Obama: 'Disrupt, Defeat, Dismantle' Al Qaeda
President Outlines New Afghanistan Strategy; Sends Thousands More Soldiers To Meet 'Increasingly Perilous' Threat
Mar 27, 2009 6:00 pm US/Eastern
Widening war in "the most dangerous place in the world," President Barack Obama launched a fresh effort Friday to defeat al Qaeda terrorists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, defending his strategy with shades of the dire language of George W. Bush.
Stirring echoes of Sept. 11 and making the war his own, Obama warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq but still has no end in sight.
"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."
The president, who declared last weekend an "exit strategy" was needed for Afghanistan, never used those words in announcing his plans on Friday. His strategy is built on an ambitious goal of boosting the Afghan army from 80,000 to 134,000 troops by 2011 -- and greatly increasing training by U.S. troops accompanying them -- so the Afghan military can defeat Taliban insurgents and take control of the war.
That, he said, is "how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home."
There is no timetable for withdrawal, and the White House said it had no estimate yet on how many billions of dollars its plan will cost.
The essence of Obama's strategy is to set clear goals for a war gone awry, to get the American people behind them, to provide more resources and to make a better case for international support. He is heading next week to a NATO meeting in France and Germany, where he expects allies to pledge more help of their own.
Much like Iraq, the war effort in Afghanistan has been longer and costlier than American leaders expected.
U.S.-led forces toppled the militant Taliban government there after the terrorist attacks on America in 2001, but many militants fled and regrouped in neighboring Pakistan. Obama said that Afghanistan will now get the resources it should have received years ago, "denied because of the war in Iraq."
Since becoming president, Obama has ordered 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, counting 17,000 combat forces who will try to quell surging violence. The Pentagon says that will put the U.S. total there at more than 60,000, the most to date. As the Iraq conflict winds down, the Afghanistan war is growing.
Taking firm control of the war that dominated Bush's presidency, Obama broke with his predecessor in significant ways but also used phrases that sounded strikingly familiar.
He described the ruthlessness of the enemy, the need to take on terrorists, the genesis of the fight. Bush often reminded the nation that terrorists were plotting to kill Americans, even as the public fear dissipated with each passing year after the 9/11 attacks.
"I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Obama said. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives."
He tied Afghanistan and Pakistan together as one conflict, pledging regular three-way diplomacy with both countries and intensive outreach to the world for help in the region. He pledged to send in 4,000 forces to train the Afghan army and police force. He is sending in hundreds of U.S. civilians-agricultural specialists, educators and engineers-to help a poor, broken country try to build itself up from the provincial level.
The president promised that the U.S. will hold itself and others accountable by using benchmarks, although those measures are just starting to be shaped.
And showing the frustration of many in American government, Obama spoke bluntly about the leadership of the government it is trying to help.
He said Pakistan must no longer expect a "blank check" for its U.S. aid and must be willing to take on extremists within its borders. He suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken "one way or another."
On Afghanistan, he said the U.S. would not "turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in the own leaders."
Obama's review capped two months of extensive consultations between his team, Capitol Hill and foreign governments. He did not call Bush.
The former president often decried what he-called artificial timelines for pulling troops home from Iraq. In this case, Bruce Riedel, who led the Obama review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan plan, said it deliberately does not have timelines, to ensure flexibility. "We're not going to impose artificial constraints," he said.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai embraced the additional help his country will get to train its army and police force.
Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani said it was "an extraordinarily positive sign that the Obama administration is thoroughly re-examining its policy toward our region."
The reaction from leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill was largely positive, although some lawmakers remain deeply skeptical of Pakistan's cooperation.
The Pakistani government has been more concerned by what it views as a greater threat to its existence, longtime rival India, with which it has fought three wars in the past six decades. And the Pakistani central government has relatively little control in some areas, tolerating or even ignoring Taliban and al Qaeda havens inside Pakistan.
The man Obama defeated for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said he welcomed Obama's revamped strategy as long overdue. "The war there is one that we can and must win, but for years now we have been fighting without a clear strategy and with insufficient resources," McCain said.
But McCain also said the president erred by not committing to sending in additional combat brigades as requested by the military commander on site. He said "we cannot fail in Afghanistan due to a lack of troops" and pushed Obama to be candid to the public that the war will cost more lives and money.
Much of the security build up in Afghanistan this year is meant to provide security for fair, stable elections there in August.
"We've been on a path since 2006, 2007, 2008, where violence has gone up," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We add these troops, violence is going to go up in 2009 because we're engaged more. That said, we've got to have a year this year, I believe, that stems that violence."
Obama, too, warned of tough days ahead. He said al Qaeda, its allies and probably its leader, Osama bin Laden, were plotting in the Pakistani frontier.
"For the American people," Obama said, "this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world."
© 2009 CBS Broadcasting Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://wcbstv.com/national/afghanistan.troop.buildup.2.969254.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is a sound strategy so far. Obama should just go ahead and say that Bush and McCain might have been right about the war on terror. Although, I highly doubt that will ever happen.
His outline includes a surge and is lacking a timetable for withdrawl. Isn't this the kind of military policy that Obama chastised during the campaign? I guess reality hit him in the face during the meetings with military leaders, CIA, and Homeland Security.
This is what I found to be the most eye-opening quote: "(Obama) suggested that the U.S. would strike terrorist targets in Pakistan if the country did not do so itself, saying he will insist that action be taken 'one way or another.'"
Does this mean that we might be starting another war in Pakistan, too?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Obama Administration: What Middle Class Tax Cut?
Obama's Middle Class Tax Cut May Not Survive Budget
The President's Budget Chief Says Senate Dems May Scrap Tax Cut
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS and SUNLEN MILLER
March 25, 2009
President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The president stresses that despite tough times, things will improve.
On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.
The administration had tied the revenue raised from its environmental "cap-and-trade" proposal to the middle-class tax cuts -- known as the "Making Work Pay" tax credit for families -- both of which have been brought up as possibilities to be scrapped from the Senate and House budget resolution.
Obama's middle-class tax cut is locked in place for the next two years as part of the stimulus package he signed into law last month, but Orszag told reporters today that the White House will have to use those two years to figure out how to keep that tax cut in place for middle-class families beyond 2010.
Obama took his budget campaign to the Hill today to discuss his $3.6 trillion budget face to face with some skeptical Democrats, a day after he addressed the nation in a prime-time news conference.
Democratic leaders emerged from the 45-minute lunch expressing confidence that they will be able to work with the White House on provisions the president wants included in the budget.
The Senate will "protect President Obama's priorities -- education, energy, health care, middle-class tax relief and cut the deficit in half," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"We have attempted to preserve -- and I think have preserved -- the president's key priorities," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee "All those are possible to move forward in the budget resolution I've written."
Reid said the budget will be passed next week.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted the president's budget as too expensive and irresponsible because of the $7 trillion to $9.3 trillion national debt his proposals are projected to create during the next 10 years.
In his news conference yesterday, Obama had some strong words for his Republican critics.
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them," he said.
He challenged them to draft an alternate budget instead of simply criticizing his version. On Wednesday, Republicans responded to that challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them,"-Obama
This whole blame Bush for my bad behavior is getting very old and transparent. People could understand if he couldn't get a surplus because of Bush's deficit but not multiplying the deficit. When is Obama going to admit my bad behavior is his fault?
Leaving the middle class tax cut on the floor for two years, one of his main campaign promises, could hurt the Democrats in the 2010 midterms and possibly 2012. It's like when Bush 41 went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in 1992.
The President's Budget Chief Says Senate Dems May Scrap Tax Cut
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS and SUNLEN MILLER
March 25, 2009
President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.
The president stresses that despite tough times, things will improve.
On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.
The administration had tied the revenue raised from its environmental "cap-and-trade" proposal to the middle-class tax cuts -- known as the "Making Work Pay" tax credit for families -- both of which have been brought up as possibilities to be scrapped from the Senate and House budget resolution.
Obama's middle-class tax cut is locked in place for the next two years as part of the stimulus package he signed into law last month, but Orszag told reporters today that the White House will have to use those two years to figure out how to keep that tax cut in place for middle-class families beyond 2010.
Obama took his budget campaign to the Hill today to discuss his $3.6 trillion budget face to face with some skeptical Democrats, a day after he addressed the nation in a prime-time news conference.
Democratic leaders emerged from the 45-minute lunch expressing confidence that they will be able to work with the White House on provisions the president wants included in the budget.
The Senate will "protect President Obama's priorities -- education, energy, health care, middle-class tax relief and cut the deficit in half," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"We have attempted to preserve -- and I think have preserved -- the president's key priorities," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee "All those are possible to move forward in the budget resolution I've written."
Reid said the budget will be passed next week.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted the president's budget as too expensive and irresponsible because of the $7 trillion to $9.3 trillion national debt his proposals are projected to create during the next 10 years.
In his news conference yesterday, Obama had some strong words for his Republican critics.
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them," he said.
He challenged them to draft an alternate budget instead of simply criticizing his version. On Wednesday, Republicans responded to that challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them,"-Obama
This whole blame Bush for my bad behavior is getting very old and transparent. People could understand if he couldn't get a surplus because of Bush's deficit but not multiplying the deficit. When is Obama going to admit my bad behavior is his fault?
Leaving the middle class tax cut on the floor for two years, one of his main campaign promises, could hurt the Democrats in the 2010 midterms and possibly 2012. It's like when Bush 41 went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in 1992.
British Official Chastises British PM Brown's Economic Agenda
'Viral Video' Eviscerating PM Gordon Brown Economic Policies Largely Ignored by MSM
By P.J. Gladnick
March 26, 2009 - 08:24 ET
Most of you have probably seen or heard the "viral video" of the British MEP, Daniel Hannan, eviscerating the socialist economic polices of Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the European Parliament. If you did, you probably became aware of the video on either the Web, talk radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh, or on a very few cable TV programs. The reason is that the MSM mostly ignored this scintillating attack upon the disastrous economic effects of socialism as represented by Brown which could well be extended to our own president, Barack Obama.
Your humble correspondent did a Google News search on "Daniel Hannan" this morning and was astonished by the dearth of coverage. In fact, I thought that perhaps Google News might have simply missed some news sources by error so I checked individual news sites of several of the major MSM sources. The result: New York Times...no coverage. Washington Post...zip. Boston Globe...zilch. Miami Herald...nope. Chicago Tribune...nyet. And the Los Angeles Times only had a small blurb linking to a National Review Online story about the video. And if you think CNN, being a cable news outlet, would have had the video or at least a mention of it on its site, you would be wrong. Daniel Hannan himself made a blog post in the UK Telegraph about how his video went viral on the Web despite being ignored by much of the MSM:
"The internet has changed politics - changed it utterly and forever. Twenty-four hours ago, I made a three-minute speech in the European Parliament, aimed at Gordon Brown. I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP.
"When I woke up this morning, my phone was clogged with texts, my email inbox with messages. Overnight, the YouTube clip of my remarks had attracted over 36,000 hits. By today, it was the most watched video in Britain."
And on this side of the pond as well, Daniel.
"How did it happen, in the absence of any media coverage? The answer is that political reporters no longer get to decide what's news. The days when a minister gave briefings to a dozen lobby correspondents, and thereby dictated the next day's headlines, are over. Now, a thousand bloggers decide for themselves what is interesting. If enough of them are tickled then, bingo, you're news... And jumbo thanks to all the American bloggers: you chaps are way ahead of us in this regard."
