This was sent from a friend of mine and thought you might like. Makes complete sense to me.
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment.
This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A.. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. No, they are borrowing it from China . Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
GOP finds little common ground with Obama
They too call for fiscal responsibility but say they'll oppose Obama on most every issue.
By James Oliphant and Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
Feb. 25, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Following President Obama's call Tuesday evening for a return to fiscal responsibility, Republicans responded -- by demanding the country return to a policy of fiscal responsibility.
If that sounds like the two parties are on the same page at last, the GOP's actual message -- expressed most directly by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the party's official response to Obama's speech -- was that the party was prepared to oppose the president's economic program at almost every turn.
"To solve our current problems, Washington must lead," Jindal said. "But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians."
Calling for traditional Republican policies of tax cuts, less government involvement and reliance on free markets and individual effort, Jindal said: "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."
Jindal and most other Republicans gave a nod to polls showing strong public support for the president on the economy, saying they wanted to work with him on what all agreed was the country's most pressing issue.
But they accused Obama -- and, more pointedly, Democrats in Congress -- of choosing the wrong tactics by backing programs that they said would increase taxes and concentrate power in Washington instead of in private hands.
Emerging from the House chamber where Obama delivered the address, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was succinct: "Whether it is cap and trade, whether it is cradle-to-grave education, whether it is universal healthcare, the era of big government is here."
The Republicans' attempt to draw a contrast between the two major parties' visions for the country was complicated by Obama's repeated promises to eliminate waste, his assertion that he too favored smaller government, and his pledge to slice the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.
The difference, Jindal and other Republicans said Tuesday, is that they wanted to spend even less than Democrats, except on defense. And, they said, they won't raise taxes to trim the deficit.
The Louisiana governor, considered a rising star who might run for president in 2012, recently said he may not accept a portion of money in the recent stimulus package set aside for Louisiana.
Jindal invoked his state's experience following Hurricane Katrina in support of Republican skepticism about government's ability to deal effectively with major national problems."
Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts," he said.
Jindal, along with many Republicans in Congress, focused on the almost $1.5 trillion the government has recently committed for jump-starting the struggling economy and propping up ailing banks. The House will take up a mammoth spending bill today that was held over from the last session."
I enjoyed about half of the speech," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). "I enjoyed the president's rhetoric. I enjoyed his call for responsibility. I enjoyed his statement that we have to be concerned about [our] children and grandchildren's debt. It's with the background of him applauding everything that was in the stimulus package and evidently everything that is going to be in the omnibus -- the two just don't add up."
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the face of a new conservative insurgency in Washington, said his party wanted to work with the president, but "there are some principles by which we're going to operate in proffering our ideas to the president and frankly to our congressional colleagues on the other side of the aisle."
Cantor's remarks illustrated the gamble Republicans have taken in opposing Obama's economic initiatives, including the stimulus bill. A New York Times poll released Tuesday said that almost three-quarters of Americans polled believed the president had been trying to work with Republicans, but only about 30% think Republicans were trying to work with Democrats.
That may be why many Republicans continued their campaign to drive a wedge between the White House and Congress by praising Obama but suggesting that his goals will be frustrated by Democratic leaders on the Hill.
"Nice speech," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), after Obama concluded his address. But he said that Obama's call for bipartisanship "fell on deaf ears" with the congressional Democratic leadership.
"It's going to take him weighing in early to bring everybody to the table, because so far the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate haven't got the memo on bipartisanship," Cornyn said.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), however, apparently had read that memo. He was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. "I thought he was right on target on the issues -- energy, education, healthcare and housing. I just think the American public is just starved for details. When will we see results? Who's going to end up paying for all this?"
Given the fact that he's only been in office four weeks, I think the sooner he can fill in the blanks, the sooner we can get to work," Brady said. "Look, he deserves a fair chance to deliver on these issues. Where there's common ground, we ought to work together." Sphere: Related Content
By James Oliphant and Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
Feb. 25, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Following President Obama's call Tuesday evening for a return to fiscal responsibility, Republicans responded -- by demanding the country return to a policy of fiscal responsibility.
If that sounds like the two parties are on the same page at last, the GOP's actual message -- expressed most directly by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the party's official response to Obama's speech -- was that the party was prepared to oppose the president's economic program at almost every turn.
"To solve our current problems, Washington must lead," Jindal said. "But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians."
Calling for traditional Republican policies of tax cuts, less government involvement and reliance on free markets and individual effort, Jindal said: "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."
Jindal and most other Republicans gave a nod to polls showing strong public support for the president on the economy, saying they wanted to work with him on what all agreed was the country's most pressing issue.
But they accused Obama -- and, more pointedly, Democrats in Congress -- of choosing the wrong tactics by backing programs that they said would increase taxes and concentrate power in Washington instead of in private hands.
Emerging from the House chamber where Obama delivered the address, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was succinct: "Whether it is cap and trade, whether it is cradle-to-grave education, whether it is universal healthcare, the era of big government is here."
The Republicans' attempt to draw a contrast between the two major parties' visions for the country was complicated by Obama's repeated promises to eliminate waste, his assertion that he too favored smaller government, and his pledge to slice the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term.
The difference, Jindal and other Republicans said Tuesday, is that they wanted to spend even less than Democrats, except on defense. And, they said, they won't raise taxes to trim the deficit.
The Louisiana governor, considered a rising star who might run for president in 2012, recently said he may not accept a portion of money in the recent stimulus package set aside for Louisiana.
Jindal invoked his state's experience following Hurricane Katrina in support of Republican skepticism about government's ability to deal effectively with major national problems."
Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts," he said.
Jindal, along with many Republicans in Congress, focused on the almost $1.5 trillion the government has recently committed for jump-starting the struggling economy and propping up ailing banks. The House will take up a mammoth spending bill today that was held over from the last session."
I enjoyed about half of the speech," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). "I enjoyed the president's rhetoric. I enjoyed his call for responsibility. I enjoyed his statement that we have to be concerned about [our] children and grandchildren's debt. It's with the background of him applauding everything that was in the stimulus package and evidently everything that is going to be in the omnibus -- the two just don't add up."
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the face of a new conservative insurgency in Washington, said his party wanted to work with the president, but "there are some principles by which we're going to operate in proffering our ideas to the president and frankly to our congressional colleagues on the other side of the aisle."
Cantor's remarks illustrated the gamble Republicans have taken in opposing Obama's economic initiatives, including the stimulus bill. A New York Times poll released Tuesday said that almost three-quarters of Americans polled believed the president had been trying to work with Republicans, but only about 30% think Republicans were trying to work with Democrats.
That may be why many Republicans continued their campaign to drive a wedge between the White House and Congress by praising Obama but suggesting that his goals will be frustrated by Democratic leaders on the Hill.
"Nice speech," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), after Obama concluded his address. But he said that Obama's call for bipartisanship "fell on deaf ears" with the congressional Democratic leadership.
"It's going to take him weighing in early to bring everybody to the table, because so far the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate haven't got the memo on bipartisanship," Cornyn said.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), however, apparently had read that memo. He was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. "I thought he was right on target on the issues -- energy, education, healthcare and housing. I just think the American public is just starved for details. When will we see results? Who's going to end up paying for all this?"
Given the fact that he's only been in office four weeks, I think the sooner he can fill in the blanks, the sooner we can get to work," Brady said. "Look, he deserves a fair chance to deliver on these issues. Where there's common ground, we ought to work together." Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
GOP Gov. Jindal calls Obama's plan irresponsible
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Republican leaders continued their attacks on President Barack Obama's handling of the economy Tuesday, calling it irresponsible and certain to increase taxes and federal debt.
Responding in advance to Obama's televised speech to a joint session of Congress, top Republicans said the president relies too heavily on spending, and not enough on tax cuts, to try to revive the gasping economy. They said they want to work with Obama, and sometimes blamed congressional Democrats more than him. But their criticisms were sharp and plentiful.
"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party's official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, "increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt."
"It's irresponsible," said Jindal, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2012.
The tone of the Republicans' response was in keeping with their nearly unanimous opposition to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, which was backed by only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House. Some Democrats and independents think the Republicans are blundering and misreading most Americans' sentiments about the need for massive government action to help the economy.
In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, about three-fourths said Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and almost as many faulted the response of Republican officials, which was seen as politically motivated.
Despite such findings, GOP lawmakers say they believe they will be proven right in the long run.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that Republicans want to help Obama find "responsible solutions to the challenges facing our nation, but thus far congressional leaders in the president's own party have stood in the way."
Boehner, Jindal and other Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, but the Obama-backed stimulus package has extensive tax cuts.
Jindal acknowledged that to some degree, Republicans deserved the drubbing they took in the last two national elections.
"Our party got away from its principles," he said. "You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington." But that is changing, he said.
Taking advantage of his moment in the national spotlight, Jindal publicized a Web link Tuesday (http://www.bobbyjindal.com/sotu/) allowing respondents to receive early excerpts of his planned televised response, and to donate to his political organization. Jindal also collected their e-mail and postal addresses, which could prove handy in a presidential race. Sphere: Related Content
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Republican leaders continued their attacks on President Barack Obama's handling of the economy Tuesday, calling it irresponsible and certain to increase taxes and federal debt.
Responding in advance to Obama's televised speech to a joint session of Congress, top Republicans said the president relies too heavily on spending, and not enough on tax cuts, to try to revive the gasping economy. They said they want to work with Obama, and sometimes blamed congressional Democrats more than him. But their criticisms were sharp and plentiful.
"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party's official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, "increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt."
"It's irresponsible," said Jindal, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2012.
The tone of the Republicans' response was in keeping with their nearly unanimous opposition to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, which was backed by only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House. Some Democrats and independents think the Republicans are blundering and misreading most Americans' sentiments about the need for massive government action to help the economy.
In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, about three-fourths said Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and almost as many faulted the response of Republican officials, which was seen as politically motivated.
Despite such findings, GOP lawmakers say they believe they will be proven right in the long run.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that Republicans want to help Obama find "responsible solutions to the challenges facing our nation, but thus far congressional leaders in the president's own party have stood in the way."
Boehner, Jindal and other Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, but the Obama-backed stimulus package has extensive tax cuts.
Jindal acknowledged that to some degree, Republicans deserved the drubbing they took in the last two national elections.
"Our party got away from its principles," he said. "You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington." But that is changing, he said.
Taking advantage of his moment in the national spotlight, Jindal publicized a Web link Tuesday (http://www.bobbyjindal.com/sotu/) allowing respondents to receive early excerpts of his planned televised response, and to donate to his political organization. Jindal also collected their e-mail and postal addresses, which could prove handy in a presidential race. Sphere: Related Content
Obama vows to lead US from dire 'day of reckoning'
By JENNIFER LOVEN
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised a nation shuddering in economic crisis Tuesday night that he would lead it from a dire "day of reckoning" to a brighter future, summoning politicians and public alike to shoulder responsibility for hard choices and shared sacrifice. "The time to take charge of our future is here," Obama declared, delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress.
Offering words of reassurance to an anxious nation, he declared, "Tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
"We are a nation that has seen promise and peril," he said. "Now we must be that nation again."Cheered robustly as he entered the House chamber, Obama grinned, shook hands and kissed lawmakers and stopped for a lengthy embrace with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench only this week after surgery for pancreatic cancer.
To deal with the current crisis, deepening each day, the president said more money will be needed to rescue troubled banks beyond the $700 billion already committed last year. He said he knows that bailout billions for banks are unpopular — "I promise you, I get it," he said — but he also insisted that was the only way to get credit moving again to households and businesses, the lifeblood of the American economy.
Along with aid for banks, he also called on Congress to move quickly on legislation to overhaul outdated regulations on the nation's financial markets.
"I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary," Obama said. "Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession."
Thinking longer-term, Obama said in a speech lacking many specifics and devoid of initiatives that both political parties must give up favored programs while uniting behind his campaign promises to build better schools, expand health care coverage and move the nation to "greener" fuel use.
Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama addressed an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as millions of anxious viewers. Despite the nation's economic worries and the lack of support for his plans from all but a few Republican lawmakers, Obama enjoys strong approval ratings across the nation.
Louisiana's young, charismatic governor, Bobby Jindal, delivering the televised GOP response, exhorted fellow Republicans to be Obama's "strongest partners" when they agree with him. But he signaled that won't happen much, calling Democrats in Congress "irresponsible" for passing the $787 billion stimulus package that Republicans have criticized as excessive and wasteful.
"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Jindal said, according to excerpts of his remarks released by the Republican Party. "Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"
Jindal is considered a likely presidential contender in 2012.
Obama spoke as bad economic news continued to pile up, felt all too keenly in U.S. homes and businesses. Some 3.6 million jobs have disappeared so far in the deepening recession, which now ranks as the biggest job destroyer in the post-World War II period. Americans have lost trillions of dollars in retirement, college and savings accounts, with the stock market falling nearly half from its peak of 16 months ago.
And new polls — some with his public support rising and others with it dropping — show that the political climate can be as precarious as the economic one. Aware that his and his party's fortunes will suffer if he cannot right the economic picture, Obama sought to blend the kind of grim honesty that has become his trademark since taking office with a greater emphasis on optimism.
