A few months ago and after having some health issues resulting from too much stress, I decided to stop writing and focus on my paying job, which already takes up about 45 hours of my week.
However, I've decided to try, again. I won't be posting too much, at least not at first, but I'll try to post more, if time and health allows.
A fiery President Obama insisted Tuesday that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.”
“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”
Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending, the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.
If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officially declared Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words.
"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.
The Hyde Amendment is the existing measure meant to bar the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.
But even apart from that, Schumer still doesn’t have a point. No one is saying that we shouldn’t pay the debt ceiling. There isn’t anyone rooting for default in either party. The question before Congress is whether we will raise the debt ceiling in order to allow the government to borrow even more money. If Congress doesn’t raise it, the US won’t be able to sell more debt, which means that it will have to stop paying on its obligations, although those decisions can be prioritized to put off defaulting on existing bonds, at least for a short period of time.
About 7 in 10 national adults, including 88% of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress take the Tea Party movement's positions and objectives into account as they address the nation's problems. …
Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party’s positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.
Perhaps underscoring the same principle, Republicans overwhelming feel their leaders should take the Tea Party’s positions into account, even though barely half are self-identified as Tea Party supporters."
I’d somehow doubt that Democrats are really all that concerned about whether the GOP listens to “all its constituencies.” Their party leaders and the media spend most of their time sneering at the “teabaggers,” and dismissing them as cranks, or worse. The flip side to this analysis is that 44% of Democrats would think it unimportant for politicians to pay attention to their constituents, which seems unlikely to be the case.
“New survey” is somewhat relative. While Gallup published these results today, the survey itself was taken between January 14 and 16, within a few days after the shooting in Tucson and the media’s rush to smear the Tea Party as an unindicted co-conspirator. If those numbers were ever going to suffer, it would have been that week. Yet majorities in all party affiliations think that their ideas deserve important consideration, including 53% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 88% of Republicans.
Missoula Children’s Theater: Inserting line was unprofessional
Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:
First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23.
However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.
The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.
We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.
As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton
But not everyone was happy to see the former Alaska governor visit the Garden City as more than a dozen protesters lined North Reserve Street as well as the road leading to the hotel where Palin spoke. They held signs that said things such as, "real women don't quit" and "stupidity isn't cute." One protester said he supports the cause, but doesn't think Sarah Palin should be speaking at it.
So confounded is the administration by all this that you’ve got some Democratic foreign policy specialists saying Mubarak shouldn’t go while other Democratic foreign policy experts are calling for democratic presidential elections. Look at it from Obama’s perspective: If he sides with Mubarak and the regime falls, the anti-American backlash will be vicious. If he sides with the protesters and the regime falls, he’ll be blamed for having helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Better to stick to neutral, well-meaning pap about “restraint” and hope for the best, no? Which of course also explains why U.S. foreign policy towards Egypt has remained basically constant for 30 years through administrations as different as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Given the country’s Islamist grassroots, what was the alternative? Any president who came out whole-hog for democracy would have risked destabilizing the regime and empowering fundamentalists, which would in turn have encouraged fanatics across the region and potentially reoriented Sunni governments away from the Iranian threat and back towards Israel. As I recall, that was a chief “realist” criticism of Bush’s vision for the Middle East, later illustrated by Hamas’s victory in Gaza — that a democratic process doesn’t necessarily lead to a more liberal outcome. After 9/11 and the Iranian revolution in ’79, how could any American president gamble on backing reforms that might produce a net outcome that’s more Islamist? It’s political suicide.
With a strong push from Republicans and over the vigorous objections of Democrats, the Senate on Wednesday approved legislation requiring all but elderly Texans to show a photo ID before voting....
In the end, the measure was approved 19-11, with all Republicans backing it and all but one absent Democrat voting no.
Democrats warned that the bill will run into trouble under the federal Voting Rights Act, designed to protect minority voting rights in several southern states — including Texas — and Alaska, Arizona and some urban areas. Under that law, the U.S. Justice Department must review all changes in election laws in those states.
“This requirement is just a poll tax by another name,” said Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, referring to the now outlawed practice of requiring voters to pay a fee before voting. The poll tax was used to discourage voting by minorities decades ago....
The bill would require Texans to show a driver’s license, state ID card, military ID, concealed handgun license, passport or citizenship ID to vote. An effort by Democrats to include student IDs with photos was rejected by Republicans.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that Social Security will effectively run a $45-billion deficit in 2011 and continue to run deficits totaling $547 billion over the coming decade.
The admission comes in the CBO’s semi-annual economic review that projects federal spending, debt, and economic growth. In the report, the CBO also examines the impact of projected economic performance on the trust fund that nominally funds Social Security.
“Excluding interest, surpluses for Social Security become deficits of $45 billion in 2011 and $547 billion over the 2012–2021 period,” the CBO reported.
This means that in order to pay benefits Social Security will need $45 billion more than it will collect in payroll taxes this year, and $547 billion more over the next decade.
The “interest” the CBO mentions is the interest that the federal government owes to the Social Security trust fund because the trust fund is legally obligated to take Treasury bonds – federal government debt – in exchange for the cash revenues raised by Social Security payroll taxes.