Blush! And a jumbo you're welcome for your incredible speech on behalf of the bloggers here in the colonies.
"Breaking the press monopoly is one thing. But the internet has also broken the political monopoly. Ten or even five years ago, when the Minister for Widgets put out a press release, the mere fact of his position guaranteed a measure of coverage. Nowadays, a politician must compel attention by virtue of what he is saying, not his position.
"It's all a bit unsettling for professional journalists and politicians. But it's good news for libertarians of every stripe. Lefties have always relied on control, as much of information as of physical resources. Such control is no longer technically feasible."
Well stated! However, the left will still try to desperately regain its control of information as we have seen in attempts to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine" whether by that name or in another form. So what was the reaction to Hannan's article about how the MSM has lost its monopoly? Fortunately, the Web now allows us to read the reaction in the comments posted by readers of Hannan's blog:
"At 80,000 hits, it is the most watched video on youtube, not only in britain, but everywhere in the world."
That was yesterday. Today that YouTube video has over 680,000 hits and is still rapidly growing.
"I'm proud to say that I played my part in spreading this video to firstly my friends and a student forum of 270,000.
"Mr. Hannan! I first heard the audio from this speech on the Rush Limbaugh Show here in the States... I couldn't help but applaud!!(While driving I might add ;) Rush commands an audience of 20 Million people a week and 5 million at any given time during his 3 hour show. Your speech has gone beyond viral, my friend... I have no doubt this speech will find its way into America's Conservative Movement, and this should be the clarion call for Republicans here start sounding off like they have a pair! President Teleprompter needs a dressing down just like this!"
Hannan's blog had over 270 such comments posted to it but what is really outstanding is that his YouTube video currently has over 4700 comments. Meanwhile the MSM, including many of the dying newspapers that are soon to fold, continues to snore.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/03/26/viral-video-eviscerating-pm-gordon-brown-economic-policies-largely-ign
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
It does seem to fit perfectly with the situation that is going on here. It might have as well been Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann going off on Obama.
One Union Reaps What It Sowed
Union employees picket their own union
By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sometimes even unions have union problems. Dozens of employees of the Service Employees International Union are picketing their own union over its decision to lay off about 75 workers.
The staffers marched outside SEIU headquarters in Washington chanting, "Justice for all, not just some."
The Union of Union Representatives, which represents SEIU organizers and field staff, has filed unfair labor practice charges and age and race discrimination claims against the union.
SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette calls the complaints meritless and says the layoffs were made because the union is shifting organizing work away from its national office to local unions.
She calls the protest "a sign of a thriving Democratic movement" and says the union hopes to work out the dispute.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WORKERS_VS_UNION?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is just delicious seeing the union turns on itself. It couldn't happen to a nicer organization.
By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sometimes even unions have union problems. Dozens of employees of the Service Employees International Union are picketing their own union over its decision to lay off about 75 workers.
The staffers marched outside SEIU headquarters in Washington chanting, "Justice for all, not just some."
The Union of Union Representatives, which represents SEIU organizers and field staff, has filed unfair labor practice charges and age and race discrimination claims against the union.
SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette calls the complaints meritless and says the layoffs were made because the union is shifting organizing work away from its national office to local unions.
She calls the protest "a sign of a thriving Democratic movement" and says the union hopes to work out the dispute.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WORKERS_VS_UNION?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is just delicious seeing the union turns on itself. It couldn't happen to a nicer organization.
Socialist-in-Chief Extols Greatness of UK/Canada's Healthcare Systems
Video: Our “legacy” is all that separates us from Euro-Canada health care
posted at 2:47 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
If you want a peek at the direction Barack Obama will take health care, or at least where he would like to take it, check out this moment from an otherwise dull, dreary “virtual town hall”. Obama extols the virtues of single-payer systems in Europe and Canada while lamenting the “legacy” that keeps America from its nationalized destiny.
Obama’s right about the “historical accident” of employer based care, from which Obama obviously drew the wrong lesson. Government intervention in markets — in this case, the labor market — produces strange and sometimes problematic results. This was the very issue that John McCain wanted to address in his plans to make employer-financed health insurance taxable income while providing a balancing refundable that would have disconnected insurance from employment and created a new market for individual — and portable — plans. Obama and the Democrats misrepresented McCain’s plans, and then turned around this month and suggested they might co-opt the McCain approach now.
As for his description of Canada and “England” as places where one just walks in and gets treatment, perhaps Obama should talk to more Canadians and “English”. Most have to wait months for tests and treatments. The British have a chronic lack of dentists and transplant surgeons, just to name two specialties, because of the lack of compensation for specializations. Both have a healthy “health tourism” outflow of patients to countries that allow for free-market health care. Most people in the systems that Obama hails would laugh outright at the notion that they get health care on demand.
Maybe Obama should do more research on Canada and “England”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/video-our-legacy-is-all-that-separates-us-from-euro-canada-health-care/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
At last, it's refreshing for "The One" to tell us what he really wants for this country. It's like when he was actually honest with Joe the Plumber. He wants us to become a socialist country no matter how hard he tries to convince the New York Times and the American people otherwise.
To add to what Ed said, the reason why there is a lack of doctors is because they migrate to the US where they get paid much more. This is especially true for the more experienced and talented doctors. So, Canada and England are hemorraging the best doctors they have to the US because of their "free" healthcare system.
Also, their healthcare isn't really free. Everyone pays out the wazoo through heavy taxes to wait forever for adequate healthcare.
Legislation That We've Been Waiting For: Congress Goes After BCS
Senate reviewing how college football picks No. 1
Mar 25 03:47 PM US/Eastern
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.
The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.
The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.
The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.
Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9759GG00&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
With all of the economic turmoil going on in this country right now, how is this the most important issue of the day?
Mar 25 03:47 PM US/Eastern
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.
The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.
The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.
The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.
Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9759GG00&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
With all of the economic turmoil going on in this country right now, how is this the most important issue of the day?
AP: 38 Days Late, $787 Billion Short
Bold claims of stimulus jobs can't be measured
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press
Thu Mar 26, 5:08 am ET
WASHINGTON – If space exploration were conducted like the job forecasts under the government's new stimulus law, man surely would have missed the moon. But this isn't rocket science.
No promise from President Barack Obama is more important to the wounded economy than his vow to save or create some 3.5 million jobs in two years. In support of that bottom line, the government even tells states how many jobs they can expect to see from the spending and tax cuts.
But precise trajectories are impossible to plot and even approximations can be wildly off, as the authors of these forecasts acknowledge, usually more readily than the policymakers who use them to promote the plan.
Flip through the stacks of economic analyses underpinning the stimulus plan and you find a lot of throat-clearing qualifications and angst:
_"Very uncertain."
_"Difficult to distinguish among alternative estimates."
_"We confess to considerable uncertainty."
_"Subject to substantial margins of error."
In other words, who really knows?
Economic modeling may prove to be a haywire navigational device in this crisis.
"Large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers. "For those reasons, some economists remain skeptical that there will be any significant effects, while others expect very large ones."
Zero to nirvana? Even for economists, who routinely differ among themselves, that's a range beyond the norm.
The disconnect between theory and real life became evident when Obama pitched his plan at a Caterpillar factory before its passage and held out hope the federal stimulus money would let the heavy equipment maker rehire some of the thousands being let go.
Although that might be the eventual result when money courses through the pipeline, Caterpillar last week announced 2,400 more layoffs.
By necessity, stimulus projections were put together in ways that bear little resemblance to a family's budget.
Assumptions are piled atop assumptions, rules of thumb, historical experience, theory and more than a little hope.
A family budget is a set of building blocks of income and expenses, simple addition from the bottom up.
The stimulus projections are top down, a matter of economic multipliers and complex division infused with things that may or may not happen.
The government estimated how much the spending and tax cuts might grow the economy. Then that effect was translated into projected job growth overall. Then that theoretical pie was divided into chunks to show what each state and sector of the economy might get out of it.
All of this without knowing, for example, how exactly states will spend money they get from Washington. Or how money going directly to a bridge or manufacturer will support other jobs in the communities.
Among the assumptions used in White House and congressional forecasting:
_Every one-point gain in the gross domestic product will translate into 1 million jobs.
_For every two jobs directly created by the stimulus spending, a third job will be indirectly created. The 2-to-1 ratio is rough and varies considerably by sector.
_For each dollar states receive from Washington, they will decide to use 60 cents to avoid spending cuts, 30 cents to avoid tax increases and 10 cents to reduce drawdowns of their rainy day funds.
_A tax cut has only one-quarter of the value of a spending increase of the same size, in terms of expanding the economy.
_Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits is worth $1.63 of quick economic expansion. Food stamps boost the economy even more.
The overarching goal — and promise — of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs is built on vagaries such as these.
Job creation is counted in different ways, but none that can isolate the stimulus package from the multitude of forces shaping the economy.
And there's no reliable way to measure how many jobs the stimulus will stop from disappearing. Companies don't report layoffs avoided by federal aid.
Instead, forecasters estimated how low the economy might have sunk without the stimulus, and how high that would drive unemployment up. The idea is to have about 3.5 million more people working than might have been the case if the government had done nothing.
Economists on Obama's team projected that the stimulus will mean an unemployment rate nearly two points lower at the end of next year than it would have been absent the plan.
Far below the theoretical, in the grounded world of road repairs, health technology projects and all the other contracts made possible by the federal spending, actual jobs will be created. Those building blocks of employment will be tracked. But under White House guidance to federal departments, they are not to be reported. The reasoning: They are "likely to be inconsistent with macroeconomic estimates."
"Uniform reporting requirements for estimates of job creation will be specified at a later time," said a February memo from the White House Office Management and Budget.
By the end of Obama's term, the true effects of the stimulus might best be measured family by family, in the way famously posed by Ronald Reagan days before the election that brought him to office:
"It might be well if you ask yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stimulus_jobs_numbers
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Good article with good analysis. Too bad it is way too late. The fact that Obama and his administration were likely making up numbers as they went along would have been useful two months ago. Now, it just proves that the Mainstream Media often buries stories like this until legislation that promotes their liberal agenda is already law and is too late to stop. This another case of media malpractice.
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press
Thu Mar 26, 5:08 am ET
WASHINGTON – If space exploration were conducted like the job forecasts under the government's new stimulus law, man surely would have missed the moon. But this isn't rocket science.
No promise from President Barack Obama is more important to the wounded economy than his vow to save or create some 3.5 million jobs in two years. In support of that bottom line, the government even tells states how many jobs they can expect to see from the spending and tax cuts.
But precise trajectories are impossible to plot and even approximations can be wildly off, as the authors of these forecasts acknowledge, usually more readily than the policymakers who use them to promote the plan.
Flip through the stacks of economic analyses underpinning the stimulus plan and you find a lot of throat-clearing qualifications and angst:
_"Very uncertain."
_"Difficult to distinguish among alternative estimates."
_"We confess to considerable uncertainty."
_"Subject to substantial margins of error."
In other words, who really knows?
Economic modeling may prove to be a haywire navigational device in this crisis.
"Large fiscal stimulus is rarely attempted," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers. "For those reasons, some economists remain skeptical that there will be any significant effects, while others expect very large ones."
Zero to nirvana? Even for economists, who routinely differ among themselves, that's a range beyond the norm.
The disconnect between theory and real life became evident when Obama pitched his plan at a Caterpillar factory before its passage and held out hope the federal stimulus money would let the heavy equipment maker rehire some of the thousands being let go.
