Many major lenders placed moratoriums on foreclosures in late 2008/early 2009, and more lenders are working with homeowners to modify loans.
Meanwhile, the number of mortgages 60 or more days in default in Minnesota continues to climb. Without workout agreements with their lenders, many of these homeowners may be forced into foreclosure, potentially driving up foreclosure numbers in the second half of 2009.
St. Louis County has the highest number of foreclosure in Northeastern Minnesota, 176 in the first half of 2009, compared to 236 in the year-earlier period. Since Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 652 foreclosures in the county.
The “Foreclosures in Minnesota,” report analyzes sheriff’s sale data, the primary means of identifying foreclosures, from all Minnesota counties. To view a full copy, go to http://www.hocmn.org/reports.cfm
Foreclosures rise 7 percent in July from June
The number of U.S. households on the verge of losing their homes rose 7 percent from June to July, as the escalating foreclosure crisis continued to outpace government efforts to limit the damage.
Foreclosure filings were up 32 percent from the same month last year, RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday. More than 360,000 households, or one in every 355 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, such as a notice of default or trustee's sale. That's the highest monthly level since the foreclosure-listing firm began publishing the data more than four years ago.
Banks repossessed more than 87,000 homes in July, up from about 79,000 homes a month earlier. (more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosure_rates)
The government's foreclosure flop
Reuters Blogs - Christopher Swann - 15 hours ago
The Obama administration has attacked the problem of rising home foreclosures with a humanitarian zeal. Their program — the most ambitious in generations ...
Saving homes with a 'right to rent' Los Angeles Times
Helping with house Mortgages and Available Programs Best Syndication
TopNews United States
Home sales up 3.8% for quarter; rising foreclosures drop prices
USA Today - Stephanie Armour - 7 hours ago
But foreclosures are rising, and that's pulling down home prices. Foreclosure filings were reported on 360149 properties in July, according to a RealtyTrac ...
Housing Recovery Will Be Slow as Foreclosures Continue to Weigh on ... Money Morning
Forbes
Home prices continue to fall but at a slower rate
The Money Times - Jamie Anderson - Aug 11, 2009
Almost a third of the homes were sold at a price that did not cover even the purchase price of the home. "Foreclosure resales are buoying overall sales ...
US home prices fall, but rate slows: report Reuters
July home sales and Zillow's take on the local market Baltimore Sun
America's Best And Worst Housing Markets Forbes
in Minnesota, from Business North http://www.businessnorth.com/briefing.asp?RID=3099:
Foreclosure rate falls in Minnesota from January to June
The number of foreclosures statewide during the first half of 2009 was 15 percent below the same year-earlier period, according to a joint report by the Minnesota Home Ownership Center, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, Minnesota Housing and Family Housing Fund.
They reported 11,089 foreclosures in Minnesota through June, compared to 13,591 in the same period last year. In calendar 2008, there were 26,261 foreclosures in Minnesota.
While the report doesn’t reveal exact reasons, the decline likely is the result of actions taken by lenders, homeowners and homeownership counselors rather than due to improved housing and economic conditions.
Many major lenders placed moratoriums on foreclosures in late 2008/early 2009, and more lenders are working with homeowners to modify loans.
Meanwhile, the number of mortgages 60 or more days in default in Minnesota continues to climb. Without workout agreements with their lenders, many of these homeowners may be forced into foreclosure, potentially driving up foreclosure numbers in the second half of 2009.
St. Louis County has the highest number of foreclosure in Northeastern Minnesota, 176 in the first half of 2009, compared to 236 in the year-earlier period. Since Jan. 1, 2008, there have been 652 foreclosures in the county.
The “Foreclosures in Minnesota,” report analyzes sheriff’s sale data, the primary means of identifying foreclosures, from all Minnesota counties. To view a full copy, go to http://www.hocmn.org/reports.cfm
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
They aren't listening
From kristiesclips82:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talks on the phone as a woman asks a question at her town hall event.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talks on the phone as a woman asks a question at her town hall event.
Kline: So-Called Stimulus Fails to Deliver Jobs as Promised
A letter from Congressman John Kline:
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor reported a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the month of July.
At 9.4 percent, the employment report is a somber reminder that American families are hurting; it’s also a clear sign that the President’s game plan – in close coordination with Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid – of taxing, borrowing, and spending is doing nothing to stem the tide of lost jobs and economic uncertainty.