However, the fund is not taking in enough money to pay out its obligations, nor will it for the foreseeable future, according to the CBO. Adding the interest owed by one government account – the general fund of the U.S. Treasury – to another – the Social Security trust fund – is merely an exercise in moving money from one part of the federal budget to another. It does not mean that there is extra money available to pay Social Security benefits.
Adding in the transfer payments makes Social Security and other federal entitlements appear to be fiscally sound.
“That surplus is bolstered by interest receipts and other sums transferred from elsewhere in the [federal] budget,” the CBO explained. “Such intragovernmental transfers … reallocate costs from one category of the budget to another but do not directly change the total deficit or the government’s borrowing needs.”
In other words, Social Security is not taking in enough money in taxes to pay current or future benefits and instead will have to rely, in theory, on future federal borrowing to meet its needs.
Former President Bill Clinton may be looking for a new resume line: his own talk show. Clinton’s mastery of long-winded oration led to consideration of a show on FOX News.
In an interview with Esquire magazine, FOX News president Roger Ailes said that he met with Clinton to discuss the proposal.
“If he would stick with current affairs and stick with the clock, he’d be one of the great talk-show people in the world” said Ailes.
“I went up to Harlem, I met with him for an hour, an hour and a half” said Ailes. Clinton was ultimately asked to do a FOX News special, not host own show. He has yet to decide whether to commit to a special.
Ailes also said in the interview that he has no objection to hiring left-leaning personalities for the channel. “Tell me who you want to see on the left and I’ll hire them” said Ailes, “Now that probably surprises you and won’t get into the story, but it’s true.”
Pursuing a path of deficit reduction and government reform, President Obama will tonight in his State of the Union address call for a ban on earmarks and he will propose a five year budget freeze on non-security related discretionary spending, ABC News has learned.
The proposals come as the president prepares to tackle the deficit and debt and as he faces a House of Representatives in Republican hands, many of whose members include those affiliated with the Tea Party who may be willing to embrace both moves.
The president will propose some new spending in certain areas that address the speech’s theme of “How We Win the Future”: innovation, education and infrastructure. But those increases will be proposed within the context of a proposed partial budget freeze.
It’s a cut in Beltwayese, in other words, because normally we’d expand spending instead of reducing it. At least that isn’t as bad as Washington usually gets about cuts, which politicians usually define as a decrease in the rate of spending increases. And don’t expect that definition to become defunct in the next two years, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle on Capitol Hill.
Why would Congressman Mike Pence suggest it is good public health policy to take birth control away from low-income women in this country? Yet that would be the result of the bill he promoted in last Sunday's Star Press. He wants to ban Planned Parenthood -- the country's leading provider of birth control services -- from the Title X program.
Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. It is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families. From the program's beginning in 1970, Planned Parenthood, with clinics throughout the country, has been an important part of the program. It's estimated that one out of four American women has visited a Planned Parenthood center for health care at least once in her life. Why would Congressman Pence want to remove this pillar from our country's family planning infrastructure?
He says it's because he wants to ensure that no federal funds are used to subsidize abortion. That assurance is already in the law through the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortion. Not a dime of Title X funding supports abortion. It is used, rather, to assist low-income persons with the cost of basic reproductive health care -- Pap tests, pregnancy tests, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases and birth control.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell delivered last year's GOP response to the State of the Union. McDonnell spoke to Fox News on Saturday about what he hopes the president will focus on as he prepares to address the nation Tuesday.
McDonnell recommends Obama make spending cuts a priority. Citing budget cuts made in his own state, the governor said reduced spending in Virginia has "had a huge impact." While acknowledging that finding places to cut funding isn't easy and that "tough choices" are involved, the changes made under McDonnell have resulted in a huge surplus for the state.
Chief among the governor's priorities for Virginia has been job creation. McDonnell said Virginia is currently ranked "third in the country" when it comes to new jobs in large part "because of the time and investment" that's been put into "job creating programs."
Amid reports that President Obama's Tuesday address will call for increased spending in infrastructure and education, McDonnell predicts the president's message won't be "well received" by Americans. Instead, the governor suggests President Obama focus on fiscal cuts and "reduction of the national debt." McDonnell thinks these themes, combined with an emphasis on incentives for growing small business will help the president strike the right tone.
President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.
Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law's testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.
While proposing new spending, Mr. Obama also will lay out significant budget cuts elsewhere, people familiar with the plans say, though they will likely fall short of what Republican lawmakers have requested….
Republicans are casting the White House's pivot toward competitiveness as an excuse for bigger government and more spending. They say a surge in federal spending and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit are impeding job creation, and dramatic spending cuts are needed immediately.
In the House, Republicans are pushing to cut $100 billion from the annual budget as soon as this year. A coalition of House Republicans proposed Thursday cutting $2.5 trillion in spending over a decade, pushing nondefense discretionary spending down to 2006 levels for 10 years.