Although that might be the eventual result when money courses through the pipeline, Caterpillar last week announced 2,400 more layoffs.
By necessity, stimulus projections were put together in ways that bear little resemblance to a family's budget.
Assumptions are piled atop assumptions, rules of thumb, historical experience, theory and more than a little hope.
A family budget is a set of building blocks of income and expenses, simple addition from the bottom up.
The stimulus projections are top down, a matter of economic multipliers and complex division infused with things that may or may not happen.
The government estimated how much the spending and tax cuts might grow the economy. Then that effect was translated into projected job growth overall. Then that theoretical pie was divided into chunks to show what each state and sector of the economy might get out of it.
All of this without knowing, for example, how exactly states will spend money they get from Washington. Or how money going directly to a bridge or manufacturer will support other jobs in the communities.
Among the assumptions used in White House and congressional forecasting:
_Every one-point gain in the gross domestic product will translate into 1 million jobs.
_For every two jobs directly created by the stimulus spending, a third job will be indirectly created. The 2-to-1 ratio is rough and varies considerably by sector.
_For each dollar states receive from Washington, they will decide to use 60 cents to avoid spending cuts, 30 cents to avoid tax increases and 10 cents to reduce drawdowns of their rainy day funds.
_A tax cut has only one-quarter of the value of a spending increase of the same size, in terms of expanding the economy.
_Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits is worth $1.63 of quick economic expansion. Food stamps boost the economy even more.
The overarching goal — and promise — of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs is built on vagaries such as these.
Job creation is counted in different ways, but none that can isolate the stimulus package from the multitude of forces shaping the economy.
And there's no reliable way to measure how many jobs the stimulus will stop from disappearing. Companies don't report layoffs avoided by federal aid.
Instead, forecasters estimated how low the economy might have sunk without the stimulus, and how high that would drive unemployment up. The idea is to have about 3.5 million more people working than might have been the case if the government had done nothing.
Economists on Obama's team projected that the stimulus will mean an unemployment rate nearly two points lower at the end of next year than it would have been absent the plan.
Far below the theoretical, in the grounded world of road repairs, health technology projects and all the other contracts made possible by the federal spending, actual jobs will be created. Those building blocks of employment will be tracked. But under White House guidance to federal departments, they are not to be reported. The reasoning: They are "likely to be inconsistent with macroeconomic estimates."
"Uniform reporting requirements for estimates of job creation will be specified at a later time," said a February memo from the White House Office Management and Budget.
By the end of Obama's term, the true effects of the stimulus might best be measured family by family, in the way famously posed by Ronald Reagan days before the election that brought him to office:
"It might be well if you ask yourself: Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stimulus_jobs_numbers
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Good article with good analysis. Too bad it is way too late. The fact that Obama and his administration were likely making up numbers as they went along would have been useful two months ago. Now, it just proves that the Mainstream Media often buries stories like this until legislation that promotes their liberal agenda is already law and is too late to stop. This another case of media malpractice.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Ohio: Stimulus Money Wasted On "Suicide Bridge"
Y-Bridge will be fenced
Stimulus funds to be used to try to curtail suicide attempts. Some call plan wasteful By Stephanie Warsmith, Rick Armon, and Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writers
Published on Friday, Mar 27, 2009
One man jumped to his death off the All-America Bridge this year.
Two more used the Akron bridge — more commonly known as the Y-Bridge — to commit suicide in 2008.
Akron hopes to curtail future deaths on what has been dubbed ''Suicide Bridge'' by installing a fence.
The controversial fencing — some have been pushing for it, while others think it's a waste of money — was among the local projects the state approved Thursday for federal stimulus funds.
''It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,'' said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.
''It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,'' said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.
Akron received the most stimulus funding of any local community — $21 million for four projects, including $7.5 million for improvements to the Y-Bridge. (The fencing is expected to cost $1 million to $1.5 million; the rest will go toward new decking for the 28-year-old span.)
Other area projects given the green light include the replacement of the Brady Lake Bridge in Portage County, improvements to an outdated railroad crossing in Macedonia and resurfacing Interstate 77 in Stark County south of Canton.
These were among 149 infrastructure projects approved by theOhio Department of Transportation, which is responsible for awarding $774 million in federal stimulus funds.
In awarding this first group of funding, the state tried to provide funds to every region and to support ''unique regional economic assets,'' Gov. Ted Strickland said.
Cleveland had the largest project — $200 million for a new, five-lane westbound Interstate 90 Innerbelt bridge. Another $200 million in state and federal dollars are expected to be spent on the project.
Akron also was awarded funds for improvements to South Main Street from Firestone Boulevard to Waterloo Road — a project tied to the new Bridgestone Firestone technical center — and for Frank Boulevard from White Pond Drive to Ayers Avenue. The city also got money to design a new State Street bridge.
Mayor Don Plusquellic, who was among a small group of mayors who often traveled to Washington, D.C., to discuss the stimulus legislation with federal leaders, was happy with Akron's share. He estimated the projects will create or retain 240 jobs.
''This is consistent with the intent of the president and Congress when they passed the recovery act,'' said Plusquellic, who has been critical of the stimulus requests of other local communities. ''This is for something we actually need in this community.''
The projects will keep jobs, add jobs and keep people safe, Plusquellic said.
Also in Summit County, the state approved funding for improvements to the Norfolk Southern railroad crossing at Twinsburg Road in Macedonia.
The changes will help create a federally recognized ''quiet zone'' at the tracks, which are located in a residential area where Macedonia, Hudson, Northfield Center Township and Boston Heights meet. A quiet zone is an area where trains don't blow their whistles.
''This is exactly what we needed, and now we can move full-speed ahead with the project,'' said Hudson resident Greg McNeil, who has been pushing for the quiet zone for about a year.
The project, which includes installing medians to control and slow motorists, could be completed in the next six months.
Medina was the only local county selected by the state for stimulus funds for transit projects in rural areas. The county plans to use the approximately $3 million it received to design and build a transit facility, buy five new buses and repair other buses.
''We're very grateful for the money,'' said Mike Salamone, chief of Medina County Transit.
The current bus garage, described as being in ''poor shape,'' is off Meyers Road in Medina Township. The new, 19,000-square-foot garage will be on county-owned land on state Route 162 in Lafayette Township.
Portage County received funds for one project: a bridge replacement on Brady Lake Road outside of Kent in Franklin Township.
''We struck gold again,'' said Portage County Engineer Michael Marozzi.
The county previously received $1.7 million in state funds. The latest $1.1 million might be enough to pay the balance, though the county might have to ante up some money, Marozzi said.
The new, 166-foot-long, two-span bridge will cross the CSX tracks and Breakneck Creek. It is used by about 6,200 vehicles per day and is a shortcut for local motorists between Kent and Ravenna.
Local officials have been warned to spend the federal stimulus funds wisely.
Some would argue Akron's Y-Bridge project would be a waste.
One person, responding to a request for stimulus comments on Akron's Web site, wrote, ''Please do not build a fence on the Y-Bridge.''
Plusquellic, however, thinks this is a good use of the funds. He said anyone whose vehicle has been hit with a rock thrown from a bridge can appreciate the need for a fence. Plus, he said, if the bridge were built now, federal regulations would require fencing.
''Everywhere else that receives federal money, this is the standard,'' he said. ''Why should we be different?''
Conley, the Akron father whose son jumped from the bridge, said the expense is worth it if it makes anyone rethink suicide.
''It might force them to look at another avenue,'' he said. ''Maybe they get help. We know suicide is a temporary moment in people's lives. If they get past that temporary moment, maybe it doesn't happen.''
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/41958387.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
''This is consistent with the intent of the president and Congress when they passed the recovery act. This is for something we actually need in this community.''-Akron Mayor
No, this not what they had in mind. It creates very few jobs and no shot of long term job oppurtunities. No, you really don't need the fence.
''We struck gold again,''-County Engineer Michael Marozzi.
That's nice.
First of all, how is a fence going to stop people from committing suicide. Even if they could jump off the bridge, they would be more than likely find another way. So, their reasoning for using stimulus money for the fence is bogus. Using that fact alone it's a waste.
Second, they are getting $7.5 million for improvements to the Y-Bridge. The fence is expected to cost only $1-1.5 million. What about the rest of the money? They are going to use it for new decking for the 28-year-old span. By definition, it isn't stimulus, if it isn't used immediately. Waiting 28 years to spend the money is just spending money.
Finally, they receied $21 mil for four projects. According to the Akron mayor, the stimulus would create only 240 jobs. That would come to a grand total of $875,000 of taxpayer money per job.
Stimulus funds to be used to try to curtail suicide attempts. Some call plan wasteful By Stephanie Warsmith, Rick Armon, and Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writers
Published on Friday, Mar 27, 2009
One man jumped to his death off the All-America Bridge this year.
Two more used the Akron bridge — more commonly known as the Y-Bridge — to commit suicide in 2008.
Akron hopes to curtail future deaths on what has been dubbed ''Suicide Bridge'' by installing a fence.
The controversial fencing — some have been pushing for it, while others think it's a waste of money — was among the local projects the state approved Thursday for federal stimulus funds.
''It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,'' said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.
''It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,'' said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.
Akron received the most stimulus funding of any local community — $21 million for four projects, including $7.5 million for improvements to the Y-Bridge. (The fencing is expected to cost $1 million to $1.5 million; the rest will go toward new decking for the 28-year-old span.)
Other area projects given the green light include the replacement of the Brady Lake Bridge in Portage County, improvements to an outdated railroad crossing in Macedonia and resurfacing Interstate 77 in Stark County south of Canton.
These were among 149 infrastructure projects approved by theOhio Department of Transportation, which is responsible for awarding $774 million in federal stimulus funds.
In awarding this first group of funding, the state tried to provide funds to every region and to support ''unique regional economic assets,'' Gov. Ted Strickland said.
Cleveland had the largest project — $200 million for a new, five-lane westbound Interstate 90 Innerbelt bridge. Another $200 million in state and federal dollars are expected to be spent on the project.
Akron also was awarded funds for improvements to South Main Street from Firestone Boulevard to Waterloo Road — a project tied to the new Bridgestone Firestone technical center — and for Frank Boulevard from White Pond Drive to Ayers Avenue. The city also got money to design a new State Street bridge.
Mayor Don Plusquellic, who was among a small group of mayors who often traveled to Washington, D.C., to discuss the stimulus legislation with federal leaders, was happy with Akron's share. He estimated the projects will create or retain 240 jobs.
''This is consistent with the intent of the president and Congress when they passed the recovery act,'' said Plusquellic, who has been critical of the stimulus requests of other local communities. ''This is for something we actually need in this community.''
The projects will keep jobs, add jobs and keep people safe, Plusquellic said.
Also in Summit County, the state approved funding for improvements to the Norfolk Southern railroad crossing at Twinsburg Road in Macedonia.
The changes will help create a federally recognized ''quiet zone'' at the tracks, which are located in a residential area where Macedonia, Hudson, Northfield Center Township and Boston Heights meet. A quiet zone is an area where trains don't blow their whistles.
''This is exactly what we needed, and now we can move full-speed ahead with the project,'' said Hudson resident Greg McNeil, who has been pushing for the quiet zone for about a year.
The project, which includes installing medians to control and slow motorists, could be completed in the next six months.
Medina was the only local county selected by the state for stimulus funds for transit projects in rural areas. The county plans to use the approximately $3 million it received to design and build a transit facility, buy five new buses and repair other buses.
''We're very grateful for the money,'' said Mike Salamone, chief of Medina County Transit.