Six months ago, the Democrat architects of the so-called economic stimulus demanded a trillion dollars with a promise that jobs would be created, unemployment would stop rising, and the effects would be immediate. Six months later, it is time to ask: Where are the jobs?
Republicans believe that if the President, Speaker Pelosi, and Harry Reid want to protect and create jobs, they should start by scrapping job-killing legislation such as the Speaker’s national energy tax and the government takeover of health care. I have joined House Republicans in offering a series of proposals this year to create jobs, make health care affordable and accessible, and secure our energy future. The time is long overdue for Democrat leadership to follow our lead and embrace commonsense policies that will help American families, including the Minnesotans I represent.
Congress Ignores Speaker’s Arbitrary Deadline
for a Government Takeover of Health Care
Last week, in what can be viewed as a temporary victory for all Americans, Congress rejected Speaker Pelosi’s call to pass reckless health care legislation by the arbitrary end-of-August deadline. While Republicans and Democrats agree health care reform is needed, we disagree on how to get there.
I believe that the current Democrat proposal is a job-killer that would lead to a government takeover of health care and have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. It would ration care and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.
I remain hopeful that this legislative delay opens the door to the possibility of my Democrat colleagues coming together in a bipartisan way to join House Republicans in supporting a meaningful solution that will lower health care costs for you and your family. In contrast to the Democrat’s approach of increasing taxes on small businesses and saddling our children and grandchildren with hundreds of billions more in debt, our plan will fix what’s broken in our health care system while keeping what works – including the jobs and health plans many Americans, including Minnesotans, already have.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor reported a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the month of July.
At 9.4 percent, the employment report is a somber reminder that American families are hurting; it’s also a clear sign that the President’s game plan – in close coordination with Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid – of taxing, borrowing, and spending is doing nothing to stem the tide of lost jobs and economic uncertainty.
Six months ago, the Democrat architects of the so-called economic stimulus demanded a trillion dollars with a promise that jobs would be created, unemployment would stop rising, and the effects would be immediate. Six months later, it is time to ask: Where are the jobs?
Republicans believe that if the President, Speaker Pelosi, and Harry Reid want to protect and create jobs, they should start by scrapping job-killing legislation such as the Speaker’s national energy tax and the government takeover of health care. I have joined House Republicans in offering a series of proposals this year to create jobs, make health care affordable and accessible, and secure our energy future. The time is long overdue for Democrat leadership to follow our lead and embrace commonsense policies that will help American families, including the Minnesotans I represent.
Congress Ignores Speaker’s Arbitrary Deadline
for a Government Takeover of Health Care
Last week, in what can be viewed as a temporary victory for all Americans, Congress rejected Speaker Pelosi’s call to pass reckless health care legislation by the arbitrary end-of-August deadline. While Republicans and Democrats agree health care reform is needed, we disagree on how to get there.
I believe that the current Democrat proposal is a job-killer that would lead to a government takeover of health care and have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. It would ration care and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.
I remain hopeful that this legislative delay opens the door to the possibility of my Democrat colleagues coming together in a bipartisan way to join House Republicans in supporting a meaningful solution that will lower health care costs for you and your family. In contrast to the Democrat’s approach of increasing taxes on small businesses and saddling our children and grandchildren with hundreds of billions more in debt, our plan will fix what’s broken in our health care system while keeping what works – including the jobs and health plans many Americans, including Minnesotans, already have.
Obama funds $20M tax to immigrate Hamas Refugees
By executive order, and without much media coverage, President Barack Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza.
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on Jan. 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on Feb. 4. The order provides a free ticket, housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
here is the Federal Register:
February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)
DOCID: fr04fe09-106 FR Doc E9-2488
Presidential Documents
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr04fe09-106
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
[[Page 6115]]Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and dircted to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington,
January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
© 2009 theFederalRegister.com Congressional Record
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed on Jan. 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on Feb. 4. The order provides a free ticket, housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
here is the Federal Register:
February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)
DOCID: fr04fe09-106 FR Doc E9-2488
Presidential Documents
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr04fe09-106
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
[[Page 6115]]Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009
Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and dircted to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington,
January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
© 2009 theFederalRegister.com Congressional Record
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