"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation," he said.
The central argument of his speech was that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for — and even demands — simultaneous action on a broad, expensive agenda including helping the millions without health insurance, improving education and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources. This is the big lift of his young presidency: bringing the public behind what are sure to be enormous outlays on contentious issues.
His hope was to begin to persuade the country that those longer-term items on his presidential agenda are as important to the nation's economic well-being as unchoking credit and turning around unemployment numbers.
"The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care, the schools that aren't preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit," Obama said. "That is our responsibility."
He urged lawmakers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change by creating a cap-and-trade system of limits and pollution allowances, especially for industries such as utilities with coal burning power plants. And he said the budget he is sending to Congress on Thursday will call for $15 billion a year in federal spending to spur development of environmentally friendly but so far cost-ineffective energy sources such as wind and solar, biofuels, clean coal and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
He said his budget request also will create new incentives for teacher performance and support for innovative education programs. He asked every American to commit to completing a year or more of higher education or career training.
New in office, he wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night for the president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.
It took nearly 15 minutes for him to make his way through a House chamber packed with lawmakers eager to welcome the nation's first black president into a Capitol built by slaves. The gallery included a special section hosted by first lady Michelle Obama in which guests were selected to serve as living symbols of the president's goals. Cramming the floor was virtually the entire leadership of the federal government, including Supreme Court justices and all but one Cabinet member, held away in case disaster struck.
Pre-speech, Wall Street was in a better mood than it had been in for days: Stocks were up after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year.
In contrast to many State of the Union addresses by George W. Bush, Obama did not emphasize foreign policy. He touched on his intention to chart new strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan and to forge a new image for the U.S. around the world even as he keeps up the fight against terrorism.
With the economy dominant, Obama said the mess was one he inherited. "We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter or the next election," he said.
He aimed to show he was tackling the situation with both urgency and strict oversight for how the staggering sums are being spent. The massive stimulus plan, an overhaul of the separate $700 billion bailout for the financial sector, and a $275 billion rescue for struggling homeowners are already in place, and more is on the way, Obama said.
Even as Washington pours money into the economic recovery, Obama said the budget deficit, at $1.3 trillion and ballooning, must be brought under control.
He promised he would slash it by half by the end of his term in 2013, mostly by ending U.S. combat in Iraq and eliminating some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. He said his budget officials have identified a total of $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years, also including ending education programs "that don't work" and payments to large agribusinesses "that don't need them," eliminating wasteful no-bid contracts in Iraq and spending on weapons systems no longer needed in the post-Cold War era, and rooting out waste in Medicare.
"Everyone in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars," he said. "And that includes me."
He touted his decision to end the practice of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan war spending out of the main budget. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," Obama said. Sphere: Related Content
AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised a nation shuddering in economic crisis Tuesday night that he would lead it from a dire "day of reckoning" to a brighter future, summoning politicians and public alike to shoulder responsibility for hard choices and shared sacrifice. "The time to take charge of our future is here," Obama declared, delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress.
Offering words of reassurance to an anxious nation, he declared, "Tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
"We are a nation that has seen promise and peril," he said. "Now we must be that nation again."Cheered robustly as he entered the House chamber, Obama grinned, shook hands and kissed lawmakers and stopped for a lengthy embrace with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench only this week after surgery for pancreatic cancer.
To deal with the current crisis, deepening each day, the president said more money will be needed to rescue troubled banks beyond the $700 billion already committed last year. He said he knows that bailout billions for banks are unpopular — "I promise you, I get it," he said — but he also insisted that was the only way to get credit moving again to households and businesses, the lifeblood of the American economy.
Along with aid for banks, he also called on Congress to move quickly on legislation to overhaul outdated regulations on the nation's financial markets.
"I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary," Obama said. "Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession."
Thinking longer-term, Obama said in a speech lacking many specifics and devoid of initiatives that both political parties must give up favored programs while uniting behind his campaign promises to build better schools, expand health care coverage and move the nation to "greener" fuel use.
Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama addressed an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as millions of anxious viewers. Despite the nation's economic worries and the lack of support for his plans from all but a few Republican lawmakers, Obama enjoys strong approval ratings across the nation.
Louisiana's young, charismatic governor, Bobby Jindal, delivering the televised GOP response, exhorted fellow Republicans to be Obama's "strongest partners" when they agree with him. But he signaled that won't happen much, calling Democrats in Congress "irresponsible" for passing the $787 billion stimulus package that Republicans have criticized as excessive and wasteful.
"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Jindal said, according to excerpts of his remarks released by the Republican Party. "Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"
Jindal is considered a likely presidential contender in 2012.
Obama spoke as bad economic news continued to pile up, felt all too keenly in U.S. homes and businesses. Some 3.6 million jobs have disappeared so far in the deepening recession, which now ranks as the biggest job destroyer in the post-World War II period. Americans have lost trillions of dollars in retirement, college and savings accounts, with the stock market falling nearly half from its peak of 16 months ago.
And new polls — some with his public support rising and others with it dropping — show that the political climate can be as precarious as the economic one. Aware that his and his party's fortunes will suffer if he cannot right the economic picture, Obama sought to blend the kind of grim honesty that has become his trademark since taking office with a greater emphasis on optimism.
"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation," he said.
The central argument of his speech was that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for — and even demands — simultaneous action on a broad, expensive agenda including helping the millions without health insurance, improving education and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources. This is the big lift of his young presidency: bringing the public behind what are sure to be enormous outlays on contentious issues.
His hope was to begin to persuade the country that those longer-term items on his presidential agenda are as important to the nation's economic well-being as unchoking credit and turning around unemployment numbers.
"The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care, the schools that aren't preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit," Obama said. "That is our responsibility."
He urged lawmakers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change by creating a cap-and-trade system of limits and pollution allowances, especially for industries such as utilities with coal burning power plants. And he said the budget he is sending to Congress on Thursday will call for $15 billion a year in federal spending to spur development of environmentally friendly but so far cost-ineffective energy sources such as wind and solar, biofuels, clean coal and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
He said his budget request also will create new incentives for teacher performance and support for innovative education programs. He asked every American to commit to completing a year or more of higher education or career training.
New in office, he wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night for the president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.
It took nearly 15 minutes for him to make his way through a House chamber packed with lawmakers eager to welcome the nation's first black president into a Capitol built by slaves. The gallery included a special section hosted by first lady Michelle Obama in which guests were selected to serve as living symbols of the president's goals. Cramming the floor was virtually the entire leadership of the federal government, including Supreme Court justices and all but one Cabinet member, held away in case disaster struck.
Pre-speech, Wall Street was in a better mood than it had been in for days: Stocks were up after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year.
In contrast to many State of the Union addresses by George W. Bush, Obama did not emphasize foreign policy. He touched on his intention to chart new strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan and to forge a new image for the U.S. around the world even as he keeps up the fight against terrorism.
With the economy dominant, Obama said the mess was one he inherited. "We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter or the next election," he said.
He aimed to show he was tackling the situation with both urgency and strict oversight for how the staggering sums are being spent. The massive stimulus plan, an overhaul of the separate $700 billion bailout for the financial sector, and a $275 billion rescue for struggling homeowners are already in place, and more is on the way, Obama said.
Even as Washington pours money into the economic recovery, Obama said the budget deficit, at $1.3 trillion and ballooning, must be brought under control.
He promised he would slash it by half by the end of his term in 2013, mostly by ending U.S. combat in Iraq and eliminating some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. He said his budget officials have identified a total of $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years, also including ending education programs "that don't work" and payments to large agribusinesses "that don't need them," eliminating wasteful no-bid contracts in Iraq and spending on weapons systems no longer needed in the post-Cold War era, and rooting out waste in Medicare.
"Everyone in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars," he said. "And that includes me."
He touted his decision to end the practice of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan war spending out of the main budget. "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price," Obama said. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, February 23, 2009
Obama recovery plan stimulates whining
We need to get money into the economy. Critics and obfuscators often focus on scoring political points instead.
By Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times
You just can't please some people.
In the wake of President Obama's signing of a historically ambitious economic recovery program last week, the nitpickers and pettifoggers have come out in force.
The program's too big, the program's too small. It's got too many local make-work projects, it's got too many long-term projects. There are too many tax cuts, there are too few tax cuts. Eight bucks more in your week's take-home pay won't save anyone, let's give millions to corporations instead. And so on.
The same thing happened when Obama announced a housing recovery plan Wednesday encompassing many of the provisions housing experts say are needed to spur more home buying and arrest the foreclosure wave. Among them are more low-interest loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, incentives for loan servicers to keep borrowers out of foreclosure, and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify underwater home loans.
The next day, Rick Santelli, a market commentator and ex-futures trader on the financial news channel CNBC, staged an extended rant from a Chicago commodities pit about the injustice of helping people in distress, especially while there are still a few people around who aren't in distress.
Santelli asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road. And reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water."
When the futures floor erupted in cheers, he swept his hand about the room and proclaimed theatrically, "This is America!"
Well, no. America is a place where 8 million families are threatened with losing their homes, not a futures pit filled with braying traders.
CNBC should have known that the proper response to Santelli's tantrum was to instruct him to put a sock in it. Instead, it re-ran the video incessantly while its anchors congratulated him for making a big noise.
It may be inevitable that government programs of this magnitude bring out flocks of screeching magpies, for they're big enough to have something for any critic to hate. One reader wrote me to object to "Pork-barrel Pelosi's" inclusion of a skateboard park and a Frisbee park in the stimulus bill, though it wasn't clear whether his chief objection was to skateboarders, recreational facilities or the Democratic speaker of the House.
The risk is that these cavils will obscure the virtues of the stimulus and housing programs. They will get money into the economy, which is 90% of the point.
What was drowned out by Santelli's outburst, for example, is that the housing proposal is aimed not at deadbeats but people who are still working and trying to pay their bills but have been rendered overextended by conditions in the credit and housing markets.
Furthermore, a certain amount of inequity is built into any government assistance program, but it gets trumped by society's needs in times like these. "Life is unfair," Tom Davidoff, a real estate expert at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, observes apropos of the housing bill. "We're doing this so the economy won't crash." For the record, he believes that most of the housing proposal is "healthy," though more help may be needed.
The experience of the New Deal's first year suggests that almost from the moment the stimulus money begins to flow, positive consequences will appear, including a stemming of unemployment, a halt to the deflation trend, and possibly a better tone in the capital markets.
If Obama has revealed a shortcoming in his first month, it's his failure to seize and hold the high ground of optimism; Bill Clinton was not far wrong when he said last week that Obama should be communicating confidence about his stimulus program a lot more forcibly. That was one of FDR's surpassing talents, and no one doubts that it contributed to recovery.
Among other things, Obama should make clear that much of the grousing is partisan. Just look at the Republican governors of Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, South Carolina, Mississippi and Idaho, who have said they will not or might not accept stimulus money for their states, none of which is known to be in roaringly good shape at the moment, budget-wise.
According to White House figures, the stimulus package would create or save a combined 424,000 jobs in those six states, so that makes nearly half a million Americans who no doubt will take it as an honor to be sacrificed for their governors' stand on principle.
And what is the principle, exactly? Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's spokesman griped to the Associated Press that accepting money to enhance unemployment benefits might force his state "to pay benefits to people who wouldn't meet state requirements to receive them." Barbour presumably expects us to defer to his judgment because Mississippi is so nationally famous for its generosity to the downtrodden.
These six paragons of integrity remind me of one of Shakespeare's whiniest characters. That would be Isabella of “Measure for Measure," who upon hearing about all the privileges granted the sisters in a convent she's planning to join tells the abbess sourly that she'd prefer something rather more dismal, thanks. (I paraphrase.)
At least Isabella was no poseur. Can we say that of the austerity governors? Several are lining up to run for president in 2012. (Surprise du jour: Sarah Palin's in the club.) Furthermore, they all know that there's no chance their states will actually be deprived of stimulus cash: Congress, detecting the acrid stench of partisan posturing on the wind, wrote the act so that state legislatures could accept the money over their governors' objections.
The proper approach to these complaints is to tune them out, because they merely represent political opportunism run wild. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) more or less defined the form when he carried on on CNN about how the stimulus package was a "slush fund for states" and "worse than nothing" and designed to "help a bunch of politicians."
Then, asked if his state should accept the money, he said of course it should: "You don't want to be crazy here." Sphere: Related Content
By Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times
You just can't please some people.
In the wake of President Obama's signing of a historically ambitious economic recovery program last week, the nitpickers and pettifoggers have come out in force.
The program's too big, the program's too small. It's got too many local make-work projects, it's got too many long-term projects. There are too many tax cuts, there are too few tax cuts. Eight bucks more in your week's take-home pay won't save anyone, let's give millions to corporations instead. And so on.
The same thing happened when Obama announced a housing recovery plan Wednesday encompassing many of the provisions housing experts say are needed to spur more home buying and arrest the foreclosure wave. Among them are more low-interest loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, incentives for loan servicers to keep borrowers out of foreclosure, and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify underwater home loans.