The current bus garage, described as being in ''poor shape,'' is off Meyers Road in Medina Township. The new, 19,000-square-foot garage will be on county-owned land on state Route 162 in Lafayette Township.
Portage County received funds for one project: a bridge replacement on Brady Lake Road outside of Kent in Franklin Township.
''We struck gold again,'' said Portage County Engineer Michael Marozzi.
The county previously received $1.7 million in state funds. The latest $1.1 million might be enough to pay the balance, though the county might have to ante up some money, Marozzi said.
The new, 166-foot-long, two-span bridge will cross the CSX tracks and Breakneck Creek. It is used by about 6,200 vehicles per day and is a shortcut for local motorists between Kent and Ravenna.
Local officials have been warned to spend the federal stimulus funds wisely.
Some would argue Akron's Y-Bridge project would be a waste.
One person, responding to a request for stimulus comments on Akron's Web site, wrote, ''Please do not build a fence on the Y-Bridge.''
Plusquellic, however, thinks this is a good use of the funds. He said anyone whose vehicle has been hit with a rock thrown from a bridge can appreciate the need for a fence. Plus, he said, if the bridge were built now, federal regulations would require fencing.
''Everywhere else that receives federal money, this is the standard,'' he said. ''Why should we be different?''
Conley, the Akron father whose son jumped from the bridge, said the expense is worth it if it makes anyone rethink suicide.
''It might force them to look at another avenue,'' he said. ''Maybe they get help. We know suicide is a temporary moment in people's lives. If they get past that temporary moment, maybe it doesn't happen.''
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/41958387.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
''This is consistent with the intent of the president and Congress when they passed the recovery act. This is for something we actually need in this community.''-Akron Mayor
No, this not what they had in mind. It creates very few jobs and no shot of long term job oppurtunities. No, you really don't need the fence.
''We struck gold again,''-County Engineer Michael Marozzi.
That's nice.
First of all, how is a fence going to stop people from committing suicide. Even if they could jump off the bridge, they would be more than likely find another way. So, their reasoning for using stimulus money for the fence is bogus. Using that fact alone it's a waste.
Second, they are getting $7.5 million for improvements to the Y-Bridge. The fence is expected to cost only $1-1.5 million. What about the rest of the money? They are going to use it for new decking for the 28-year-old span. By definition, it isn't stimulus, if it isn't used immediately. Waiting 28 years to spend the money is just spending money.
Finally, they receied $21 mil for four projects. According to the Akron mayor, the stimulus would create only 240 jobs. That would come to a grand total of $875,000 of taxpayer money per job.
Clinton: Mexican Drug Wars Are America's Fault
Hillary Clinton: Sorry Mexico, Your Violence is All Our Fault
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT
Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.
And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.
So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.
Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.
For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.
It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.
Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.
And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?
“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.
“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.
“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.
Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.
This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.
Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?
I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.
Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.
On her "Gosh We're Sorry" tour, Clinton assures Mexico it's all our fault...
Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Friday, March 27th at 10:56AM EDT
Mexican government officials are in the pocket of Mexican drug lords. Members of the Mexican military lend their support to Mexican drug lords. Mexican police double deal by being footsoldiers for Mexican drug lords at the same time they work for the various states. It’s all a great, corrupt mess down there.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s message to Mexico? It’s America’s fault.
And as the violence in Mexico begins to leak across the border into our southwestern states, what is Barack Obama’s idea to help? He wants to disarm our own people by raising the specter of “assault rifles,” a term that has no real meaning, and by re-instituting the “assault weapons” ban in the U.S.
So, another country’s internal corruption and internecine violence is our fault according to Obama and Clinton. And we are going to disarm ourselves in the face of foreign violence to “solve” the problem? Apparently, we are the ones the Mexicans have been waiting for, too. At least we are the ones that Mexican drug lords have been waiting for, anyway.
Naturally, the Old Media have painted this “new attitude” of American foreign policy as a relative good. McClatchy, for instance, praises Clinton’s capitulation to Mexico as a “humble” new policy, her “humility” being “served up” at every stop as she tours our southern neighbor. This new tone is an effort to reverse the problem of a “world opinion of the U.S. which sank deeply” during the Bush years, according to McClatchy.
For its part AFP says that America no longer views Mexico’s violence as the Mexican problem the Bush administration assumed it to be. We are taking “co-responsibility” for the violence as AFP quotes Mexican officials as saying.
It’s all of a piece with Obama’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” tour of the world. And what is the main offering on this tour besides a debasing of the U.S.A.? Money. And big money, too. To start with, Clinton’s “Gosh We’re Sorry” offering to Mexico is 80 million dollars in new spending as a sop to the corrupt nation. This new foreign aid is supposed to go to help Mexico buy new Blackhawk helicopters to assist the Mexican military to interdict drug cartels. But will it go to that end or will some of it end up in the hands of the very drug lords it is supposed to combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
Our government in Washington is almost bankrupt, we supposed to be in an “emergency” situation with our economy and what is Obama planning? 80 million dollars in new spending to Mexico.
Where that 80 mil would better be spent is in shoring up our border with Mexico and making sure their violence doesn’t come across the border in the first place. Let the money be spent on Americans instead of Mexicans if it must be wasted by government.
And lastly, when did Hillary Clinton realize that the role of Secretary of State included making American laws?
“I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.
“During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members,” the chief US diplomat said.
“So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns,” Clinton said.
Someone needs to remind Her Thighness that she has NO ROLE in “making the case” that a new so-called assault weapons ban needs to be instituted. That is Congress’ and the president’s role, not hers. Her role as Secretary of State does NOT include lawmaking. She is Obama’s mouth on foreign policy, not America’s advocate for new laws, acts, or internal policy ideas.
This is what you signed on for, honey. You are not a Senator anymore. Keep out of matters in which you do not belong.
Meantime, Obama’s new policy of “we are the fault you’ve been waiting for” rolls on. Reaching out to enemies and slighting friends is a wonderful way to… I not sure what it is, actually. Besides stupid, that is.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/03/27/hillary-clinton-sorry-mexico-your-violence-is-all-our-fault/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
How on earth is the fact that Mexico cannot control their own crime and government our fault? We aren't in control of Mexican police, military, or government. So, how is could be the US's fault?
I am in total agreement with Huston. I wonder why while we have the biggest amount of deficit spending ever, we are throwing $80 mil down the Mexican rat hole? It could be much better spent as he pointed out.
Mexico is in total shambles. Something must be done as it is bleeding into this country through illegal immigration. This isn't just a Mexican problem anymore. The war is taking American casualties on our soil as well. However, Clinton's approach of apologizing and taking guns out of the hands of those that need to defend themselves looks like weakness to the drug lords. Banning assault weapons isn't going to keep them out of the criminals just the law abiding victims. Liberals need to wake up and realize these facts.
Transportation Dept. Puts Extra Obstacles in Front of Detroit's Economic Recovery
U.S. To Raise Average Car Mileage Standards On 2011 Models
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sue Chang MarketWatch Pulse
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Department of Transportation said Friday that it will raise the fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to an industry-wide average of 27.3 miles per gallon for 2011 models, up 2.0 mpg from 2010 models. The tighter rule will save about 887 million gallons of fuel and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons, the transportation department said. "These standards are important steps in the nation's quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families," said Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood in a statement.
© 2009 MarketWatch, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/raise-average-car-mileage-standards--models/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
While this is a noble goal, I wonder if this the best time to be putting restrictions on an industry that is can't keep their head above water without government assistance. It will cost the auto companies money to comply with the new standards, and for the Big 3, this is money that they don't have. It could very well backfire and be the final straw that will break Detroit's back.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sue Chang MarketWatch Pulse
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Department of Transportation said Friday that it will raise the fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to an industry-wide average of 27.3 miles per gallon for 2011 models, up 2.0 mpg from 2010 models. The tighter rule will save about 887 million gallons of fuel and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons, the transportation department said. "These standards are important steps in the nation's quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families," said Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood in a statement.
© 2009 MarketWatch, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/raise-average-car-mileage-standards--models/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
While this is a noble goal, I wonder if this the best time to be putting restrictions on an industry that is can't keep their head above water without government assistance. It will cost the auto companies money to comply with the new standards, and for the Big 3, this is money that they don't have. It could very well backfire and be the final straw that will break Detroit's back.
Obama Administration Tries Buy Kyrgyzstan Back From Putin's Influence
U.S. Official: Negotiations Continue Over Kyrgyzstan Air Base
Friday, March 27, 2009
MOSCOW — A senior U.S. official said Friday that negotiations are continuing with Kyrgyzstan over a key American air base that the Central Asian country has ordered U.S. forces to leave this year.
The base provides support for military operations in Afghanistan and its potential closure poses a challenge to President Barack Obama's plan to send up to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this year to fight surging Taliban and Al Qaeda violence.
Kyrgyzstan last month ordered the United States to leave the base within 180 days.
But the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, told reporters in Moscow that, "We have agreed to enter into discussions with the Kyrgyz, at their invitation, on the possibility of the (base) agreement remaining in force."
"They have given us notification that they want the agreement to end, but the story is not over yet," the official said.
Kyrgyz officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The U.S. official downplayed the effect that closure of the base would have on Afghanistan operations, saying the United States has options with countries that already offer basing rights, saying "it's not going to affect our ability to supply our forces in Afghanistan."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510917,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Maybe Obama has realized the error in his ways at letting Putin and Russia influence their former satellite state into kicking our troops out of their country.
That base is an invaluable asset to our war effort in Afghanistan especially since Obama is sending even more troops into the country.
Friday, March 27, 2009
MOSCOW — A senior U.S. official said Friday that negotiations are continuing with Kyrgyzstan over a key American air base that the Central Asian country has ordered U.S. forces to leave this year.
The base provides support for military operations in Afghanistan and its potential closure poses a challenge to President Barack Obama's plan to send up to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this year to fight surging Taliban and Al Qaeda violence.
Kyrgyzstan last month ordered the United States to leave the base within 180 days.
But the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, told reporters in Moscow that, "We have agreed to enter into discussions with the Kyrgyz, at their invitation, on the possibility of the (base) agreement remaining in force."
"They have given us notification that they want the agreement to end, but the story is not over yet," the official said.
Kyrgyz officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The U.S. official downplayed the effect that closure of the base would have on Afghanistan operations, saying the United States has options with countries that already offer basing rights, saying "it's not going to affect our ability to supply our forces in Afghanistan."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510917,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Maybe Obama has realized the error in his ways at letting Putin and Russia influence their former satellite state into kicking our troops out of their country.
That base is an invaluable asset to our war effort in Afghanistan especially since Obama is sending even more troops into the country.
Putin "Resets" US-Russia Relations Back to Cold War
Russia plans to create Arctic military force
Mar 27 07:19 AM US/Eastern
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia is planning to create a dedicated military force to help protect its interests in the disputed Arctic region.
The presidential Security Council has released a document outlining government policy for the Arctic that includes creating a special group of military forces. The report was released this week and reported by Russian media on Friday.
Russia, the United States, Canada and other northern countries are trying to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic.
The dispute has intensified amid growing evidence that the shrinking polar ice is opening up new shipping lanes and allowing natural resources to be tapped.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D976C8E01
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Apparently, Putin misinterpreted Obama's desire to "reset" US-Russia relations to mean that we should go back to the US-USSR relations of the Cold War. Or is this more mettle testing?
Considering Kyrgyzstan maybe reneging on their agreement with Russia to kick the US military out of their base for money, this could, also, be retaliation for that.