Little more than a week after taking the oath of office, Gov. Nikki Haley has been sued by a trade union and the AFL-CIO, for saying the state would try to keep unions out of a new Boeing plant being built in North Charleston, next to Charleston International Airport.
The federal complaint from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the South Carolina branch of the AFL-CIO was inspired by remarks Haley made in December when she nominated Catherine Templeton, a Charleston attorney, to head the state's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.
Haley, a onetime protégé of scandal-plagued former Gov. Mark Sanford, played up Templeton's union-fighting background as an attorney with the Ogletree Deakins law firm and said she would help protect the state from unionization efforts, particularly at Boeing…..
In its 16-page complaint, the union accuses Haley and Templeton of pursuing an anti-union policy by "unlawfully utilizing 'increased regulatory scrutiny' of union activity and threats to immediately activate the 'punitive machinery' of state government against unions and against employees who wish to join or who advocate in favor of unions."
The union's Southern Territory Vice President Bob Martinez said in a statement: "Gov. Haley placed her hand on a Bible and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. But her stated intention is to actively oppose workers in South Carolina who wish to exercise their legal right to join a union. There is nothing in the governor's oath of office that gives her the right to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore."
Martinez continued: "By tasking Templeton to lead the fight against union organizing in South Carolina, and specifically against the IAM at the Boeing facility in North Charleston, Gov. Haley is requesting a state official to violate the very law she is charged with enforcing."
The union asks the court to order Haley and Templeton to remain neutral in matters concerning union activities.
But the new governor appears unbowed. Speaking with reporters after the complaint was filed, Haley said, "There's no secret I don't like the unions and that we are a right-to-work state.
"I will do everything I can to defend the fact we are a right-to-work state. We are pro-business by nature. I want us to continue to be pro-business. If they don't like what I said, I'm sorry, that's how I feel."
The Pima County Sheriff's Department has suddenly turned off the flow of information in the January 8th mass shootings in Tucson. Shortly after noon Tuesday Sheriff's PIO Jason Ogan released this terse, one-line statement:
"Until further notice, due to a controversy between the Sheriff's Department and the County Attorney's office, no further information reference the January 8, 2011 shooting will be released."…
As KGUN9 News has reported, some critics have suggested that some statements from the Sheriff's Department -- particularly those from Sheriff Clarence Dupnik -- could serve to work against prosecutors. A legal expert that 9 On Your Side consulted did not share the concern. Whether LaWall has views on the subject, and if so, whether those views played into Wednesday's Sheriff's Department statement, is unknown.
Calling it a top priority of the Republican agenda, House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday gave a top designation to a bill introduced by New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith that would ban the use of any federal funds from being used for abortions.
The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," given the numerical designation H.R. 3 to emphasize its prominence, would make permanent in existing law any language that bans abortion. It also would provide medical workers with "conscientious protections" that allow them to refuse to participate in abortion procedures against their will.
The legislation will "ensure that the taxpayers -- through huge majorities clearly show do not want their money being used to pay for abortions -- no longer are coerced into using taxpayer funding to subsidize the killing of an unborn child and the warping of his or her mother," Smith said in a press conference with Boehner on Capitol Hill
"Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people. We made a commitment to the American people under the Pledge to America and we're continuing to fulfill our commitment," Boehner said.
Separately, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill., are introducing a bill to prohibit any money from the new health care law from going to fund abortions.
A number of the House GOP’s leading conservative members on Thursday will announce legislation that would cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be by far the most ambitious and far-reaching proposal by the new majority to cut federal government spending….
Jordan’s “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.
But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts. The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.
Going back to 2006 levels would reduce spending by $2.3 trillion over ten years. It is a significantly more drastic cut than the one proposed by House Republican leadership in the Pledge to America last fall, which proposed moving non-defense, non-mandatory spending for the current fiscal year back to 2008 levels, which was $522.3 billion. Jordan’s proposal includes the recommendation from the Pledge for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.
The proposal would cut the federal work force by 15 percent and freeze automatic pay raises for government employees for five years.
And don’t expect cheers from the White House in any case. Jordan’s bill ends the stimulus program and sends its remaining $45 billion back towards deficit reduction, which means the end of $6 billion earmarked for states already in budgetary crises. Another $16 billion meant to bolster Medicaid will make that situation even worse, since it will transfer more costs to the states (or more accurately, keep the states from transferring costs to the federal government) and set back the ObamaCare rollout. Expect Democrats to ramp up attacks on spending cuts using the same anecdotal strategy they attempted with the ObamaCare repeal vote this week.
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords continues to make progress in her recovery, with doctors estimating she could be released from the hospital as soon as "days to weeks."
Giffords, who was wounded in the January 8 mass shooting in Arizona, underwent a successful procedure Saturday to repair a fracture in the roof of her right eye socket, doctors said Monday.
The congresswoman tolerated the two-hour, minor operation well, and is "back at that same baseline where she was before surgery," said Dr. Michael Lemole, chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center.
The operation was necessary, he said, because bone fragments were pushing down on Giffords' eye. When she arrived at the hospital shortly after the shooting, doctors did a quick operation but "did not want to do the full repair" because she was in critical condition.