The next day, Rick Santelli, a market commentator and ex-futures trader on the financial news channel CNBC, staged an extended rant from a Chicago commodities pit about the injustice of helping people in distress, especially while there are still a few people around who aren't in distress.
Santelli asked "if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road. And reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water."
When the futures floor erupted in cheers, he swept his hand about the room and proclaimed theatrically, "This is America!"
Well, no. America is a place where 8 million families are threatened with losing their homes, not a futures pit filled with braying traders.
CNBC should have known that the proper response to Santelli's tantrum was to instruct him to put a sock in it. Instead, it re-ran the video incessantly while its anchors congratulated him for making a big noise.
It may be inevitable that government programs of this magnitude bring out flocks of screeching magpies, for they're big enough to have something for any critic to hate. One reader wrote me to object to "Pork-barrel Pelosi's" inclusion of a skateboard park and a Frisbee park in the stimulus bill, though it wasn't clear whether his chief objection was to skateboarders, recreational facilities or the Democratic speaker of the House.
The risk is that these cavils will obscure the virtues of the stimulus and housing programs. They will get money into the economy, which is 90% of the point.
What was drowned out by Santelli's outburst, for example, is that the housing proposal is aimed not at deadbeats but people who are still working and trying to pay their bills but have been rendered overextended by conditions in the credit and housing markets.
Furthermore, a certain amount of inequity is built into any government assistance program, but it gets trumped by society's needs in times like these. "Life is unfair," Tom Davidoff, a real estate expert at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, observes apropos of the housing bill. "We're doing this so the economy won't crash." For the record, he believes that most of the housing proposal is "healthy," though more help may be needed.
The experience of the New Deal's first year suggests that almost from the moment the stimulus money begins to flow, positive consequences will appear, including a stemming of unemployment, a halt to the deflation trend, and possibly a better tone in the capital markets.
If Obama has revealed a shortcoming in his first month, it's his failure to seize and hold the high ground of optimism; Bill Clinton was not far wrong when he said last week that Obama should be communicating confidence about his stimulus program a lot more forcibly. That was one of FDR's surpassing talents, and no one doubts that it contributed to recovery.
Among other things, Obama should make clear that much of the grousing is partisan. Just look at the Republican governors of Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, South Carolina, Mississippi and Idaho, who have said they will not or might not accept stimulus money for their states, none of which is known to be in roaringly good shape at the moment, budget-wise.
According to White House figures, the stimulus package would create or save a combined 424,000 jobs in those six states, so that makes nearly half a million Americans who no doubt will take it as an honor to be sacrificed for their governors' stand on principle.
And what is the principle, exactly? Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's spokesman griped to the Associated Press that accepting money to enhance unemployment benefits might force his state "to pay benefits to people who wouldn't meet state requirements to receive them." Barbour presumably expects us to defer to his judgment because Mississippi is so nationally famous for its generosity to the downtrodden.
These six paragons of integrity remind me of one of Shakespeare's whiniest characters. That would be Isabella of “Measure for Measure," who upon hearing about all the privileges granted the sisters in a convent she's planning to join tells the abbess sourly that she'd prefer something rather more dismal, thanks. (I paraphrase.)
At least Isabella was no poseur. Can we say that of the austerity governors? Several are lining up to run for president in 2012. (Surprise du jour: Sarah Palin's in the club.) Furthermore, they all know that there's no chance their states will actually be deprived of stimulus cash: Congress, detecting the acrid stench of partisan posturing on the wind, wrote the act so that state legislatures could accept the money over their governors' objections.
The proper approach to these complaints is to tune them out, because they merely represent political opportunism run wild. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) more or less defined the form when he carried on on CNN about how the stimulus package was a "slush fund for states" and "worse than nothing" and designed to "help a bunch of politicians."
Then, asked if his state should accept the money, he said of course it should: "You don't want to be crazy here." Sphere: Related Content
Rasmussen: Consumer Confidence Falls To ALL TIME LOWS
The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures consumer confidence on a daily basis, fell two points on Monday to 55.5. That’s the lowest level of confidence ever recorded in the seven-year history of the Consumer Index, and the fourth time a new low has been set this month.
The Rasmussen Investor Index fell nearly four points on Monday to 56.9, also a record low. For the Investor Index, the previous low had been established in mid-December.
The drop for both has been fairly significant. The Consumer Index has fallen eight points over the past month and 39 points over the past year. The Investor Index has fallen nine points over the past month and 45 points over the past year.
One month ago today was the first Index update based entirely upon interviews completed while Barack Obama was President. Since that time, assessments of current economic conditions have changed little. However, expectations of future economic performance has fallen dramatically (among consumers, from 70.8 to 58.5).
Among all consumers, 8% say the economy is getting better while 70% say it is getting worse. One month ago, 11% said things were getting better and only 65% said worse.
Among investors, just 7% say things are getting better and 74% take the opposite view.
Investor confidence is low enough that 34% would put new investment money in a savings account. Just 30% would opt for a real estate investment and only 16% are eyeing the stock market.
The latest COUNTRY Financial Security Index (SM) reveals a steady six-month decline in Americans' financial security.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).
The Rasmussen Consumer Index and Investor Index are derived from nightly telephone surveys of 500 adults and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The baseline for the Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. Readings above 100.0 indicate that confidence is higher than in the baseline month. Detailed supplemental information is available for Premium Members. Historical data for the Consumer and Investor indexes as well as attitudes about the economy and personal finances are also available to Premium Members.
The Rasmussen Consumer Index reached its highest level ever at 127.0 on January 6, 2004. The all-time low was reached on February 23, 2009 at 55.5.
The Rasmussen Investor Index reached its highest level ever at 150.9 on January 7, 2004. The lowest level ever measured was 56.9 on February 23, 2009.
The baseline for the Rasmussen Consumer Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. At 55.5 the overall levels of economic confidence are significantly lower today than they were in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Sphere: Related Content
The Rasmussen Investor Index fell nearly four points on Monday to 56.9, also a record low. For the Investor Index, the previous low had been established in mid-December.
The drop for both has been fairly significant. The Consumer Index has fallen eight points over the past month and 39 points over the past year. The Investor Index has fallen nine points over the past month and 45 points over the past year.
One month ago today was the first Index update based entirely upon interviews completed while Barack Obama was President. Since that time, assessments of current economic conditions have changed little. However, expectations of future economic performance has fallen dramatically (among consumers, from 70.8 to 58.5).
Among all consumers, 8% say the economy is getting better while 70% say it is getting worse. One month ago, 11% said things were getting better and only 65% said worse.
Among investors, just 7% say things are getting better and 74% take the opposite view.
Investor confidence is low enough that 34% would put new investment money in a savings account. Just 30% would opt for a real estate investment and only 16% are eyeing the stock market.
The latest COUNTRY Financial Security Index (SM) reveals a steady six-month decline in Americans' financial security.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).
The Rasmussen Consumer Index and Investor Index are derived from nightly telephone surveys of 500 adults and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The baseline for the Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. Readings above 100.0 indicate that confidence is higher than in the baseline month. Detailed supplemental information is available for Premium Members. Historical data for the Consumer and Investor indexes as well as attitudes about the economy and personal finances are also available to Premium Members.
The Rasmussen Consumer Index reached its highest level ever at 127.0 on January 6, 2004. The all-time low was reached on February 23, 2009 at 55.5.
The Rasmussen Investor Index reached its highest level ever at 150.9 on January 7, 2004. The lowest level ever measured was 56.9 on February 23, 2009.
The baseline for the Rasmussen Consumer Index was established at 100.0 in October 2001. At 55.5 the overall levels of economic confidence are significantly lower today than they were in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Democrats Introduce More Legislation to Restrict 2nd Amendment Rights
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduce the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 on January 6th. This is legislation that MUST BE STOPPED!!! Below is the Bill Summary of H.R. 45 as found on http://thomas.loc.gov While there are no cosponsors to this legislation at present, there is no doubt that for those who value your 2nd Amendment rights would do well to keep an eye on this one lest we have another Democratic overreach!
H.R. 45
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
1/6/2009:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/9/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSOR(S):
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Judiciary Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Referral
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED BILL DETAILS:
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE*** Sphere: Related Content
H.R. 45
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
1/6/2009:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/9/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSOR(S):
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Judiciary Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Referral
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED BILL DETAILS:
***NONE***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE*** Sphere: Related Content
Official: Obama wants to halve budget deficit
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.
Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.
"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."
He's expected to outline some broad themes of his budget request Monday at a White House summit on fiscal policy and touch on it during his first speech to Congress on Tuesday evening. He is slated to officially send at least a summary of it to Congress on Thursday, barely a week after his $787 billion economic stimulus plan becoming law.
Obama's budget also is expected to take steps toward his campaign promises of establishing universal health care and lessening the country's reliance on foreign oil.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget, said Obama hopes to achieve his deficit-reduction goal by generating savings as he follows through on three core campaign promises over the next four years.
He has pledged to wind down the Iraq war by withdrawing most combat troops within 16 months of taking office. He also has said he would let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for people making more than $250,000 a year, effectively raising taxes on those people. And, he has vowed to scale back spending and improve government efficiency by eliminating programs that don't work.
The budget projections suggest that Obama hasn't backed off of any of those priorities, despite relatively little movement on them and at least one misstep in his first month in office as he concentrated on lobbying for the economic stimulus plan and rescuing the housing, auto and financial sectors.
Pentagon officials still are trying to determine exactly how to scale back the U.S. troop commitment in Iraq. The president's sweeping economic plan didn't include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on wealthy taxpayers. And, Nancy Killefer, his selection for a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs, withdrew amid personal tax issues.
Cutting the deficit by half in a mere four years is a lofty goal at any time, let alone in such dire economic circumstances. The question is whether Obama can do it while also turning around a recession now well into its second year.
Obama has pledged to make deficit-reduction a priority both as a candidate and a president. But he also has said economic recovery must come first.
In his first month in office, he has overseen enormous amounts of spending aimed at stabilizing the economy, reversing the recession and heading off even more turmoil.
Last week, he signed into law the $787 billion stimulus measure that is meant to create jobs but certainly will add to the nation's skyrocketing national debt. He also is implementing the $700 billion financial sector rescue passed on Bush's watch; about $75 billion of it is being used toward Obama's plan to help homeowners facing foreclosure. At the same time, the administration is weighing requests by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC for an additional $21.6 billion. The ailing automakers already have received a combined $17.4 billion in federal loans.
Yet, even as he's spending a ton of taxpayer money, Obama also is pressing the need for getting "exploding deficits" under control.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this year's budget deficit will be at least a record $1.2 trillion — about two times that of the year before. That total includes financial bailouts and rescue plans Congress approved since last Oct. 1, the start of the government's budget year, but not Obama's hefty stimulus package that's now law.
Some private economists are forecasting that the budget deficit for the current year will hit $1.6 trillion. And, the Treasury Department has said that the recession and massive costs for the $700 billion financial bailout have pushed the federal deficit to an all-time high for the first four months of the budget year.
Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, told lawmakers recently that even after the economy recovers, annual deficits could reach $750 billion or so and steadily exceed $1 trillion by the end of the next decade. And, Obama himself has said, without decisive action, "trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come." Sphere: Related Content
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.
Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.
"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."
He's expected to outline some broad themes of his budget request Monday at a White House summit on fiscal policy and touch on it during his first speech to Congress on Tuesday evening. He is slated to officially send at least a summary of it to Congress on Thursday, barely a week after his $787 billion economic stimulus plan becoming law.
Obama's budget also is expected to take steps toward his campaign promises of establishing universal health care and lessening the country's reliance on foreign oil.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget, said Obama hopes to achieve his deficit-reduction goal by generating savings as he follows through on three core campaign promises over the next four years.
He has pledged to wind down the Iraq war by withdrawing most combat troops within 16 months of taking office. He also has said he would let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 for people making more than $250,000 a year, effectively raising taxes on those people. And, he has vowed to scale back spending and improve government efficiency by eliminating programs that don't work.
The budget projections suggest that Obama hasn't backed off of any of those priorities, despite relatively little movement on them and at least one misstep in his first month in office as he concentrated on lobbying for the economic stimulus plan and rescuing the housing, auto and financial sectors.
Pentagon officials still are trying to determine exactly how to scale back the U.S. troop commitment in Iraq. The president's sweeping economic plan didn't include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on wealthy taxpayers. And, Nancy Killefer, his selection for a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs, withdrew amid personal tax issues.
Cutting the deficit by half in a mere four years is a lofty goal at any time, let alone in such dire economic circumstances. The question is whether Obama can do it while also turning around a recession now well into its second year.
Obama has pledged to make deficit-reduction a priority both as a candidate and a president. But he also has said economic recovery must come first.
In his first month in office, he has overseen enormous amounts of spending aimed at stabilizing the economy, reversing the recession and heading off even more turmoil.
Last week, he signed into law the $787 billion stimulus measure that is meant to create jobs but certainly will add to the nation's skyrocketing national debt. He also is implementing the $700 billion financial sector rescue passed on Bush's watch; about $75 billion of it is being used toward Obama's plan to help homeowners facing foreclosure. At the same time, the administration is weighing requests by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC for an additional $21.6 billion. The ailing automakers already have received a combined $17.4 billion in federal loans.