Mar 27 07:19 AM US/Eastern
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia is planning to create a dedicated military force to help protect its interests in the disputed Arctic region.
The presidential Security Council has released a document outlining government policy for the Arctic that includes creating a special group of military forces. The report was released this week and reported by Russian media on Friday.
Russia, the United States, Canada and other northern countries are trying to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic.
The dispute has intensified amid growing evidence that the shrinking polar ice is opening up new shipping lanes and allowing natural resources to be tapped.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D976C8E01
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Apparently, Putin misinterpreted Obama's desire to "reset" US-Russia relations to mean that we should go back to the US-USSR relations of the Cold War. Or is this more mettle testing?
Considering Kyrgyzstan maybe reneging on their agreement with Russia to kick the US military out of their base for money, this could, also, be retaliation for that.
Rahmbo's Hand Caught In Freddie Mac's Cookie Jar
When will Rahm Emanuel give back the money?
posted at 1:32 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
Capitol Hill exploded in outrage this month when AIG paid retention bonuses to the employees it brought on board to rescue the company from the shoals. What about people in high government office who profited from unethical behavior during the period when the damage got done? Congress could start demanding refunds from those people — like, say, Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:
"Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
"One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort. …
"The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
"On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass."
Nor was that the only scandal at the GSE for which Emanuel had a ringside seat. The board approved a scheme to increase its political influence by using corporate resources for campaign fundraisers. That violation netted Freddie Mac a hefty $3.8 million fine for the 2002 electoral cycle, although by that time, Emanuel — one of the recipients of the fundraising — had won a seat in Congress. Emanuel was also around when Freddie Mac deliberately misstated earnings, creating a $5 billion write-off and almost $600 million in fines and settlements after OFHEO discovered the false figures in 2003.
Congress had plenty of venom to unleash on AIG execs this month over some contractually-obligated retention bonuses. Why not go after some of the people really responsible for the collapse — the people who sat on boards while cooking the numbers, fooling investors, and evading auditors? When will Congress pass a bill asking Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae board members during this period to return the ill-gotten gains they received from perpetrating a Ponzi scheme with government backing?
Well, that’s the answer right there. Too many of the people in Congress who vented outrage over retention bonuses not only approved of the Ponzi schemes at the GSEs, they colluded in creating them. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al have little room to castigate Rahm Emanuel for merely enacting what they created. And that, of course, is the root of the hypocrisy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/when-will-rahm-emanuel-give-back-the-money/
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Cue the outrage! (Silence) Um, let me try again. Cue the outrage!
Well, I guess there will be once again no consequences for a Democrat's, in this case Rahmbo, role in the current financial crisis. The MSM will basically barely mention it if at all and pretend it never existed the next day. However, what ever role the GOP had in it is blown up and the offending Republican is figuratively put in front of a firing squad.
When will people realize this crisis is largely brought about by the Democrats' not the GOP?
posted at 1:32 pm on March 26, 2009
by Ed Morrissey
Capitol Hill exploded in outrage this month when AIG paid retention bonuses to the employees it brought on board to rescue the company from the shoals. What about people in high government office who profited from unethical behavior during the period when the damage got done? Congress could start demanding refunds from those people — like, say, Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:
"Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
"One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort. …
"The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.
"On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass."
Nor was that the only scandal at the GSE for which Emanuel had a ringside seat. The board approved a scheme to increase its political influence by using corporate resources for campaign fundraisers. That violation netted Freddie Mac a hefty $3.8 million fine for the 2002 electoral cycle, although by that time, Emanuel — one of the recipients of the fundraising — had won a seat in Congress. Emanuel was also around when Freddie Mac deliberately misstated earnings, creating a $5 billion write-off and almost $600 million in fines and settlements after OFHEO discovered the false figures in 2003.
Congress had plenty of venom to unleash on AIG execs this month over some contractually-obligated retention bonuses. Why not go after some of the people really responsible for the collapse — the people who sat on boards while cooking the numbers, fooling investors, and evading auditors? When will Congress pass a bill asking Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae board members during this period to return the ill-gotten gains they received from perpetrating a Ponzi scheme with government backing?
Well, that’s the answer right there. Too many of the people in Congress who vented outrage over retention bonuses not only approved of the Ponzi schemes at the GSEs, they colluded in creating them. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al have little room to castigate Rahm Emanuel for merely enacting what they created. And that, of course, is the root of the hypocrisy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/26/when-will-rahm-emanuel-give-back-the-money/
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Cue the outrage! (Silence) Um, let me try again. Cue the outrage!
Well, I guess there will be once again no consequences for a Democrat's, in this case Rahmbo, role in the current financial crisis. The MSM will basically barely mention it if at all and pretend it never existed the next day. However, what ever role the GOP had in it is blown up and the offending Republican is figuratively put in front of a firing squad.
When will people realize this crisis is largely brought about by the Democrats' not the GOP?
GOP Split: Rep. Ryan Courts Blue Dogs' Support, Rep. Boehner Says Who Needs Them
GOP Split on Whether to Reach Out to Moderate Democrats in Budget Battle
While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."
By Mosheh Oinounou FOXNews.com Thursday, March 26, 2009
House Republican leaders appear to be split on whether to reach out to their moderate colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fight the Democratic agenda.
While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."
The split underscores the difficulty the Republican Party is having finding a way to fight President Obama's budget blueprint, endorsed Wednesday by the House Budget Committee.
Ryan made a blunt appeal for Democratic allies this week.
"I want to make a plea to a special select audience. I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government? Do you want your fingerprints on this massive and unprecedented growth in our national debt? You hold the cards. You hold the votes that can make a difference in this," said Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, during a hearing on the 2010 budget Wednesday.
Ryan's office went so far as to post his remarks to YouTube. And the Wisconsin congressman promoted the comments on his Twitter page.
Meanwhile, Boehner, who has said multiple times at recent press conferences that he had no plans to reach out to moderate Democrats, has teased the coalition.
"We'd love to have conservative Democrats join us. But every time they get a chance to do that, they always end up voting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the left," he told FOX News Thursday, ahead of a planned unveiling of the GOP alternative budget plan.
He called the group "lap dogs" who refuse "to get off people's laps and actually do something," during a speech Wednesday, according to Politico.com.
"They're not the force they used to be in terms of moving the Democrats to do something," Boehner reportedly told the Yale Club and Federal Policy group.
The Blue Dogs, a coalition of 51 moderate House Democrats, include legislators from conservative districts who often cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on spending, gun control and social issues. A number of caucus members have been quoted in recent weeks expressing concerns about the size of Obama's budget.
The mixed GOP message comes weeks after House Republicans declared that they had found their "voice" as the 187 members voted unanimously to oppose Obama's stimulus plan.
However, the split message is the second example in a week of strife within the conference. Nearly half of House Republicans voted for a bill last week taxing the bonuses of AIG executives, with Ryan joining GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., in supporting the legislation. Boehner and the rest of the Republicans voted no.
Ryan made his plea Wednesday directly to Blue Dogs Co-Chairman Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., during the budget markup hearing calling on the group of centrists to "join us to stop this fiscal train wreck."
"We're asking our friends on the other side of the aisle ... to help us defeat this unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending spree, and let's get back together and fix these fiscal problems in this country, which this budget exacerbates and makes much, much worse," Ryan added.
GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., also told reporters recently that he was hearing some "very interesting rumblings" coming from Blue Dogs on spending and envisioned a coalition with like-minded Democrats.
For their part, Blue Dog leaders said Boehner should look in the mirror before accusing another caucus of being "lap dogs."
"These statements come from the same individuals who wrote the president a blank check for eight years, driving spending to the highest levels in our country's history," Melancon said.
"Rather than just saying 'no,' the Blue Dogs will continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer commonsense policy alternatives. We do not subscribe to the extreme philosophies of the far right or the far left, and we certainly do not take serious issues and use them for political gain," he added.
A Blue Dog aide said that members of the caucus are still willing to work with GOP legislators but that Republicans have so far failed to make any effort to reach out to the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/26/gop-split-reach-moderate-democrats-budget-battle/
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I am going to agree with Paul Ryan on this one. We need to get moderate Democrats to join us to stop Obama, Pelosi, and Reid from bankrupting this country. The GOP is at a distinct disadvantage by being outnumbered. In the Senate is extremely important for us to pull a couple of "blue dogs" to our side.
Republicans barely hold filibuster capability in the Senate, and that is by a thin thread because of the Turncoat RINO Caucus' tendency to vote with the Democrats.
Boehner's approach of flipping the blue dogs the bird isn't going to help. It is too partisan, and the people are tired of hearing of partisan bickering just for the sake of partisan bickering.
Why wouldn't we want their support? We shouldn't compromise our principles for it, but we should try to convince them that our proposals are better than Pelosi's.
Perhaps Boehner's right in his criticism of the blue dogs not standing up to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama so far, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop from working to join us in the opposition to the Democrats' spending orgy.
While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."
By Mosheh Oinounou FOXNews.com Thursday, March 26, 2009
House Republican leaders appear to be split on whether to reach out to their moderate colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fight the Democratic agenda.
While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."
The split underscores the difficulty the Republican Party is having finding a way to fight President Obama's budget blueprint, endorsed Wednesday by the House Budget Committee.
Ryan made a blunt appeal for Democratic allies this week.
"I want to make a plea to a special select audience. I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government? Do you want your fingerprints on this massive and unprecedented growth in our national debt? You hold the cards. You hold the votes that can make a difference in this," said Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, during a hearing on the 2010 budget Wednesday.
Ryan's office went so far as to post his remarks to YouTube. And the Wisconsin congressman promoted the comments on his Twitter page.
Meanwhile, Boehner, who has said multiple times at recent press conferences that he had no plans to reach out to moderate Democrats, has teased the coalition.
"We'd love to have conservative Democrats join us. But every time they get a chance to do that, they always end up voting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the left," he told FOX News Thursday, ahead of a planned unveiling of the GOP alternative budget plan.
He called the group "lap dogs" who refuse "to get off people's laps and actually do something," during a speech Wednesday, according to Politico.com.
"They're not the force they used to be in terms of moving the Democrats to do something," Boehner reportedly told the Yale Club and Federal Policy group.
The Blue Dogs, a coalition of 51 moderate House Democrats, include legislators from conservative districts who often cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on spending, gun control and social issues. A number of caucus members have been quoted in recent weeks expressing concerns about the size of Obama's budget.
The mixed GOP message comes weeks after House Republicans declared that they had found their "voice" as the 187 members voted unanimously to oppose Obama's stimulus plan.
However, the split message is the second example in a week of strife within the conference. Nearly half of House Republicans voted for a bill last week taxing the bonuses of AIG executives, with Ryan joining GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., in supporting the legislation. Boehner and the rest of the Republicans voted no.
Ryan made his plea Wednesday directly to Blue Dogs Co-Chairman Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., during the budget markup hearing calling on the group of centrists to "join us to stop this fiscal train wreck."
"We're asking our friends on the other side of the aisle ... to help us defeat this unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending spree, and let's get back together and fix these fiscal problems in this country, which this budget exacerbates and makes much, much worse," Ryan added.
GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., also told reporters recently that he was hearing some "very interesting rumblings" coming from Blue Dogs on spending and envisioned a coalition with like-minded Democrats.
For their part, Blue Dog leaders said Boehner should look in the mirror before accusing another caucus of being "lap dogs."
"These statements come from the same individuals who wrote the president a blank check for eight years, driving spending to the highest levels in our country's history," Melancon said.