Yet, even as he's spending a ton of taxpayer money, Obama also is pressing the need for getting "exploding deficits" under control.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that this year's budget deficit will be at least a record $1.2 trillion — about two times that of the year before. That total includes financial bailouts and rescue plans Congress approved since last Oct. 1, the start of the government's budget year, but not Obama's hefty stimulus package that's now law.
Some private economists are forecasting that the budget deficit for the current year will hit $1.6 trillion. And, the Treasury Department has said that the recession and massive costs for the $700 billion financial bailout have pushed the federal deficit to an all-time high for the first four months of the budget year.
Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, told lawmakers recently that even after the economy recovers, annual deficits could reach $750 billion or so and steadily exceed $1 trillion by the end of the next decade. And, Obama himself has said, without decisive action, "trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come." Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Boss Makes Layoff Decision
This is one of those anonymous email jokes that are now circulating around the internet. Thought I would post here for your thoughts and edification.
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned
myself to the fact that Barack Obama is our President, and
that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have
to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot
increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we
will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been
eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't
know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found
Obama bumper stickers on six of our employees' cars and have decided these
folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way
to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Sincerely,
The Boss Sphere: Related Content
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned
myself to the fact that Barack Obama is our President, and
that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have
to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot
increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we
will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been
eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't
know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found
Obama bumper stickers on six of our employees' cars and have decided these
folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way
to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Sincerely,
The Boss Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama’s Bipartisanship Is One Sappy Dream
Commentary by Margaret Carlson
Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- In his long and sometimes snarky campaign, John McCain took to ridiculing Barack Obama and his supporters for imputing messianic qualities to the upstart candidate, mockingly referring to the Democrat as “The One.”
New evidence suggests McCain was on to something. In less than a month, Obama has breathed life back into a Republican Party the whole world took for dead.
Skeptics will argue that the GOP wasn’t really deceased, only knocked unconscious by a devastating blow otherwise known as the November election. Yet even Republicans were heard to mutter about whether their party could be revived. Who knew they’d soon be given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by the miracle worker himself?
With Obama’s pilgrimages to Capitol Hill, multiple cocktail parties at the White House, dinner at conservative columnist George Will’s house, and a bipartisan Super Bowl party, not to mention inserting tax cuts in the stimulus package, the president put courting Republicans on equal footing with economic revival. Getting the party on board came to be up there with putting Americans back to work.
Republicans responded with a characteristic display of good will, quickly making it clear they’d be satisfied with nothing less than complete capitulation to their demand for ever more tax cuts for the wealthy even if the wealthy are likely to stash the cash in one of the banks hoarding their government-bailout money.
Cut food stamps? Check. Cut school construction? Check. Add more ineffective tax cuts? You got it.
Deficits Do Matter
Suddenly, spending mattered after eight years in which it was out of control, with Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter.” President Bill Clinton left George W. Bush a surplus of more than $230 billion. Bush left Obama a deficit that’s likely to exceed $1 trillion.
Republicans couldn’t deny the president a victory but they could deny him a bipartisan one. Party strategist and CNN analyst Alex Castellanos said only “wussy Republicans” would cooperate, a remark reminiscent of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s calling Democrats who urged caution on the now near-bankrupt California economy “girlie men.”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina shouted on the floor, “This bill stinks!” The de facto leader of the party, Rush Limbaugh, said he had only four words for the new administration. “I hope Obama fails.”
If chasing bipartisanship with Republicans wasn’t enough, Obama also sought it with the other branch of government, known as congressional Democrats.
Pelosi Takes Charge
Rather than dictate legislation from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Obama gave over the drafting of the stimulus bill to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If ever there was an instance to trust but verify, this was it.
Did anybody flyspeck Pelosi’s first draft, the one that provided Republicans such irresistible targets as condoms. The so-called pork was trivial, but it hurt a $246 million grant to the movie industry, which provides substantial employment in Southern California, because nothing associated with Hollywood had a chance after Pelosi squandered her credibility on a $188,000 lobster-cam for the bottom of the ocean.
Obama didn’t fail, except by his own rules: He mustered only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House as the stimulus passed. The press, having applied Obama’s own standards, gave him lower marks than his triumph deserved. On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, was profiled as the conquering hero atop the Party of Zero.
Drawing on Lincoln
Obama draws much of his fervor for bipartisanship from Abraham Lincoln. But Bill Curry, former counsel in the Clinton White House, pointed out in a recent interview on public radio, that Lincoln chose his top three Cabinet secretaries from among former opponents in his own party, not the leaders of the Confederacy or supporters of slavery.
A correct reading of the book “A Team of Rivals” yields Hillary Clinton at the State Department. Misreading it gets you the fiasco of Judd Gregg pulling out as Commerce secretary.
When the bill finally passed, the White House was so annoyed with inside-the-Beltway thinking that it went outside the Beltway to Denver for its signing ceremony.
Only the most starry-eyed idealist would mistake Congress for a Quaker meeting for very long. In an interview on Air Force One, Obama began a course correction. While still taking the “long view” and being “optimistic” about everyone getting along, Obama added,’’ “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”
Thumbing Their Noses
Hardly. But he’s chasing a sappy dream. Yes, we want policy-making to be civil. When possible, we want it to be consensual. Yet bipartisanship as an overriding goal allows the policies chosen by voters to be thwarted by mere obstructionists. So now, gerrymandered House Republicans with nothing to worry about but a primary from the right can thumb their nose not only at a president but at the voters who rejected them.
Obama wants the economy to revive and the Republicans to be agreeable. Perhaps he should shoot for one miracle at a time.
(Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net Sphere: Related Content
Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- In his long and sometimes snarky campaign, John McCain took to ridiculing Barack Obama and his supporters for imputing messianic qualities to the upstart candidate, mockingly referring to the Democrat as “The One.”
New evidence suggests McCain was on to something. In less than a month, Obama has breathed life back into a Republican Party the whole world took for dead.
Skeptics will argue that the GOP wasn’t really deceased, only knocked unconscious by a devastating blow otherwise known as the November election. Yet even Republicans were heard to mutter about whether their party could be revived. Who knew they’d soon be given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by the miracle worker himself?
With Obama’s pilgrimages to Capitol Hill, multiple cocktail parties at the White House, dinner at conservative columnist George Will’s house, and a bipartisan Super Bowl party, not to mention inserting tax cuts in the stimulus package, the president put courting Republicans on equal footing with economic revival. Getting the party on board came to be up there with putting Americans back to work.
Republicans responded with a characteristic display of good will, quickly making it clear they’d be satisfied with nothing less than complete capitulation to their demand for ever more tax cuts for the wealthy even if the wealthy are likely to stash the cash in one of the banks hoarding their government-bailout money.
Cut food stamps? Check. Cut school construction? Check. Add more ineffective tax cuts? You got it.
Deficits Do Matter
Suddenly, spending mattered after eight years in which it was out of control, with Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter.” President Bill Clinton left George W. Bush a surplus of more than $230 billion. Bush left Obama a deficit that’s likely to exceed $1 trillion.
Republicans couldn’t deny the president a victory but they could deny him a bipartisan one. Party strategist and CNN analyst Alex Castellanos said only “wussy Republicans” would cooperate, a remark reminiscent of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s calling Democrats who urged caution on the now near-bankrupt California economy “girlie men.”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina shouted on the floor, “This bill stinks!” The de facto leader of the party, Rush Limbaugh, said he had only four words for the new administration. “I hope Obama fails.”
If chasing bipartisanship with Republicans wasn’t enough, Obama also sought it with the other branch of government, known as congressional Democrats.
Pelosi Takes Charge
Rather than dictate legislation from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Obama gave over the drafting of the stimulus bill to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If ever there was an instance to trust but verify, this was it.
Did anybody flyspeck Pelosi’s first draft, the one that provided Republicans such irresistible targets as condoms. The so-called pork was trivial, but it hurt a $246 million grant to the movie industry, which provides substantial employment in Southern California, because nothing associated with Hollywood had a chance after Pelosi squandered her credibility on a $188,000 lobster-cam for the bottom of the ocean.
Obama didn’t fail, except by his own rules: He mustered only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House as the stimulus passed. The press, having applied Obama’s own standards, gave him lower marks than his triumph deserved. On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, was profiled as the conquering hero atop the Party of Zero.
Drawing on Lincoln
Obama draws much of his fervor for bipartisanship from Abraham Lincoln. But Bill Curry, former counsel in the Clinton White House, pointed out in a recent interview on public radio, that Lincoln chose his top three Cabinet secretaries from among former opponents in his own party, not the leaders of the Confederacy or supporters of slavery.
A correct reading of the book “A Team of Rivals” yields Hillary Clinton at the State Department. Misreading it gets you the fiasco of Judd Gregg pulling out as Commerce secretary.
When the bill finally passed, the White House was so annoyed with inside-the-Beltway thinking that it went outside the Beltway to Denver for its signing ceremony.
Only the most starry-eyed idealist would mistake Congress for a Quaker meeting for very long. In an interview on Air Force One, Obama began a course correction. While still taking the “long view” and being “optimistic” about everyone getting along, Obama added,’’ “That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”
Thumbing Their Noses
Hardly. But he’s chasing a sappy dream. Yes, we want policy-making to be civil. When possible, we want it to be consensual. Yet bipartisanship as an overriding goal allows the policies chosen by voters to be thwarted by mere obstructionists. So now, gerrymandered House Republicans with nothing to worry about but a primary from the right can thumb their nose not only at a president but at the voters who rejected them.
Obama wants the economy to revive and the Republicans to be agreeable. Perhaps he should shoot for one miracle at a time.
(Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Automakers Dismiss Bankruptcy; U.S. Won’t Rule It Out
By Keith Naughton and Alan Ohnsman
Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, seeking up to $21.6 billion in additional federal aid to survive, said bankruptcy may cost the U.S. five times as much.
The two automakers, in their most detailed exploration of bankruptcy, said it could cost taxpayers as much as $110 billion to finance the companies’ Chapter 11 restructurings. In separate filings to the Treasury Department yesterday, they said filing may lead to liquidation, potentially costing millions of jobs.
Bankruptcy “would create unbearable stress not only for our suppliers, but also the suppliers of other automakers,” Chrysler Chief Executive Officer Bob Nardelli said in a conference call with reporters. “It would have a cataclysmic effect on the entire auto industry.”
President Barack Obama’s chief spokesman refused to rule out the possibility of the automakers restructuring through bankruptcy.
“I wouldn’t preclude policy choices, particularly since we haven’t seen details,” Robert Gibbs told reporters before the plans had been submitted. The auto companies “represent a huge part of our manufacturing base, and to have a strong and viable auto industry is tremendously important for the future.”
GM outlined three scenarios for bankruptcy in a progress report required under federal loans. If automakers fail to show by March 31 how they will become profitable, the Treasury Department can recall the money or require it be used as bankruptcy financing.
Risk ‘Remains High’
Standard & Poor’s said in reports on GM and Chrysler today that the “bankruptcy risk remains high” for both companies this year and next.
“The threat is still there,” GM CEO Rick Wagoner said of the bankruptcy possibility in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “Our assumption is that we can get this done out of court and it’s better for everybody.”
U.S. taxpayers currently take a backseat to prior creditors, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to loan agreements posted on the U.S. Treasury’s Web site. The government has hired a law firm to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment, two people involved in the work said earlier this month. If federal officials fail to get a consensual agreement to change their position regarding repayment, they have the option to force the companies into bankruptcy as a condition of more bailout aid.
Billions at Stake
GM estimated the government would have to contribute $36 billion to $86 billion to finance its bankruptcy, compared with the $22.5 billion to $30 billion in federal aid it’s seeking to restructure outside of Chapter 11.
Chrysler said it would need $25 billion in bankruptcy financing, more than twice what it’s seeking from the government in low-cost loans.
Bankruptcy specialists said the automakers’ analysis was too pessimistic and failed to recognize the benefits of bankruptcy to force creditors, dealers and unions to accept concessions.
Taxpayers also would get priority to be paid back first in a government-sponsored Chapter 11, said Nancy Rapoport, bankruptcy law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
“I don’t see how it’s better for the taxpayer for the auto companies to do this out of bankruptcy,” Rapoport said. “Right now, you can’t trace what they’re doing with these funds. There’s no guarantee they’ll be paid back and I don’t see the taxpayer getting a priority.”
Feeling Stigma
The stigma of bankruptcy risk is already being felt at GM and Chrysler, said Douglas Bernstein, a bankruptcy lawyer with the Detroit-based firm of Plunkett Cooney PC.
“Neither of these companies is in bankruptcy today, but who is buying their vehicles?” Bernstein said. “If they filed for bankruptcy, they could try to build a sense of patriotism about helping American auto companies recover.”
Chrysler said Chapter 11 may ultimately lead to an “orderly wind down” of the company that leads to as many as 3 million lost jobs across the economy.
“It’s a non-starter,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters yesterday, referring to a bankruptcy by either automaker. “The car company is not like the airline industry.”
GM cited a CNW Marketing Research survey in its filing yesterday showing 80 percent of potential car buyers would avoid a bankrupt automaker.
‘Blood in Pool’
“There will be blood in the pool: Everyone is going to want a severe discount to purchase vehicles from a bankrupt company,” said Dan Genter, president of Los Angeles-based RNC Genter Capital Management, which oversees a $2.7 billion bond portfolio, that doesn’t currently include GM or GMAC debt. “The bigger picture is what happens to all the dealers and suppliers?”
If the government doesn’t also bail out suppliers, which are requesting as much as $18.5 billion, bankruptcy for the automakers could be inevitable, Bernstein said.
“Bankruptcy is not a drop-dead failure,” Bernstein said. “A lot of what they’re doing now is no different than what they would do in bankruptcy.”
Given the size and complexity of the company’s operations, a bankruptcy proceeding won’t be quick or cheap, GM said in its report to the Treasury Department. The carmaker’s three bankruptcy scenarios include a “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 filing; a pre-negotiated “cram-down” plan and a conventional bankruptcy.
Under the first case, bondholders would have to vote in favor of any reorganization plan, and would require an advance agreement on how to handle Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association liabilities.
The cost, including expenses related to Delphi Corp., may total $45 billion, including $36 billion of U.S. government financing, GM said.
‘Cram-Down’ Approach
The “cram-down” approach would include the company converting bonds and VEBA obligations to equity, and cost as much as $70 billion and take six months to complete, GM said.
A traditional Chapter 11 filing may take GM two years to emerge from bankruptcy protection and cost as much as $103 billion, the company said. Total U.S. government financing costs for such a move may be as much as $86 billion, GM estimated.
In its report, Chrysler estimated that the U.S. would lose 40,000 direct jobs at the company and 3,300 auto dealerships with 140,000 employees and that $7 billion in supplier invoices wouldn’t be paid. Some 31 million Chrysler vehicle owners may also lose warranties and service, the company said.
“The consumer is smart enough to know that a company in bankruptcy probably isn’t going to be able to keep providing all the training classes for different maintenance techniques,” said Genter. “They’ll wonder who will be able to do vehicle servicing.”
To contact the reporters on this story:
Keith Naughton in Southfield, Michigan at Knaughton3@bloomberg.net;
Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Sphere: Related Content
Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, seeking up to $21.6 billion in additional federal aid to survive, said bankruptcy may cost the U.S. five times as much.
The two automakers, in their most detailed exploration of bankruptcy, said it could cost taxpayers as much as $110 billion to finance the companies’ Chapter 11 restructurings. In separate filings to the Treasury Department yesterday, they said filing may lead to liquidation, potentially costing millions of jobs.
Bankruptcy “would create unbearable stress not only for our suppliers, but also the suppliers of other automakers,” Chrysler Chief Executive Officer Bob Nardelli said in a conference call with reporters. “It would have a cataclysmic effect on the entire auto industry.”
President Barack Obama’s chief spokesman refused to rule out the possibility of the automakers restructuring through bankruptcy.
“I wouldn’t preclude policy choices, particularly since we haven’t seen details,” Robert Gibbs told reporters before the plans had been submitted. The auto companies “represent a huge part of our manufacturing base, and to have a strong and viable auto industry is tremendously important for the future.”
GM outlined three scenarios for bankruptcy in a progress report required under federal loans. If automakers fail to show by March 31 how they will become profitable, the Treasury Department can recall the money or require it be used as bankruptcy financing.
Risk ‘Remains High’
Standard & Poor’s said in reports on GM and Chrysler today that the “bankruptcy risk remains high” for both companies this year and next.
“The threat is still there,” GM CEO Rick Wagoner said of the bankruptcy possibility in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “Our assumption is that we can get this done out of court and it’s better for everybody.”
U.S. taxpayers currently take a backseat to prior creditors, including Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to loan agreements posted on the U.S. Treasury’s Web site. The government has hired a law firm to help establish its place at the front of the line for repayment, two people involved in the work said earlier this month. If federal officials fail to get a consensual agreement to change their position regarding repayment, they have the option to force the companies into bankruptcy as a condition of more bailout aid.
Billions at Stake
GM estimated the government would have to contribute $36 billion to $86 billion to finance its bankruptcy, compared with the $22.5 billion to $30 billion in federal aid it’s seeking to restructure outside of Chapter 11.
Chrysler said it would need $25 billion in bankruptcy financing, more than twice what it’s seeking from the government in low-cost loans.
Bankruptcy specialists said the automakers’ analysis was too pessimistic and failed to recognize the benefits of bankruptcy to force creditors, dealers and unions to accept concessions.
Taxpayers also would get priority to be paid back first in a government-sponsored Chapter 11, said Nancy Rapoport, bankruptcy law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
“I don’t see how it’s better for the taxpayer for the auto companies to do this out of bankruptcy,” Rapoport said. “Right now, you can’t trace what they’re doing with these funds. There’s no guarantee they’ll be paid back and I don’t see the taxpayer getting a priority.”
Feeling Stigma
The stigma of bankruptcy risk is already being felt at GM and Chrysler, said Douglas Bernstein, a bankruptcy lawyer with the Detroit-based firm of Plunkett Cooney PC.
“Neither of these companies is in bankruptcy today, but who is buying their vehicles?” Bernstein said. “If they filed for bankruptcy, they could try to build a sense of patriotism about helping American auto companies recover.”
Chrysler said Chapter 11 may ultimately lead to an “orderly wind down” of the company that leads to as many as 3 million lost jobs across the economy.
“It’s a non-starter,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, told reporters yesterday, referring to a bankruptcy by either automaker. “The car company is not like the airline industry.”
GM cited a CNW Marketing Research survey in its filing yesterday showing 80 percent of potential car buyers would avoid a bankrupt automaker.
‘Blood in Pool’
“There will be blood in the pool: Everyone is going to want a severe discount to purchase vehicles from a bankrupt company,” said Dan Genter, president of Los Angeles-based RNC Genter Capital Management, which oversees a $2.7 billion bond portfolio, that doesn’t currently include GM or GMAC debt. “The bigger picture is what happens to all the dealers and suppliers?”
If the government doesn’t also bail out suppliers, which are requesting as much as $18.5 billion, bankruptcy for the automakers could be inevitable, Bernstein said.
“Bankruptcy is not a drop-dead failure,” Bernstein said. “A lot of what they’re doing now is no different than what they would do in bankruptcy.”
Given the size and complexity of the company’s operations, a bankruptcy proceeding won’t be quick or cheap, GM said in its report to the Treasury Department. The carmaker’s three bankruptcy scenarios include a “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 filing; a pre-negotiated “cram-down” plan and a conventional bankruptcy.
Under the first case, bondholders would have to vote in favor of any reorganization plan, and would require an advance agreement on how to handle Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association liabilities.
The cost, including expenses related to Delphi Corp., may total $45 billion, including $36 billion of U.S. government financing, GM said.
‘Cram-Down’ Approach
The “cram-down” approach would include the company converting bonds and VEBA obligations to equity, and cost as much as $70 billion and take six months to complete, GM said.
A traditional Chapter 11 filing may take GM two years to emerge from bankruptcy protection and cost as much as $103 billion, the company said. Total U.S. government financing costs for such a move may be as much as $86 billion, GM estimated.
In its report, Chrysler estimated that the U.S. would lose 40,000 direct jobs at the company and 3,300 auto dealerships with 140,000 employees and that $7 billion in supplier invoices wouldn’t be paid. Some 31 million Chrysler vehicle owners may also lose warranties and service, the company said.
“The consumer is smart enough to know that a company in bankruptcy probably isn’t going to be able to keep providing all the training classes for different maintenance techniques,” said Genter. “They’ll wonder who will be able to do vehicle servicing.”
To contact the reporters on this story:
Keith Naughton in Southfield, Michigan at Knaughton3@bloomberg.net;
Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Sphere: Related Content
Obama's Broken Promises
He hasn't even been President for a month, and here is a list of President Obama's broken promises. I'm sure this will grow in the ensuing 47 months of his Administration.
1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. We will put every pork barrel project online Sphere: Related Content
1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. We will put every pork barrel project online Sphere: Related Content
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama drops 'Car Czar' idea
By Bill Vlasic
New York Times
DETROIT — President Obama has dropped the idea of appointing a single, powerful “car czar” to oversee the revamping of General Motors and Chrysler and will instead keep the politically delicate task in the hands of his most senior economic advisers, a top administration official said Sunday night.
Mr. Obama is designating the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, to oversee a presidential panel on the auto industry. Mr. Geithner will also supervise the $17.4 billion in loan agreements already in place with G.M. and Chrysler, said the official, who insisted on anonymity.
The official also said that Ron Bloom, a restructuring expert who has advised the labor unions in the troubled steel and airline industries, would be named a senior adviser to Treasury on the auto crisis.
The unexpected shift comes as G.M. and Chrysler race to complete broad restructuring plans they must file with the Treasury by Tuesday. The companies’ plans are required to show progress in cutting long-term costs as a condition for keeping their loans.
The administration official said the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler, both of which came close to bankruptcy before receiving federal aid two months ago.
One of President Obama’s top advisers said Sunday that the administration had not ruled out a government-backed bankruptcy as a means to overhaul the automakers.
“We’re going to need a restructuring of these companies,” the adviser, David Axelrod, said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. He added that a turnaround of the companies would “require sacrifice not just from the auto workers but also from creditors, from shareholders and the executives who run the company.”
The automakers had been expecting the appointment of a car czar to break the logjam of negotiations with the United Auto Workers over the finances of a retiree health care trust, and with bondholders about reducing the companies’ debt.
Mr. Bloom is known for bringing his Wall Street experience as an investment banker to an advisory role as the “in-house” banker for the steel workers’ union. With the auto union locking horns with bondholders in the G.M. revamping deliberations, Mr. Bloom appears to bring credibility with both the union and the debtors. Mr. Bloom could not be reached for comment Sunday night.
Another senior administration official said that Mr. Obama had considered appointing a car czar, and among those considered for the job was the private equity executive Steven Rattner. It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force.
The panel, called the Presidential Task Force on Autos, will draw officials from several agencies including the departments of Treasury, labor, transportation, commerce and energy, according to the administration official.
Many members of the task force have already been working closely with G.M. and Chrysler on the viability plans they are preparing for the government.
G.M. and Chrysler are both expected to request more loans to stay solvent during what is shaping up as another miserable year for auto sales.
Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli, has said his company needs another $3 billion in addition to the $4 billion loan it received in January.
G.M. originally asked for $18 billion in aid in December. G.M. has borrowed $9.4 billion so far and is scheduled to receive another $4 billion, if the Treasury is satisfied with its revamping plan.
G.M. said in a statement that it welcomed the new task force and that it looked forward to sharing its plan “to restore our company to viability and to meet the requirements of its loan agreements.”
Representatives of Chrysler could not be reached for comment on Sunday night.
The administration official who disclosed the change in Mr. Obama’s plans for oversight of the auto industry said the group would review the companies’ submissions for a week or two before responding publicly. Until then, the auto makers are expected to continue talks with the union and other stakeholders.
On Sunday afternoon, G.M. and the U.A.W. resumed discussions in Detroit about reducing the company’s labor costs, a person with direct knowledge of the talks said. This person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, characterized the talks Sunday evening as “intense” but did not indicate that an agreement was imminent.
The U.A.W. had walked away from the bargaining table late Friday as the two sides clashed over how to cover retiree health care costs.
U.A.W. leaders in December agreed to help the automakers by delaying when the companies are required to make multibillion-dollar payments into a new trust fund designed to pay for retiree health coverage.
The Ford Motor Company is not taking federal aid, and therefore does not need to submit plans for approval. But Ford, which lost $14.6 billion in 2008, the most in its history, is expected to ask the U.A.W. for whatever concessions are granted to G.M. and Chrysler.
Both G.M. and Chrysler are likely to outline deep cuts in jobs, plants and models in their restructuring plans. One G.M. executive said the automaker is proposing a much smaller company with fewer brands and far fewer people.
G.M. and Chrysler recently extended buyout and early retirement offers to nearly all of their 90,600 hourly workers as they try to eliminate factory jobs and replace older workers making about $28 an hour with new hires who can be paid half as much.
G.M. announced plans last week to cut 10,000 white-collar jobs worldwide, including 3,400 in the United States. It said that salaries for those who remain on staff would be cut by as much as 10 percent through at least the end of 2009.
Over all, automakers are expected to sell between 10 million and 11 million vehicles in the United States this year, far below the 16.2 million they sold in 2007. G.M. said last week that the two-year drop is roughly equal to the capacity of 24 assembly plants.
Jackie Calmes contributed reporting from Washington, and Nick Bunkley from Detroit. Sphere: Related Content
New York Times
DETROIT — President Obama has dropped the idea of appointing a single, powerful “car czar” to oversee the revamping of General Motors and Chrysler and will instead keep the politically delicate task in the hands of his most senior economic advisers, a top administration official said Sunday night.
Mr. Obama is designating the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and the chairman of the National Economic Council, Lawrence H. Summers, to oversee a presidential panel on the auto industry. Mr. Geithner will also supervise the $17.4 billion in loan agreements already in place with G.M. and Chrysler, said the official, who insisted on anonymity.