"Rather than just saying 'no,' the Blue Dogs will continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer commonsense policy alternatives. We do not subscribe to the extreme philosophies of the far right or the far left, and we certainly do not take serious issues and use them for political gain," he added.
A Blue Dog aide said that members of the caucus are still willing to work with GOP legislators but that Republicans have so far failed to make any effort to reach out to the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/26/gop-split-reach-moderate-democrats-budget-battle/
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I am going to agree with Paul Ryan on this one. We need to get moderate Democrats to join us to stop Obama, Pelosi, and Reid from bankrupting this country. The GOP is at a distinct disadvantage by being outnumbered. In the Senate is extremely important for us to pull a couple of "blue dogs" to our side.
Republicans barely hold filibuster capability in the Senate, and that is by a thin thread because of the Turncoat RINO Caucus' tendency to vote with the Democrats.
Boehner's approach of flipping the blue dogs the bird isn't going to help. It is too partisan, and the people are tired of hearing of partisan bickering just for the sake of partisan bickering.
Why wouldn't we want their support? We shouldn't compromise our principles for it, but we should try to convince them that our proposals are better than Pelosi's.
Perhaps Boehner's right in his criticism of the blue dogs not standing up to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama so far, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop from working to join us in the opposition to the Democrats' spending orgy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Lula: "White, blue-eyed bankers" To Blame For Financial Crisis
'White, blue-eyed bankers have brought world economy to its knees': What the Brazilian President told Gordon Brown
By James Chapman
Last updated at 11:37 PM on 26th March 2009
Gordon Brown’s efforts to broker an £80billion bailout for world trade on a trip to Brazil hit a stumbling block tonight when the country’s President lashed out at ‘white, blue-eyed’ bankers for bringing the world economy to its knees.
Mr Brown watched on uneasily as his host, President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, launched a bizarre tirade in which he warned that next week’s G20 summit in London would be a ‘spicy’ affair.
President Lula said it was completely unfair that the poorest people in the world were suffering most for the mistakes of wealthy, Western financiers.
Dark clouds ahead: Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva shakes hands with Gordon Brown before a meeting at the Alvorada Palace in Brasilia this afternoon as storm clouds gather in the background
‘This was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by irrational behaviour of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics,’ he declared.
‘Now they have demonstrated that they don’t know anything about economics.
’President Lula, head of Brazil’s main left-wing party, said that ‘no black man or woman, no indigenous person, no poor person’ had been in any way culpable for the global banking crisis.
‘I’m not acquainted with any black banker,’ he said. ‘The part of humanity that’s responsible should pay for the crisis.’
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165089/White-blue-eyed-bankers-brought-world-economy-knees-What-Brazilian-President-told-Gordon-Brown.html?ITO=1490
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Apparently, he's never heard of Franklin Raines, Maxine Watters, and the many others that were in the companies and especially Congress.
By James Chapman
Last updated at 11:37 PM on 26th March 2009
Gordon Brown’s efforts to broker an £80billion bailout for world trade on a trip to Brazil hit a stumbling block tonight when the country’s President lashed out at ‘white, blue-eyed’ bankers for bringing the world economy to its knees.
Mr Brown watched on uneasily as his host, President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, launched a bizarre tirade in which he warned that next week’s G20 summit in London would be a ‘spicy’ affair.
President Lula said it was completely unfair that the poorest people in the world were suffering most for the mistakes of wealthy, Western financiers.
Dark clouds ahead: Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva shakes hands with Gordon Brown before a meeting at the Alvorada Palace in Brasilia this afternoon as storm clouds gather in the background
‘This was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by irrational behaviour of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics,’ he declared.
‘Now they have demonstrated that they don’t know anything about economics.
’President Lula, head of Brazil’s main left-wing party, said that ‘no black man or woman, no indigenous person, no poor person’ had been in any way culpable for the global banking crisis.
‘I’m not acquainted with any black banker,’ he said. ‘The part of humanity that’s responsible should pay for the crisis.’
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165089/White-blue-eyed-bankers-brought-world-economy-knees-What-Brazilian-President-told-Gordon-Brown.html?ITO=1490
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Apparently, he's never heard of Franklin Raines, Maxine Watters, and the many others that were in the companies and especially Congress.
Paul Ryan: Sorry I Voted "Yes" For Unconstitutional AIG Bonus Tax
GOP lawmaker flips on AIG bonus tax
By PATRICK O'CONNOR |
3/26/09 3:43 PM EDT
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the budget committee, said Thursday he would have voted against the 90 percent tax increase if he had known that legal scholars would deem it unconstitutional.
"Now, that I know — which I didn't at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn't have voted the same way," Ryan said during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" on Thursday — the show is set to air on Sunday. POLITICO was one of the participants in the Ryan interview.
Ryan blames confusion about the constitutionality of the plan on Democrats for rushing the bill through the House.
"You rush this thing to the floor. Nobody had time to review it," Ryan said on the C-SPAN program, adding that lawmakers "got conflicting advice on it" before the vote.
House Republicans split almost evenly last week over the Democrats' bill to impose a 90 percent retroactive tax increase on bonuses for employees at AIG and the other biggest recipients of federal bailout funds in a political bid to recoup the government's money. Conservatives rejected the bill as a punitive tax, but more than 80 Republicans voted for it, fearing the populist backlash over the AIG bonuses.
Ryan and party Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) voted for the legislation while Republican Leader John A. Boehner and the bulk of the party's conservative wing voted against it.
Ryan said he "wanted to send a message" to the companies that received bailout money.
But that vote last week stands in stark contrast to one late last fall when Ryan, Cantor, Boehner and others granted the administration approval to spend $700 billion to buy troubled mortgage-related securities. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quickly retooled the program to directly inject money into banks and other struggling financial institutions — an audible that caused heartburn for members on both sides of the aisle.
"I voted for TARP initially because I thought we were on the brink of a crisis," Ryan said.
AIG received around $170 billion through the Federal Reserve to remain solvent after bad assets capsized the financial titan. Earlier this year, the company used about $165 million of that money to pay bonuses to employees in the same departments that brought the firm to the brink of collapse.
Ryan argued that Democrats tried to pull a fast one on the GOP by ramming the legislation through the House under expedited procedures that required a two-thirds majority for passage, setting up the potential for Republicans to bring down the punitive measure. "This is no way to run Congress," he said.
But the conservative still agrees with the underlying principle behind the bill.
"The message was sent that should have been sent," Ryan said. "These bonuses were completely ridiculous. They rewarded failure."
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20528.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
First of all, how could he have not known it was unconstitutional from the beginning? The bonuses were ill-advised, but the government shouldn't be allowed to use the tax code to punish a specific individual or group.
I like Ryan, but he made huge mistake in voting yes. He was caught up in the heat of the moment. He allowed himself to be rushed by the Democrats into accepting this atrocity of a bill. Ryan has to be able to control the tempo of everything going on around him. Succumbing to pushed around will not be characteristic of a leader that the GOP needs. He must be able to stand up to the Democrats' propaganda and restrain them.
He could be an important leader for the GOP party in the future, but he has to be able to withstand pressure from outside sources and be able to thoroughly think out all votes.
By PATRICK O'CONNOR |
3/26/09 3:43 PM EDT
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the budget committee, said Thursday he would have voted against the 90 percent tax increase if he had known that legal scholars would deem it unconstitutional.
"Now, that I know — which I didn't at the time — that this is unconstitutional, I wouldn't have voted the same way," Ryan said during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" on Thursday — the show is set to air on Sunday. POLITICO was one of the participants in the Ryan interview.
Ryan blames confusion about the constitutionality of the plan on Democrats for rushing the bill through the House.
"You rush this thing to the floor. Nobody had time to review it," Ryan said on the C-SPAN program, adding that lawmakers "got conflicting advice on it" before the vote.
House Republicans split almost evenly last week over the Democrats' bill to impose a 90 percent retroactive tax increase on bonuses for employees at AIG and the other biggest recipients of federal bailout funds in a political bid to recoup the government's money. Conservatives rejected the bill as a punitive tax, but more than 80 Republicans voted for it, fearing the populist backlash over the AIG bonuses.
Ryan and party Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) voted for the legislation while Republican Leader John A. Boehner and the bulk of the party's conservative wing voted against it.
Ryan said he "wanted to send a message" to the companies that received bailout money.
But that vote last week stands in stark contrast to one late last fall when Ryan, Cantor, Boehner and others granted the administration approval to spend $700 billion to buy troubled mortgage-related securities. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson quickly retooled the program to directly inject money into banks and other struggling financial institutions — an audible that caused heartburn for members on both sides of the aisle.
"I voted for TARP initially because I thought we were on the brink of a crisis," Ryan said.
AIG received around $170 billion through the Federal Reserve to remain solvent after bad assets capsized the financial titan. Earlier this year, the company used about $165 million of that money to pay bonuses to employees in the same departments that brought the firm to the brink of collapse.
Ryan argued that Democrats tried to pull a fast one on the GOP by ramming the legislation through the House under expedited procedures that required a two-thirds majority for passage, setting up the potential for Republicans to bring down the punitive measure. "This is no way to run Congress," he said.
But the conservative still agrees with the underlying principle behind the bill.
"The message was sent that should have been sent," Ryan said. "These bonuses were completely ridiculous. They rewarded failure."
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20528.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
First of all, how could he have not known it was unconstitutional from the beginning? The bonuses were ill-advised, but the government shouldn't be allowed to use the tax code to punish a specific individual or group.
I like Ryan, but he made huge mistake in voting yes. He was caught up in the heat of the moment. He allowed himself to be rushed by the Democrats into accepting this atrocity of a bill. Ryan has to be able to control the tempo of everything going on around him. Succumbing to pushed around will not be characteristic of a leader that the GOP needs. He must be able to stand up to the Democrats' propaganda and restrain them.
He could be an important leader for the GOP party in the future, but he has to be able to withstand pressure from outside sources and be able to thoroughly think out all votes.
Advice to Geithner: About the Dollar Saying Less Is Best
Government Analysis
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Dear Mr. Geithner, Here's How to Answer Currency Questions
Dennis Moore FOXBusiness
The question to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday morning sounded straightforward: Would he comment on “the Chinese government proposal about a global currency?” Any of the dozen or more reporters with whom I've spent time in the Treasury's basement pressroom over the years would know instantly how to answer it.
The new Treasury Secretary didn't. He maintained a tradition now more than a decade long of the new guy tanking the dollar.
Geithner, like his predecessors, tried to give a thoughtful, intellectually honest answer that, on the dollar, global currency markets simply will not allow.
Geithner's mistakes started with his first sentence: “I haven't read the governor's proposal”, referring to reported comments by Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan.
That's where he should have stopped. In Washington, if you haven't read it, you don't talk about it.
Second, he accepted the questioner's premise. Governor Zhou did not actually propose a new global currency to replace the dollar. He instead recommended expanding the role of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund. That’s a basket of dollars, euros, pounds and yen created in 1969 as reserves for IMF member nations.
The U.S. is already looking to expand the IMF's ability to help smaller and less developed countries get through the financial crisis. In that light, Zhou's proposal is hardly revolutionary.
“And we're actually quite open to that suggestion,” Geithner said.
Cue the currency market panic.
The traders had ignored the rest of his response: “But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures.”
Dustin Reid, a currency strategist of RBS Global Banking said “Geithner did not say that the world monetary system should move away from using the dollar as the preferred global reserve currency in favor of using SDRs, as some initial headlines were suggesting.”