The official also said that Ron Bloom, a restructuring expert who has advised the labor unions in the troubled steel and airline industries, would be named a senior adviser to Treasury on the auto crisis.
The unexpected shift comes as G.M. and Chrysler race to complete broad restructuring plans they must file with the Treasury by Tuesday. The companies’ plans are required to show progress in cutting long-term costs as a condition for keeping their loans.
The administration official said the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler, both of which came close to bankruptcy before receiving federal aid two months ago.
One of President Obama’s top advisers said Sunday that the administration had not ruled out a government-backed bankruptcy as a means to overhaul the automakers.
“We’re going to need a restructuring of these companies,” the adviser, David Axelrod, said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. He added that a turnaround of the companies would “require sacrifice not just from the auto workers but also from creditors, from shareholders and the executives who run the company.”
The automakers had been expecting the appointment of a car czar to break the logjam of negotiations with the United Auto Workers over the finances of a retiree health care trust, and with bondholders about reducing the companies’ debt.
Mr. Bloom is known for bringing his Wall Street experience as an investment banker to an advisory role as the “in-house” banker for the steel workers’ union. With the auto union locking horns with bondholders in the G.M. revamping deliberations, Mr. Bloom appears to bring credibility with both the union and the debtors. Mr. Bloom could not be reached for comment Sunday night.
Another senior administration official said that Mr. Obama had considered appointing a car czar, and among those considered for the job was the private equity executive Steven Rattner. It was not clear why the administration changed course or whether Mr. Rattner would have a role on the task force.
The panel, called the Presidential Task Force on Autos, will draw officials from several agencies including the departments of Treasury, labor, transportation, commerce and energy, according to the administration official.
Many members of the task force have already been working closely with G.M. and Chrysler on the viability plans they are preparing for the government.
G.M. and Chrysler are both expected to request more loans to stay solvent during what is shaping up as another miserable year for auto sales.
Chrysler’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli, has said his company needs another $3 billion in addition to the $4 billion loan it received in January.
G.M. originally asked for $18 billion in aid in December. G.M. has borrowed $9.4 billion so far and is scheduled to receive another $4 billion, if the Treasury is satisfied with its revamping plan.
G.M. said in a statement that it welcomed the new task force and that it looked forward to sharing its plan “to restore our company to viability and to meet the requirements of its loan agreements.”
Representatives of Chrysler could not be reached for comment on Sunday night.
The administration official who disclosed the change in Mr. Obama’s plans for oversight of the auto industry said the group would review the companies’ submissions for a week or two before responding publicly. Until then, the auto makers are expected to continue talks with the union and other stakeholders.
On Sunday afternoon, G.M. and the U.A.W. resumed discussions in Detroit about reducing the company’s labor costs, a person with direct knowledge of the talks said. This person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, characterized the talks Sunday evening as “intense” but did not indicate that an agreement was imminent.
The U.A.W. had walked away from the bargaining table late Friday as the two sides clashed over how to cover retiree health care costs.
U.A.W. leaders in December agreed to help the automakers by delaying when the companies are required to make multibillion-dollar payments into a new trust fund designed to pay for retiree health coverage.
The Ford Motor Company is not taking federal aid, and therefore does not need to submit plans for approval. But Ford, which lost $14.6 billion in 2008, the most in its history, is expected to ask the U.A.W. for whatever concessions are granted to G.M. and Chrysler.
Both G.M. and Chrysler are likely to outline deep cuts in jobs, plants and models in their restructuring plans. One G.M. executive said the automaker is proposing a much smaller company with fewer brands and far fewer people.
G.M. and Chrysler recently extended buyout and early retirement offers to nearly all of their 90,600 hourly workers as they try to eliminate factory jobs and replace older workers making about $28 an hour with new hires who can be paid half as much.
G.M. announced plans last week to cut 10,000 white-collar jobs worldwide, including 3,400 in the United States. It said that salaries for those who remain on staff would be cut by as much as 10 percent through at least the end of 2009.
Over all, automakers are expected to sell between 10 million and 11 million vehicles in the United States this year, far below the 16.2 million they sold in 2007. G.M. said last week that the two-year drop is roughly equal to the capacity of 24 assembly plants.
Jackie Calmes contributed reporting from Washington, and Nick Bunkley from Detroit. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Obama Will Sign Stimulus Bill on Tuesday
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
President Obama will sign the $787 billion economic stimulus plan in Denver on Tuesday, the White House said today, as he continues his efforts to communicate directly to the American public about the economic crisis.
Obama had already announced a trip to Colorado and Arizona on Tuesday and Wednesday. He plans to announce his latest plans for reducing the number of housing foreclosures on Wednesday in Phoenix.
Obama's decision to sign the stimulus bill in Denver is a striking departure from his first few weeks in office, when he held several signing ceremonies in the East Room of the White House.
In the last week, however, Obama has spent less and less time in his new home. Last week he traveled to Indiana, Florida and Illinois and headed home to Chicago for a four-day weekend. He also announced his first foreign trip as president, a day trip to Canada next Thursday. Sphere: Related Content
Washington Post
President Obama will sign the $787 billion economic stimulus plan in Denver on Tuesday, the White House said today, as he continues his efforts to communicate directly to the American public about the economic crisis.
Obama had already announced a trip to Colorado and Arizona on Tuesday and Wednesday. He plans to announce his latest plans for reducing the number of housing foreclosures on Wednesday in Phoenix.
Obama's decision to sign the stimulus bill in Denver is a striking departure from his first few weeks in office, when he held several signing ceremonies in the East Room of the White House.
In the last week, however, Obama has spent less and less time in his new home. Last week he traveled to Indiana, Florida and Illinois and headed home to Chicago for a four-day weekend. He also announced his first foreign trip as president, a day trip to Canada next Thursday. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Who voted for and against the Stimulus Bill?
According to Thomas, the Library of Congress' Congressional website, H.R. 1 (The Stimulous Bill) as amended through conference, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 13, 2009 with 246 yeas, 183 nays, 1 voted present and 3 not voting.
NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for this legislation.
Seven courageous Democrats stood up and voted with their Republican colleagues in a true bi-partisan fashion - they are: Bobby Bright (AL-2), Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Heath Shuler (NC-11) and Gene Taylor (MS-4). Please send them a letter or email, or call their offices to voice your thanks and appreciation for their courageous stand. They will be under tremendous pressure by Nancy Pelosi and your voice of support will only help them make the right decision in the future.
Lipinski (D) voted Present.
Clyburn (D), Campbell (R) and Lee (R-NY) didn't vote.
On the Senate side, the bill passed by a vote of 60 yeas, 38 nays with 1 not voting.
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote and Minnesota currently only has one Senator until the Coleman/Franken lawsuit is settled.
Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine were Republicans who voted in favor (taking a major piece of pork called the medical records warehouse into their state for an inducement); Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) also voted in favor of this after receiving an earmark for a new cancer center for his state. Other than Kennedy not voting, all other Democrats and Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) voted in favor. President Obama is due to sign the bill soon in a ceremony in Denver. Here is the Feb. 13, 2009 Senate Roll Call Vote.
Grouped by Home State
Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida:
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay Sphere: Related Content
NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted for this legislation.
Seven courageous Democrats stood up and voted with their Republican colleagues in a true bi-partisan fashion - they are: Bobby Bright (AL-2), Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Parker Griffith (AL-5), Walt Minnick (ID-1), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Heath Shuler (NC-11) and Gene Taylor (MS-4). Please send them a letter or email, or call their offices to voice your thanks and appreciation for their courageous stand. They will be under tremendous pressure by Nancy Pelosi and your voice of support will only help them make the right decision in the future.
Lipinski (D) voted Present.
Clyburn (D), Campbell (R) and Lee (R-NY) didn't vote.
On the Senate side, the bill passed by a vote of 60 yeas, 38 nays with 1 not voting.
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote and Minnesota currently only has one Senator until the Coleman/Franken lawsuit is settled.
Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine were Republicans who voted in favor (taking a major piece of pork called the medical records warehouse into their state for an inducement); Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) also voted in favor of this after receiving an earmark for a new cancer center for his state. Other than Kennedy not voting, all other Democrats and Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) voted in favor. President Obama is due to sign the bill soon in a ceremony in Denver. Here is the Feb. 13, 2009 Senate Roll Call Vote.
Grouped by Home State
Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida:
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Iran says change under Obama would be "happy news"
Wed Feb 11, 2009
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A change in U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama would be "happy news," the foreign minister of arch-foe Iran said on Wednesday.
"We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said through an Arabic interpreter at a news conference during a visit to neighbouring Iraq.
"If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news."
Mottaki's remarks were the latest in a series of recent comments from Iranian leaders hinting at prospects of a thaw with a country that has been an arch enemy for nearly 30 years.
"We think these changes will provide good opportunities for the American administration in its relations with the countries of the world," Mottaki added. "As diplomats, we are destined to be optimistic, and we wish this would come true."
Obama has said he is willing to start talks with Iran, which the United States and its Western allies accuse of supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq and seeking nuclear weapons, all charges Tehran denies.
On Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was ready to hold talks "in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect."
(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; writing by Peter Graff) Sphere: Related Content
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A change in U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama would be "happy news," the foreign minister of arch-foe Iran said on Wednesday.
"We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said through an Arabic interpreter at a news conference during a visit to neighbouring Iraq.
"If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news."
Mottaki's remarks were the latest in a series of recent comments from Iranian leaders hinting at prospects of a thaw with a country that has been an arch enemy for nearly 30 years.
"We think these changes will provide good opportunities for the American administration in its relations with the countries of the world," Mottaki added. "As diplomats, we are destined to be optimistic, and we wish this would come true."
Obama has said he is willing to start talks with Iran, which the United States and its Western allies accuse of supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq and seeking nuclear weapons, all charges Tehran denies.
On Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was ready to hold talks "in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect."
(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; writing by Peter Graff) Sphere: Related Content
Sean Hannity: President Obama's Earmark Amnesia
By Sean Hannity
www.FoxNews.com
A quick trip around Hannity's America...
Say What?
Are there earmarks in the stimulus bill? Well, it depends which day you ask President Obama.
Just days ago he was arguing that no bill this size had ever gotten through Congress without a pesky earmark here and there, but Monday night he was singing a different tune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not once. And, and when you start asking well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you're seeing, where's all this waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars. Well, why wouldn't we want to do that?
What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Let me guess, it depends on the definition of earmark?
Dem on Defense
Press secretary Robert Gibbs continued the administration's offensive for the pork bill, taking the case to the nation's morning shows earlier Tuesday.
After Matt Lauer pushed as hard as he could, Mr. Gibbs went to considerable lengths to defend the spending bill:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, Matt, I think, as the president has eloquently said, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: After all, in a perfect world, they'd have a more capable press secretary.
GIBBS: Economists will tell us that if we wait too long, we'll miss that opportunity to get our economy going.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: We need to jump start STD prevention and funding for dog parks and disc golf courses. That's what's going to get this economy out of the ditch.
GIBBS: Again, as he said, this bill isn't 100 percent perfect. We all may write it a little differently.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: And by not perfect, I mean a total and unmitigated disaster.
GIBBS: But what's important is we get money into people's pockets, we start investing in our infrastructure and creating the millions of new jobs that we've seen our economy shed over the past.
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, "THE TODAY SHOW": But don't you see any...
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: What's important is that the president not be embarrassed any further. What's really at stake here is image.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
It's OK, Robert -- I'm not a morning person either.
Doddering to Defeat
Chris Dodd has been a mainstay in the U.S. Senate since 1981, but his prospects for reelection are dimming in light of a new Quinnipiac Poll released today. A 51 percent majority of voters polled say they "probably won't" or "definitely won't" vote for Mr. Dodd when he is up for reelection next year.
The senator's fall from grace comes after he revealed that he received preferential mortgage rates from Countrywide Financial for his homes in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. because he was considered a friend of the company's former chairman and CEO.
You may recall Mr. Dodd was responsible for introducing the very bailout bill that came to the aid of lenders like Countrywide. Hey, who needs friends when you know the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee?
Welcome!
You may recall that on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama threw blame on the Bush administration for spawning an era of international hostility and promised a new era of global harmony. Well, the era of international cooperation he spoke of during the campaign season hasn't exactly come to pass.
As Washington Times reporters Eli Lake and Jon Ward noted, the Arab world has greeted the new administration with the following gestures of goodwill: First, Pakistan released A.Q. Khan, the scientist who sold nuclear weapons technology to U.S. adversaries including Iran and Libya. Then, Kyrgyzstan refused to renew the lease for a critical U.S. air base, Iran launched a satellite missile into space and Yemen released 170 suspected Al Qaeda terrorists from jail.
I guess Joe Biden was right when he said the world would test the new president. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will respond appropriately.
No Vacancy
A three judge-panel tentatively ruled Monday in favor of a group of California inmates that say the prison system in the state is so overcrowded they are unable to receive proper health care. The judges in the case — who were all appointed by Jimmy Carter — include Judge Lawrence Kolton, who once ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who happens to be married to the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
A final ruling would require California to reduce its prison population by nearly 60,000 inmates. But don't worry, according to The Los Angeles Times, there won't be a mass exodus of current prisoners, the reduction will likely occur by limiting new admissions and changing rules so parole violators return to prison less frequently.