More important than what the Treasury Secretary said is what he didn't say. It's known as the Rubin mantra: “A strong dollar is in the national interest of the United States.”
Starting in the mid-1990s, that is what Clinton administration Treasury head Robert Rubin said in response to every – every -- question about the dollar. Since then, no Treasury Secretary has been allowed to say anything else, no matter what the actual economic situation, without triggering a dollar selloff.
Rubin's successor, Larry Summers, had spent four years working under him and stuck word for word to the strong dollar, national interest mantra. He didn't shock the dollar.
Then came Paul O'Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and a relative stranger to global currency markets. He, too, tried to give an intelligent answer in 2001.
The U.S. was "not pursuing a policy of a strong dollar," he told a German newspaper. "In my opinion a strong dollar is the result of a strong economy. There's no strong currency without a strong economy." There's nothing analytically wrong with that but the deviation from Rubin sent the dollar diving. O'Neill did some quick backtracking and said he'd learned his lesson.
John Snow, the next Secretary, took longer to learn. In his defense, it may be said that the dollar was weakening significantly and the Rubin formulation looked increasingly divorced from reality. In March 2003, Snow said he was “not particularly concerned” about the dollar -- and it promptly hit a four-year low against the euro. In November of 2004, he said the U.S. wanted a "strong dollar," but the Bush administration felt no pressure to boost it. That sent the currency plunging to a record low against the euro.
Eventually, Snow reached a modified formula: “We support a strong dollar -- a strong dollar is in America's interest,'' he would tell reporters, but ``currency values are best set in open and competitive exchange markets.''
Finally came Henry Paulson, who like Rubin, came from Wall Street and knew how not to upset it.
And Secretary Geithner, with prompting from his interviewer, former Clinton Treasury official Roger Altman, backtracked by the end of the interview. Did he think the dollar could be shoved aside?
“I do not. I think the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency. I think that's likely to continue for a long period of time,” he said, and the dollar promptly rallied.
What is the magic of the mantra? Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said he hated the mantra, at first.
“All of us who had to sit and listen invariably cringed more and more as the weeks and months went on. It was boring, it was dull, it was repetitive, it was nonintellectual and it worked like a charm.” It worked because it paralyzed the press and the traders -- leaving no room for speculation about any possible change in US dollar policy.
The lesson is clear: if you haven't trod the trading floors of Goldman Sachs or been trained by someone who has, talking about the dollar can be deadly.
Having strayed from the true path of the strong dollar, and suffered the consequences, Tim Geithner is unlikely to indulge in actually answering the question again.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/dear-mr-geithner-heres-answer-currency-questions/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I'll sum it all up for you. Geithner, shut up!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Dear Mr. Geithner, Here's How to Answer Currency Questions
Dennis Moore FOXBusiness
The question to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday morning sounded straightforward: Would he comment on “the Chinese government proposal about a global currency?” Any of the dozen or more reporters with whom I've spent time in the Treasury's basement pressroom over the years would know instantly how to answer it.
The new Treasury Secretary didn't. He maintained a tradition now more than a decade long of the new guy tanking the dollar.
Geithner, like his predecessors, tried to give a thoughtful, intellectually honest answer that, on the dollar, global currency markets simply will not allow.
Geithner's mistakes started with his first sentence: “I haven't read the governor's proposal”, referring to reported comments by Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan.
That's where he should have stopped. In Washington, if you haven't read it, you don't talk about it.
Second, he accepted the questioner's premise. Governor Zhou did not actually propose a new global currency to replace the dollar. He instead recommended expanding the role of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund. That’s a basket of dollars, euros, pounds and yen created in 1969 as reserves for IMF member nations.
The U.S. is already looking to expand the IMF's ability to help smaller and less developed countries get through the financial crisis. In that light, Zhou's proposal is hardly revolutionary.
“And we're actually quite open to that suggestion,” Geithner said.
Cue the currency market panic.
The traders had ignored the rest of his response: “But you should think of it as rather evolutionary, building on the current architectures.”
Dustin Reid, a currency strategist of RBS Global Banking said “Geithner did not say that the world monetary system should move away from using the dollar as the preferred global reserve currency in favor of using SDRs, as some initial headlines were suggesting.”
More important than what the Treasury Secretary said is what he didn't say. It's known as the Rubin mantra: “A strong dollar is in the national interest of the United States.”
Starting in the mid-1990s, that is what Clinton administration Treasury head Robert Rubin said in response to every – every -- question about the dollar. Since then, no Treasury Secretary has been allowed to say anything else, no matter what the actual economic situation, without triggering a dollar selloff.
Rubin's successor, Larry Summers, had spent four years working under him and stuck word for word to the strong dollar, national interest mantra. He didn't shock the dollar.
Then came Paul O'Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and a relative stranger to global currency markets. He, too, tried to give an intelligent answer in 2001.
The U.S. was "not pursuing a policy of a strong dollar," he told a German newspaper. "In my opinion a strong dollar is the result of a strong economy. There's no strong currency without a strong economy." There's nothing analytically wrong with that but the deviation from Rubin sent the dollar diving. O'Neill did some quick backtracking and said he'd learned his lesson.
John Snow, the next Secretary, took longer to learn. In his defense, it may be said that the dollar was weakening significantly and the Rubin formulation looked increasingly divorced from reality. In March 2003, Snow said he was “not particularly concerned” about the dollar -- and it promptly hit a four-year low against the euro. In November of 2004, he said the U.S. wanted a "strong dollar," but the Bush administration felt no pressure to boost it. That sent the currency plunging to a record low against the euro.
Eventually, Snow reached a modified formula: “We support a strong dollar -- a strong dollar is in America's interest,'' he would tell reporters, but ``currency values are best set in open and competitive exchange markets.''
Finally came Henry Paulson, who like Rubin, came from Wall Street and knew how not to upset it.
And Secretary Geithner, with prompting from his interviewer, former Clinton Treasury official Roger Altman, backtracked by the end of the interview. Did he think the dollar could be shoved aside?
“I do not. I think the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency. I think that's likely to continue for a long period of time,” he said, and the dollar promptly rallied.
What is the magic of the mantra? Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said he hated the mantra, at first.
“All of us who had to sit and listen invariably cringed more and more as the weeks and months went on. It was boring, it was dull, it was repetitive, it was nonintellectual and it worked like a charm.” It worked because it paralyzed the press and the traders -- leaving no room for speculation about any possible change in US dollar policy.
The lesson is clear: if you haven't trod the trading floors of Goldman Sachs or been trained by someone who has, talking about the dollar can be deadly.
Having strayed from the true path of the strong dollar, and suffered the consequences, Tim Geithner is unlikely to indulge in actually answering the question again.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/dear-mr-geithner-heres-answer-currency-questions/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
I'll sum it all up for you. Geithner, shut up!
Tax Hikes Spark Protests Across Country
Tax my beer and cigarettes? Not without a fight
March 24, 2009
By ROGER ALFORD
Associated Press Writer
Faced with huge budget holes, states from Connecticut to Arkansas are eyeing higher taxes on cigarettes and booze, infuriating consumers who say the goods are the last vices they've got to help cope with lost jobs, a deepening recession and overall economic misery.
In Pittsburgh, protesters dumped beer and liquor into a river after county officials approved a 10 percent tax on poured drinks. Patrons in Oregon bars downed brews while writing lawmakers to oppose a proposed beer tax increase. And in Kentucky, protesters poured bourbon on the Capitol's front steps to demonstrate their opposition to a 6 percent sales tax on all booze.
"The way things are going right now with the economy, the first thing people want to do is go get a bottle or a beer, and soak their sorrows," said Jack Weaver of Louisville, who gathered with other Teamsters in a union hall last month to rail against Kentucky lawmakers who voted to raise the taxes as of April 1.
Sin tax increases to help balance budgets are nothing new, but the economic meltdown has legislators proposing them even in states like Kentucky, where alcohol and cigarettes have long been sacred cows. After all, it is famous for its bourbon whiskey and is a leading producer of tobacco used in cigarettes.
"Sin taxes have quickly emerged — as they did in the last recession — as one of the popular tactics that states have adopted to bring in the extra revenue in an environment where raising most other taxes are still pretty politically radioactive," said Sujit Canagaretna, a senior fiscal analyst for the Council of State Governments.
Faced with an unprecedented $456 million revenue shortfall, Kentucky ignored protests and raised the taxes.
Arkansas increased its cigarette tax this month, and other states considering it include Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon. Other states — including California, New York and Hawaii — are also considering raising taxes on alcohol products.
The federal government has already increased the cigarette tax by 62 cents a pack to $1.01, and Kentucky doubled its state tax to 60 cents a pack. Together, the taxes will push average prices for name-brand cigarettes to as much as $44 a carton, a $10 increase.
"It's a little extreme," said Scott Harper, 63, a former helicopter mechanic now living on Social Security and Veteran's Administration benefits. "I'm going to quit. I'll have to."
Harper was trying to buy a carton of Swisher Sweets at Bo's Smoke Shop last week, but he had to settle for a pack because smokers have been flooding state tobacco stores to stock up before the tax increases.
Though some smokers and drinkers are angry, public health groups see it as an opportunity to convince people to give up their bad habits.
"This was an extremely popular public health initiative," said Tonya Chang, advocacy director for the American Heart Association in Kentucky. "When combined with the federal tax increase, we believe this will prevent more than 50,000 Kentucky children from becoming smokers and will help thousands of Kentucky adults who want to quit."
But opponents in both the legislature and the alcohol and tobacco industries say they're afraid the tax increases could lead to huge drops in sales, costing jobs and disappointing lawmakers with lofty revenue expectations.
"Ultimately, we all have limited budgets," said David Ozgo, chief economist for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. "And if government is taking a greater share, that reduces what you can spend on yourself."
Even in years when states are flush with cash, Ozgo said, alcohol is a popular target for tax increases. But he said they sometimes backfire when people facing higher taxes drink less.
Records from the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau show that a 1991 federal excise tax increase created a slight bump in revenues in 1992, followed by four years of decline, from nearly $3.9 billion to $3.6 billion.
State Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said the taxes could devastate Kentucky's alcohol and tobacco industries, which together employ some 6,000 people. Tobacco farms are seemingly everywhere in Kentucky, and bourbon distilleries dot the state's Bluegrass region.
"It's really easy for lawmakers to understand how giving tax breaks to an industry will help that industry," he said. "Why is it so difficult for them to understand that increasing taxes on an industry will hurt that industry?"
But despite the outrage in some quarters, University of Kentucky political scientist Stephen Voss said he doesn't expect much political fallout for politicians who vote to increase sin taxes, especially in the Bible belt.
"You rarely see a case where people campaign criticizing their opponents for taxing booze and cigarettes," he said. "Voters aren't going to show a lot of sympathy to the sin industry."
Associated Press Writer Joe Biesk in Frankfort, Ky., contributed to this report.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MzAyMTc2Mg==
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Bring on the protests. The new tax and spend philosophy that the government seems to be so fond of these days are starting to get under the skin of a lot of people. From "tea parties" to beer protests, people are demonstrating their displeasure with the government's spendapalooza.
March 24, 2009
By ROGER ALFORD
Associated Press Writer
Faced with huge budget holes, states from Connecticut to Arkansas are eyeing higher taxes on cigarettes and booze, infuriating consumers who say the goods are the last vices they've got to help cope with lost jobs, a deepening recession and overall economic misery.