The state plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court when a final ruling is issued.
— Watch "Hannity" weekdays at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel Sphere: Related Content
www.FoxNews.com
A quick trip around Hannity's America...
Say What?
Are there earmarks in the stimulus bill? Well, it depends which day you ask President Obama.
Just days ago he was arguing that no bill this size had ever gotten through Congress without a pesky earmark here and there, but Monday night he was singing a different tune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not once. And, and when you start asking well, what is it exactly that is such a problem that you're seeing, where's all this waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars. Well, why wouldn't we want to do that?
What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Let me guess, it depends on the definition of earmark?
Dem on Defense
Press secretary Robert Gibbs continued the administration's offensive for the pork bill, taking the case to the nation's morning shows earlier Tuesday.
After Matt Lauer pushed as hard as he could, Mr. Gibbs went to considerable lengths to defend the spending bill:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No, Matt, I think, as the president has eloquently said, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: After all, in a perfect world, they'd have a more capable press secretary.
GIBBS: Economists will tell us that if we wait too long, we'll miss that opportunity to get our economy going.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: We need to jump start STD prevention and funding for dog parks and disc golf courses. That's what's going to get this economy out of the ditch.
GIBBS: Again, as he said, this bill isn't 100 percent perfect. We all may write it a little differently.
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: And by not perfect, I mean a total and unmitigated disaster.
GIBBS: But what's important is we get money into people's pockets, we start investing in our infrastructure and creating the millions of new jobs that we've seen our economy shed over the past.
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, "THE TODAY SHOW": But don't you see any...
LIBERAL TRANSLATION: What's important is that the president not be embarrassed any further. What's really at stake here is image.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
It's OK, Robert -- I'm not a morning person either.
Doddering to Defeat
Chris Dodd has been a mainstay in the U.S. Senate since 1981, but his prospects for reelection are dimming in light of a new Quinnipiac Poll released today. A 51 percent majority of voters polled say they "probably won't" or "definitely won't" vote for Mr. Dodd when he is up for reelection next year.
The senator's fall from grace comes after he revealed that he received preferential mortgage rates from Countrywide Financial for his homes in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. because he was considered a friend of the company's former chairman and CEO.
You may recall Mr. Dodd was responsible for introducing the very bailout bill that came to the aid of lenders like Countrywide. Hey, who needs friends when you know the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee?
Welcome!
You may recall that on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama threw blame on the Bush administration for spawning an era of international hostility and promised a new era of global harmony. Well, the era of international cooperation he spoke of during the campaign season hasn't exactly come to pass.
As Washington Times reporters Eli Lake and Jon Ward noted, the Arab world has greeted the new administration with the following gestures of goodwill: First, Pakistan released A.Q. Khan, the scientist who sold nuclear weapons technology to U.S. adversaries including Iran and Libya. Then, Kyrgyzstan refused to renew the lease for a critical U.S. air base, Iran launched a satellite missile into space and Yemen released 170 suspected Al Qaeda terrorists from jail.
I guess Joe Biden was right when he said the world would test the new president. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will respond appropriately.
No Vacancy
A three judge-panel tentatively ruled Monday in favor of a group of California inmates that say the prison system in the state is so overcrowded they are unable to receive proper health care. The judges in the case — who were all appointed by Jimmy Carter — include Judge Lawrence Kolton, who once ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who happens to be married to the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.
A final ruling would require California to reduce its prison population by nearly 60,000 inmates. But don't worry, according to The Los Angeles Times, there won't be a mass exodus of current prisoners, the reduction will likely occur by limiting new admissions and changing rules so parole violators return to prison less frequently.
The state plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court when a final ruling is issued.
— Watch "Hannity" weekdays at 9 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Truth About Obama's Stimulus Package
By Glenn Beck
There's the start of universal healthcare in this spending bill, and President Obama didn't even mention it in his speech last night. I'll explain in just a minute why if you're old you should get used to a little pain.
Here's the one thing: I agree with President Obama. We may not survive if we do not do the right thing. But that's where our agreement ends, because what he's proposing is exactly wrong.
Better get the duct tape, because when you hear what Obama said last night, and then the truth, your head may pop off.
Here's Obama talking about job creation:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
But wait! The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that about 90 to 95% of private sector job growth got us out of the recessions of late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Here's the president speaking about role in ending the Great Depression:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You have some people — very sincere — who philosophically just think that government has no business interfering in the marketplace.
And in fact there are several who suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
No, actually a long time ago the history was written by the same economists who designed the new deal. Let's look at today. The non-partisan CBO says the spending package will actually lower GDP by .1 to .3 percentage points by 2019. Doing nothing, they say, would result in less debt and higher growth. But, of course, doing nothing isn't an option for this president.
Last night President Obama did not say much about TARP 2.0, which was rolled out today by new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner said that this new plan is supposed to help mop up toxic assets. But isn't that exactly what President Bush and the Republicans said about the original TARP? This one could put us on the hook for another 1.5 trillion bucks.
Here's what President Obama said when it comes to the "experts":
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "Most economists almost unanimously recognize... That government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Oh really? Doesn't this sound like Al Gore on global warming? The science is not settled, it's up to you. There are a couple hundred economists who disagree, and they aren't exactly slouches.
It's nice that Obama looks presidential and his words make people feel good, but we also have to listen to what he says and make sure he can back it up with actual facts — something that we'll try to do tonight.
What do you think? Send your comments to: glennbeck@foxnews.com
— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel Sphere: Related Content
There's the start of universal healthcare in this spending bill, and President Obama didn't even mention it in his speech last night. I'll explain in just a minute why if you're old you should get used to a little pain.
Here's the one thing: I agree with President Obama. We may not survive if we do not do the right thing. But that's where our agreement ends, because what he's proposing is exactly wrong.
Better get the duct tape, because when you hear what Obama said last night, and then the truth, your head may pop off.
Here's Obama talking about job creation:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
But wait! The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that about 90 to 95% of private sector job growth got us out of the recessions of late ‘70s and early ‘80s. Here's the president speaking about role in ending the Great Depression:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You have some people — very sincere — who philosophically just think that government has no business interfering in the marketplace.
And in fact there are several who suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
No, actually a long time ago the history was written by the same economists who designed the new deal. Let's look at today. The non-partisan CBO says the spending package will actually lower GDP by .1 to .3 percentage points by 2019. Doing nothing, they say, would result in less debt and higher growth. But, of course, doing nothing isn't an option for this president.
Last night President Obama did not say much about TARP 2.0, which was rolled out today by new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner said that this new plan is supposed to help mop up toxic assets. But isn't that exactly what President Bush and the Republicans said about the original TARP? This one could put us on the hook for another 1.5 trillion bucks.
Here's what President Obama said when it comes to the "experts":
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "Most economists almost unanimously recognize... That government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Oh really? Doesn't this sound like Al Gore on global warming? The science is not settled, it's up to you. There are a couple hundred economists who disagree, and they aren't exactly slouches.
It's nice that Obama looks presidential and his words make people feel good, but we also have to listen to what he says and make sure he can back it up with actual facts — something that we'll try to do tonight.
What do you think? Send your comments to: glennbeck@foxnews.com
— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel Sphere: Related Content
Monday, February 9, 2009
Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate
Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says the president has not been providing leadership and criticizes him for giving TV interviews and writing an editorial touting the package rather than addressing the complaints of lawmakers.
FoxNews
President Obama has been "AWOL" in negotiations over the economic stimulus package, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday in a scathing rebuke of the new president.
The South Carolina Republican told FOX News that Obama has not been providing leadership, and he criticized the president for giving TV interviews and writing an editorial touting the package, rather than addressing the complaints of lawmakers.
"This process stinks," Graham told FOX News, before repeating a lot of his criticisms on the Senate floor. "We're making this up as we go and it is a waste of money. It is a broken process, and the president, as far as I'm concerned, has been AWOL on providing leadership on something as important as this."
Republican senators and congressmen have been reluctant to direct any criticism at the president since his inauguration. They mostly have fired shots at Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, saying they have obstructed the bipartisan process Obama sought.
But Graham broke that practice after Obama granted a round of interviews defending his plan Tuesday and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Thursday in which he warned of disastrous consequences if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill.
"Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don't pass this bad bill we're going to have disaster -- we've had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions," Graham said.
"I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading ... and doing TV interviews is not leading."
Obama renewed his plea for the bill at the Energy Department Thursday, shortly after Graham spoke.
"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," Obama said.
Obama, in his op-ed, wrote that inaction could lead the economy into an irreversible decline.
"Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes," he wrote. "And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." Sphere: Related Content
FoxNews
President Obama has been "AWOL" in negotiations over the economic stimulus package, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday in a scathing rebuke of the new president.
The South Carolina Republican told FOX News that Obama has not been providing leadership, and he criticized the president for giving TV interviews and writing an editorial touting the package, rather than addressing the complaints of lawmakers.
"This process stinks," Graham told FOX News, before repeating a lot of his criticisms on the Senate floor. "We're making this up as we go and it is a waste of money. It is a broken process, and the president, as far as I'm concerned, has been AWOL on providing leadership on something as important as this."
Republican senators and congressmen have been reluctant to direct any criticism at the president since his inauguration. They mostly have fired shots at Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, saying they have obstructed the bipartisan process Obama sought.
But Graham broke that practice after Obama granted a round of interviews defending his plan Tuesday and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Thursday in which he warned of disastrous consequences if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill.
"Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don't pass this bad bill we're going to have disaster -- we've had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions," Graham said.
"I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading ... and doing TV interviews is not leading."
Obama renewed his plea for the bill at the Energy Department Thursday, shortly after Graham spoke.
"The time for talk is over. The time for action is now," Obama said.
Obama, in his op-ed, wrote that inaction could lead the economy into an irreversible decline.
"Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes," he wrote. "And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 6, 2009
How much has the National Debt increased under Obama's watch?
Information is cross-posted from National Debt Busters
Obama Adminstration took office Jan. 20
National Debt as of Feb. 5, 2009 is:
$10,717,998,123,287.70
National Debt as of Jan. 16, 2009 (last date calculated before Inauguration):
$10,628,881,485,510.23
Increase in debt since Obama took over:
$89,116,637,777.47 Sphere: Related Content
Obama Adminstration took office Jan. 20
National Debt as of Feb. 5, 2009 is:
$10,717,998,123,287.70
National Debt as of Jan. 16, 2009 (last date calculated before Inauguration):
$10,628,881,485,510.23
Increase in debt since Obama took over:
$89,116,637,777.47 Sphere: Related Content
Ethics debacle offers painful lesson for Obama
The following appeared in the Feb. 6, 2009 issue of the Arizona Republic.
Ethics. Integrity. Post-partisanship.
These were among the promises that got Barack Obama elected president.
Voters liked the idea of ending politics as they have come to know and dislike it.
Candidate Obama set the bar unusually high. President Obama is going to have to live up to that standard or risk losing the public support he needs to succeed.
By admitting - in numerous same-day interviews - that he did "screw up" in regard to the Daschle debacle, Obama demonstrated his desire to make government more transparent and accessible. His instincts are also correct in wanting to admit his mistake and move on.
But the president cannot dismiss the widespread impression that some of his failed appointments have dulled his image and given his opponents tools with which to begin undermining confidence in his administration.
Even the perception of a cloud over the White House could cost Obama popularity and contribute to business-as-usual gridlock in Washington, stalling progress on the huge challenges facing the nation.
President Obama needs to make sure that friendship does not again cloud his judgment.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's credentials and experience may have made him look like a good pick for secretary of Health and Human Services.
As one of Obama's mentors in the Senate and an early supporter of Obama's race for president, Daschle also looked like a natural for a high-level appointment. A little patronage is to be expected.
What's more, Obama has balanced patronage with a "Team of Rivals" approach that is robust enough to rankle some Democrats.
His choice of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as Commerce secretary was facilitated by an agreement that Gregg's replacement in the Senate would be a Republican. Some Democrats were unimpressed with both the appointment and the deal.
To the dismay of some in his own party, President Obama gets points for making good on his promise to pursue a post-partisan government and listen to a variety of voices.
But as the president learned the hard way, people are in no mood to overlook something like Daschle's failure to pay a tax bill that far exceeds the annual income of many Americans.
This is especially true after Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite his tax problems, and as Nancy Killefer, Obama's first choice for chief performance officer, was forced to step aside because of her own tax problems.
The Daschle debacle was a tin-ear moment that President Obama dare not repeat. Sphere: Related Content
Ethics. Integrity. Post-partisanship.
These were among the promises that got Barack Obama elected president.
Voters liked the idea of ending politics as they have come to know and dislike it.
Candidate Obama set the bar unusually high. President Obama is going to have to live up to that standard or risk losing the public support he needs to succeed.
By admitting - in numerous same-day interviews - that he did "screw up" in regard to the Daschle debacle, Obama demonstrated his desire to make government more transparent and accessible. His instincts are also correct in wanting to admit his mistake and move on.
But the president cannot dismiss the widespread impression that some of his failed appointments have dulled his image and given his opponents tools with which to begin undermining confidence in his administration.
Even the perception of a cloud over the White House could cost Obama popularity and contribute to business-as-usual gridlock in Washington, stalling progress on the huge challenges facing the nation.
President Obama needs to make sure that friendship does not again cloud his judgment.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's credentials and experience may have made him look like a good pick for secretary of Health and Human Services.
As one of Obama's mentors in the Senate and an early supporter of Obama's race for president, Daschle also looked like a natural for a high-level appointment. A little patronage is to be expected.
What's more, Obama has balanced patronage with a "Team of Rivals" approach that is robust enough to rankle some Democrats.
His choice of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as Commerce secretary was facilitated by an agreement that Gregg's replacement in the Senate would be a Republican. Some Democrats were unimpressed with both the appointment and the deal.
To the dismay of some in his own party, President Obama gets points for making good on his promise to pursue a post-partisan government and listen to a variety of voices.
But as the president learned the hard way, people are in no mood to overlook something like Daschle's failure to pay a tax bill that far exceeds the annual income of many Americans.
This is especially true after Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite his tax problems, and as Nancy Killefer, Obama's first choice for chief performance officer, was forced to step aside because of her own tax problems.
The Daschle debacle was a tin-ear moment that President Obama dare not repeat. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Will Leon Panetta be the next body under Obama's bus?
by Andrew Malcolm
Los Angeles Times
It's been a bumpy few days on the new Obama administration bus, what with all the bodies throwing themselves under the shiny chassis -- Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and the ones yet to come from the transition team that missed the bones in Bill Richardson's closet and Daschle's and Geithner's and Killefer's tax returns.
In public, stand-up political bosses like Barack Obama are, well, stand-up, obediently shouldering the full blame like medicine from Mom. Americans like that and turn very forgiving when they hear it. So, Obama did that so sincerely and stoically on every TV network last night.
The buck stops here and all that, which drew hearty praise today from Robert Gibbs, Obama's own press secretary. But, in private, those bosses really, really don't like to have to do that. And someone will pay. If he/she hasn't already.
Meanwhile, word outta Washington late today that the congressional confirming committees, also embarrassed, are taking a closer look at the documents of some preexisting Obama nominees such as, oh, say, former California representative, Bill Clinton chief of staff and proposed CIA chief Leon Panetta. The Senate Intelligence Committee (no, that's not being sarcastic) takes up Panetta on Thursday morning.
Apparently, his reports to ethics officials indicate the onetime congressman who hung around Washington anyway is now worth nearly $4 million, which makes hanging around Washington seem a worthy pastime for washed-up pols. Last year Panetta took in about $1.2 million in investments, consulting and speaking fees, plus other income from corporate boards like BP and banks that have now failed or taken bailout money like Wachovia. Let's all do that.
All this despite being so intimately involved in the Obama campaign.
Panetta also got thousands of dollars from at least one security-related company that he might be dealing with from his secret CIA director's office in the Langley Batcave that carries the annoyingly Republican Bush name on it.
Panetta's appointment hit its first bump minutes after the announcement when committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein revealed in one of those too-controlled voices that she had not been informed in advance, a very serious breach of political manners in the Washington world that's akin to loud burping at the queen's dinner.
Now our blogging pal Mark Silva in the Swamp has more details on the developing Panetta problems, indicating some senators may have more questions in the morning.
Sphere: Related Content
Los Angeles Times
It's been a bumpy few days on the new Obama administration bus, what with all the bodies throwing themselves under the shiny chassis -- Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and the ones yet to come from the transition team that missed the bones in Bill Richardson's closet and Daschle's and Geithner's and Killefer's tax returns.
In public, stand-up political bosses like Barack Obama are, well, stand-up, obediently shouldering the full blame like medicine from Mom. Americans like that and turn very forgiving when they hear it. So, Obama did that so sincerely and stoically on every TV network last night.
The buck stops here and all that, which drew hearty praise today from Robert Gibbs, Obama's own press secretary. But, in private, those bosses really, really don't like to have to do that. And someone will pay. If he/she hasn't already.
Meanwhile, word outta Washington late today that the congressional confirming committees, also embarrassed, are taking a closer look at the documents of some preexisting Obama nominees such as, oh, say, former California representative, Bill Clinton chief of staff and proposed CIA chief Leon Panetta. The Senate Intelligence Committee (no, that's not being sarcastic) takes up Panetta on Thursday morning.
Apparently, his reports to ethics officials indicate the onetime congressman who hung around Washington anyway is now worth nearly $4 million, which makes hanging around Washington seem a worthy pastime for washed-up pols. Last year Panetta took in about $1.2 million in investments, consulting and speaking fees, plus other income from corporate boards like BP and banks that have now failed or taken bailout money like Wachovia. Let's all do that.
All this despite being so intimately involved in the Obama campaign.
Panetta also got thousands of dollars from at least one security-related company that he might be dealing with from his secret CIA director's office in the Langley Batcave that carries the annoyingly Republican Bush name on it.
Panetta's appointment hit its first bump minutes after the announcement when committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein revealed in one of those too-controlled voices that she had not been informed in advance, a very serious breach of political manners in the Washington world that's akin to loud burping at the queen's dinner.
Now our blogging pal Mark Silva in the Swamp has more details on the developing Panetta problems, indicating some senators may have more questions in the morning.
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Obama: 'I Screwed Up'
Obama told CBS he is not frustrated in his efforts to change Washington. "I never thought it was easy," he said. "Change is hard. We're going to make some mistakes. I'm going to screw up sometimes." By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, APFor Obama, nominees' exits take off some of the glow
By Mimi Hall, Fredreka Schouten and John Fritze,
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Two weeks after he stood before the nation and pledged "a new era of responsibility," President Obama confronted the biggest crisis of his young presidency Tuesday as two of his key nominees withdrew over their failure to pay their taxes.
"I screwed up," Obama told NBC News in one of five network interviews he did Tuesday as questions swirled about his administration's vetting of nominees and his judgment. "Part of the era of responsibility is not never making mistakes, it's owning up to them."
It was a disquieting day for a president who came into office with soaring approval ratings and a promise to have the most ethical administration in history.
First, he lost former Treasury official Nancy Killefer, the woman he'd tapped to root out waste as the government's first chief performance officer. Then, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle withdrew his appointment as Health and Human Services secretary. Obama had wanted Daschle to engineer an overhaul of the nation's health care system.
"It's a really rocky start," said Melanie Sloan, director of the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He said this would be the most ethical administration ever, but to people outside the Beltway it looks like it was just words."
Daschle dropped out after revelations that he failed to pay $128,203 in taxes for consulting income and several years' use of a car and driver provided to him by a wealthy Democratic contributor after Daschle lost his Senate re-election bid in 2004. Daschle filed amended tax returns last month and paid the taxes plus $11,964 in interest.
Killefer withdrew over her failure to pay taxes for household help and a $946 tax lien that was placed on her home in an upscale Washington neighborhood in 2005.
For Obama, the departures of Daschle and Killefer became a distraction on a day when he had planned to use the TV interviews to promote the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus package he is trying to get through Congress. Also overshadowed was Obama's latest effort to reach out to Republicans, this time by nominating Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., as Commerce secretary.
In Congress and on cable talk shows Tuesday, questions about the new administration dominated the day. Among them: Should Obama's self-described mistakes be attributed to the usual growing pains of a new White House, or do they underscore a fundamental weakness that could have ramifications for future appointments and legislation at a critical time?
"Right now, he looks very much on the defensive," said Merle Black, an Emory University political scientist. "Anytime you have two people quit on the same day over tax problems it's a bad day. But the presidency is four years."
'Can't afford glitches'
In a series of mea culpas Tuesday, Obama said he was concerned about how Americans would view what went on with Daschle's nomination.
"I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics," he told CNN. "I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."
On ABC, he called the tax errors "honest mistakes" but said he "can't afford glitches" such as those if he is to get his economic stimulus package through Congress.
They weren't the president's first problems with nominees. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination to be Commerce secretary last month because of an investigation into possible connections between contributions to his political committees and state contract awards.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's confirmation was delayed last month amid questions about why he initially failed to pay more than $34,000 in self-employment taxes.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say Tuesday how — or even whether — the vetting process had gone wrong. "I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking in the rear-view mirror," Gibbs said.
Transition analysts didn't hold back. Some questioned Obama's judgment.
"At first, I thought this was a vetting problem, but now I think it's hubris — that they somehow think they're so powerful and so popular that the normal rules don't apply," said Paul Light, an expert on presidential transitions and a professor at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.
Others said such problems were inevitable if Obama is going to look to old Washington hands for help.
Craig Holman, of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Obama deserves credit for trying to set new standards for ethics in Washington. "But as he taps into appointees that have been spinning through the revolving door in Washington," Holman said, "he's going to find people who have been part of the business-as-usual culture."
Obama also has faced questions about why he's made an exception to his new lobbying rules by naming former Raytheon top lobbyist William Lynn to serve as deputy Defense secretary.
The president said an exception had to be made at the Pentagon because Lynn was the right person for the job. "Now, what I said in appointing Mr. Lynn was that this, along with maybe a handful, maybe three or four positions, may end up being so unique that we are going to make an exception," Obama said on CBS Tuesday evening.
Obama and others in the administration said Geithner's tax problem should be excused because he was the best person for the job at a critical time for the economy — and he was confirmed by the Senate.
Quick action lauded by some
With respect to Daschle and Killefer, some gave Obama credit for moving on quickly.
"Obama has done something smart here," said Matthew Dickinson, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "He hasn't let them dangle in the wind. … Every president dating back to Carter has lost a nominee or two. He's reacted the way you have to react as president."
Whether this has a long-term effect depends on "the performance going forward and the other nominees that come on board," Black said.
The latest troubles left the White House and Capitol Hill in turmoil Tuesday.
Senators who would have had to vote on his confirmation expressed remorse that a good man had fallen victim to tax errors.
"It was with regret but with respect for his decision that I learned of Sen. Daschle's request to withdraw his name," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which planned a hearing on the nomination next week.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he was sorry Daschle withdrew. "When the smoke clears and the frenzy has ended, no one will believe that this unwitting mistake should have erased 30 years of selfless public service and remarkable legislative skill and expertise on health care," he said.
Others complained not only about Daschle's tax problem but his work with a lobbying firm.
In addition to the taxes issue, Daschle had faced questions about his relationship with an industry he was asked to reform. He is not a registered lobbyist but has earned more than $2 million as a policy adviser on health care, climate change and other issues at a Washington law firm. He also earned nearly $500,000 for speeches before groups that included insurers and other health care organizations.
"I don't know how you get paid $2 million by a lobbying firm and not call yourself a lobbyist," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. "That just seems disingenuous to me, and I don't think passes the smell test. So I personally think that Senator Daschle, you know, was going to face some tough questions and … I think he saved the president from being embarrassed next week in a public hearing."
Obama, in the ABC interview, called Daschle's nomination a "self-induced injury."
Long day at the White House
Shortly after news of Daschle's withdrawal broke, Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid a surprise visit to a local school.
"We wanted to get out of the White House," Obama told delighted second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.
The president woke up Tuesday to editorials in The New York Times and four major regional news papers calling on Daschle to step aside. By the time breakfast was over, the cable TV news shows were featuring commentators who questioned Obama's commitment to ethics reform.
By mid-morning, a YouTube link to a grainy 1986 Daschle campaign commercial was circulating on Capitol Hill. It showed Daschle, then a House member running for the Senate, driving through Washington, D.C., in a rusted 1971 Pontiac.
"After 15 years and 238,000 miles, Tom Daschle still drives his old car to work every day," the narrator intoned. "Maybe he's sentimental or just cheap. Whatever the case, isn't it too bad that the rest of Washington doesn't understand that a penny saved is a penny earned?"
At a testy mid-day briefing for the news media, held as construction crews worked to dismantle the Inauguration Day parade viewing stand out front on Pennsylvania Avenue, Gibbs said Obama never thought change would come overnight.
"I think the president would say to you that he didn't believe that we were going to change the way Washington has worked the past three decades in the first two weeks of this administration," Gibbs said.
Gibbs said no one in the White House asked Daschle or Killefer to step down. In a letter to Obama, Killefer wrote that she had "come to realize in the current environment that my personal tax issue … could be used to create exactly the kind of distraction and delay" that would harm efforts to revive the sinking economy.
She didn't elaborate.
Gibbs said Daschle called and spoke with Obama about his decision to withdraw.
"We had a conversation and obviously that conversation's private, but, it's frustrating for me and it's something I take responsibility for," Obama told CBS. "Tom, I think, is an outstanding individual. I am absolutely convinced he would've been the best person to help shepherd through what's going to be a very difficult process to get health care for American families."
Obama has said he plans an overhaul that would cut health care costs by $2,500 a year for the average family and would require health care coverage for all children.
Obama told CBS he is not frustrated in his efforts to change Washington. "I never thought it was easy," he said. "Change is hard. … We're going to make some mistakes. I'm going to screw up sometimes."
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