In Pittsburgh, protesters dumped beer and liquor into a river after county officials approved a 10 percent tax on poured drinks. Patrons in Oregon bars downed brews while writing lawmakers to oppose a proposed beer tax increase. And in Kentucky, protesters poured bourbon on the Capitol's front steps to demonstrate their opposition to a 6 percent sales tax on all booze.
"The way things are going right now with the economy, the first thing people want to do is go get a bottle or a beer, and soak their sorrows," said Jack Weaver of Louisville, who gathered with other Teamsters in a union hall last month to rail against Kentucky lawmakers who voted to raise the taxes as of April 1.
Sin tax increases to help balance budgets are nothing new, but the economic meltdown has legislators proposing them even in states like Kentucky, where alcohol and cigarettes have long been sacred cows. After all, it is famous for its bourbon whiskey and is a leading producer of tobacco used in cigarettes.
"Sin taxes have quickly emerged — as they did in the last recession — as one of the popular tactics that states have adopted to bring in the extra revenue in an environment where raising most other taxes are still pretty politically radioactive," said Sujit Canagaretna, a senior fiscal analyst for the Council of State Governments.
Faced with an unprecedented $456 million revenue shortfall, Kentucky ignored protests and raised the taxes.
Arkansas increased its cigarette tax this month, and other states considering it include Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon. Other states — including California, New York and Hawaii — are also considering raising taxes on alcohol products.
The federal government has already increased the cigarette tax by 62 cents a pack to $1.01, and Kentucky doubled its state tax to 60 cents a pack. Together, the taxes will push average prices for name-brand cigarettes to as much as $44 a carton, a $10 increase.
"It's a little extreme," said Scott Harper, 63, a former helicopter mechanic now living on Social Security and Veteran's Administration benefits. "I'm going to quit. I'll have to."
Harper was trying to buy a carton of Swisher Sweets at Bo's Smoke Shop last week, but he had to settle for a pack because smokers have been flooding state tobacco stores to stock up before the tax increases.
Though some smokers and drinkers are angry, public health groups see it as an opportunity to convince people to give up their bad habits.
"This was an extremely popular public health initiative," said Tonya Chang, advocacy director for the American Heart Association in Kentucky. "When combined with the federal tax increase, we believe this will prevent more than 50,000 Kentucky children from becoming smokers and will help thousands of Kentucky adults who want to quit."
But opponents in both the legislature and the alcohol and tobacco industries say they're afraid the tax increases could lead to huge drops in sales, costing jobs and disappointing lawmakers with lofty revenue expectations.
"Ultimately, we all have limited budgets," said David Ozgo, chief economist for the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. "And if government is taking a greater share, that reduces what you can spend on yourself."
Even in years when states are flush with cash, Ozgo said, alcohol is a popular target for tax increases. But he said they sometimes backfire when people facing higher taxes drink less.
Records from the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau show that a 1991 federal excise tax increase created a slight bump in revenues in 1992, followed by four years of decline, from nearly $3.9 billion to $3.6 billion.
State Rep. David Floyd, R-Bardstown, said the taxes could devastate Kentucky's alcohol and tobacco industries, which together employ some 6,000 people. Tobacco farms are seemingly everywhere in Kentucky, and bourbon distilleries dot the state's Bluegrass region.
"It's really easy for lawmakers to understand how giving tax breaks to an industry will help that industry," he said. "Why is it so difficult for them to understand that increasing taxes on an industry will hurt that industry?"
But despite the outrage in some quarters, University of Kentucky political scientist Stephen Voss said he doesn't expect much political fallout for politicians who vote to increase sin taxes, especially in the Bible belt.
"You rarely see a case where people campaign criticizing their opponents for taxing booze and cigarettes," he said. "Voters aren't going to show a lot of sympathy to the sin industry."
Associated Press Writer Joe Biesk in Frankfort, Ky., contributed to this report.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MzAyMTc2Mg==
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Bring on the protests. The new tax and spend philosophy that the government seems to be so fond of these days are starting to get under the skin of a lot of people. From "tea parties" to beer protests, people are demonstrating their displeasure with the government's spendapalooza.
English Bank Governor Tells Prime Minister: Stop Spending
Mervyn King warns Gordon Brown to stop spending
The Governor of the Bank of England laid bare tensions between Gordon Brown and the Treasury yesterday by warning that Britain could not afford a second economic stimulus in the Budget.
Mervyn King threw caution to the wind as he sided with Alistair Darling and the CBI against Downing Street in raising strong doubts over any prospect of another round of “significant fiscal expansion” next month.
Mr King spoke as the Prime Minister, beginning an international tour to co-ordinate measures for next week’s G20 gathering in London, called on leaders to do “whatever it takes to create growth and the jobs we need”.
President Obama, Mr Brown’s main stimulus ally, writes in the same vein in The Times today, saying that America is ready to lead the world out of recession, while calling for swift and robust action to stimulate growth “until growth is restored”.
No 10 and the Treasury deny any split but ministers admit that Mr Brown is keener than his Chancellor to go for further expansionist Budget measures on April 22.
Mr Darling said two weeks ago that a fiscal stimulus “has now been widely agreed but now needs to be implemented”, hinting that he believes a second boost is unnecessary and unwise. There have been no similar signals from No 10.
Bank governors do not normally talk about Budgets in advance, just as ministers do not comment in advance about Bank decisions on interest rates. The conclusion drawn from the unusual intervention of Mr King, who met the Queen yesterday in her first audience with a Bank governor, was that he was backing the Treasury in resisting pressure for a further stimulus. It seems certain that his already strained relations with No 10 will hit a new low.
Mr Brown told the European Parliament in Strasbourg: “I believe that we are seeing the biggest cut in interest rates the world has ever seen and seeing implemented the biggest fiscal stimulus the world has ever agreed.”
However, Mr King, appearing before the Treasury Select Committee, pointed to the size of the financial deficit and said: “It would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits.”
He gave himself some leeway by saying that “targeted and selected” measures should not be ruled out. However, monetary policy — interest rates and quantitative easing — should bear the brunt of restoring the economy to health, he said.
George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, said that Mr Brown was now “isolated at home and abroad”. He claimed that Mr King was vindicating the Conservatives’ stance and that Mr Brown’s plans for the G20 and the Budget were “in tatters”.
No 10 and the Treasury appeared relaxed about Mr King’s remarks but some ministers close to Mr Brown were irritated at the “unhelpful” and “poorly timed” intervention.
Britain was urged by Brussels, meanwhile, to make “additional efforts” from next year — code for tax increases or spending cuts — to reduce its burgeoning budget deficit. The situation had worsened substantially since last summer, the European Commission said, as it gave Britain a new target of 2013-14 for cutting its deficit back to below 3 per cent of GDP, replacing the previous target of 2009-10. This leaves Britain with the longest planned period of “excessive deficit” in the EU, after a target of 2010 was given to Greece, 2012 to France and Spain, and 2013 for the Irish Republic.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5971296.ece
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
The stimulus backlash seems to be spreading outside our borders. Maybe we can start "tea parties" overseas. After all, England is more into tea than America is.
The Governor of the Bank of England laid bare tensions between Gordon Brown and the Treasury yesterday by warning that Britain could not afford a second economic stimulus in the Budget.
Mervyn King threw caution to the wind as he sided with Alistair Darling and the CBI against Downing Street in raising strong doubts over any prospect of another round of “significant fiscal expansion” next month.
Mr King spoke as the Prime Minister, beginning an international tour to co-ordinate measures for next week’s G20 gathering in London, called on leaders to do “whatever it takes to create growth and the jobs we need”.
President Obama, Mr Brown’s main stimulus ally, writes in the same vein in The Times today, saying that America is ready to lead the world out of recession, while calling for swift and robust action to stimulate growth “until growth is restored”.
No 10 and the Treasury deny any split but ministers admit that Mr Brown is keener than his Chancellor to go for further expansionist Budget measures on April 22.
Mr Darling said two weeks ago that a fiscal stimulus “has now been widely agreed but now needs to be implemented”, hinting that he believes a second boost is unnecessary and unwise. There have been no similar signals from No 10.
Bank governors do not normally talk about Budgets in advance, just as ministers do not comment in advance about Bank decisions on interest rates. The conclusion drawn from the unusual intervention of Mr King, who met the Queen yesterday in her first audience with a Bank governor, was that he was backing the Treasury in resisting pressure for a further stimulus. It seems certain that his already strained relations with No 10 will hit a new low.
Mr Brown told the European Parliament in Strasbourg: “I believe that we are seeing the biggest cut in interest rates the world has ever seen and seeing implemented the biggest fiscal stimulus the world has ever agreed.”
However, Mr King, appearing before the Treasury Select Committee, pointed to the size of the financial deficit and said: “It would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits.”
He gave himself some leeway by saying that “targeted and selected” measures should not be ruled out. However, monetary policy — interest rates and quantitative easing — should bear the brunt of restoring the economy to health, he said.
George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, said that Mr Brown was now “isolated at home and abroad”. He claimed that Mr King was vindicating the Conservatives’ stance and that Mr Brown’s plans for the G20 and the Budget were “in tatters”.
No 10 and the Treasury appeared relaxed about Mr King’s remarks but some ministers close to Mr Brown were irritated at the “unhelpful” and “poorly timed” intervention.
Britain was urged by Brussels, meanwhile, to make “additional efforts” from next year — code for tax increases or spending cuts — to reduce its burgeoning budget deficit. The situation had worsened substantially since last summer, the European Commission said, as it gave Britain a new target of 2013-14 for cutting its deficit back to below 3 per cent of GDP, replacing the previous target of 2009-10. This leaves Britain with the longest planned period of “excessive deficit” in the EU, after a target of 2010 was given to Greece, 2012 to France and Spain, and 2013 for the Irish Republic.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5971296.ece
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
The stimulus backlash seems to be spreading outside our borders. Maybe we can start "tea parties" overseas. After all, England is more into tea than America is.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Global War on Terror Out, "Overseas Contingency Operation" In
The End of the Global War on Terror Updated 4:58 p.m. 3/24/09
By Al Kamen
The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.
"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.
"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"
An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.
By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase and switch to something many felt might better reflect the realities of the fight against international terrorism.
One leading option was to change the name to GSAVE, or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. This was not as catchy an acronym as GWOT, but officials felt it more accurately described the battle.Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld even used the GSAVE abbreviation publicly.
But, in a White House meeting, President Bush ruled that it was still a war for him, and Rumsfeld and everyone else went back to GWOT.
Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html?hpid=news-col-blog
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Why do liberals have a hard time naming things what they actually are? Terror and terrorism is just that. Are they afraid to offend Bin Ladin and all of his jihadist friends?
This is ridicuous really. PC is driving this country insane. People have to constantly walk on eggshells while in an endless trepidation of hurting someone else's feelings.
By Al Kamen
The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.
"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.
"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"
An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."
Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.
By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase and switch to something many felt might better reflect the realities of the fight against international terrorism.
One leading option was to change the name to GSAVE, or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. This was not as catchy an acronym as GWOT, but officials felt it more accurately described the battle.Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld even used the GSAVE abbreviation publicly.
But, in a White House meeting, President Bush ruled that it was still a war for him, and Rumsfeld and everyone else went back to GWOT.
Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html?hpid=news-col-blog
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
Why do liberals have a hard time naming things what they actually are? Terror and terrorism is just that. Are they afraid to offend Bin Ladin and all of his jihadist friends?
This is ridicuous really. PC is driving this country insane. People have to constantly walk on eggshells while in an endless trepidation of hurting someone else's feelings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)