Tim Pawlenty has accomplished what the other GOP candidates for President have not, so far. Pawlenty added salt to the wounds of Barack Obama's very bad week by giving a speech and laying out his vision of turning the economy around. He didn't rely on pat sound bite answers, he didn't use all the popular buzz words to appease one faction or another, and he stood firm.
More than anything else, Please God, let the GOP run a candidate this time around who will stand his/her ground and not appease the loud people. If the GOP can deliver on a strong, fiscally conservative candidate that can articulate to the masses a common sense path to financial recovery, then Barack Obama is a one term President.
Maybe that candidate will end up being Pawlenty, maybe not. At least he is the first to step up and produce something. Maybe the others will begin to articulate actual policy ideas and not silly banter. There is no time to waste.
This election is all about the numbers. It's the economy, stupid. It's about the very different approach to economic prosperity between Democrats and Republicans.
There is, however, a serious policy implication inside the Pawlenty proposals. We are heading toward an election fought over the economy. That's good because ultimately this means the subject is growth. The one consensus that exists across the political spectrum is that strong economic growth eases many problems—from the entitlement burden to the tragedy of high youth unemployment.
The battle will be fought over economic growth and how we get it—Obama's way or something close to the opposite of Obama's way. On one hand is Barack Obama's government-led "investment" mix, embedded with spending raised to 24% of GDP. On the other is the alternative GOP vision, which is starting to gel.
The economic numbers of last week were devastating to Team Obama. Nothing is going right for them. It is the GOP candidates' job to make sure that message gets out and to offer a viable alternative. Americans are depressed. We are almost in dangerous Carter malaise territory. Those who think we are going in the wrong direction as a country number around 70%. Think about that. There is a real opening for the right candidate on the GOP side.
Barack Obama will be a strong contender. He will raise another record amount of money and use all his Chicago style tricks, just as he did in every previous campaign. It's hardball politics. It is crucial to bring forward a Republican who is fearless and unyielding.
No more Mr. Nice Guy, GOP. This is no time to go wobbly.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Tell Austin - No to Raiding Rainy Day Fund
Today an amendment was included in Senate Bill 2. The amendment requires any Rainy Day Fund money over $6.5 billion at the end of the 2012-12 biennium to be put into the Foundation School Program. It is estimated this could be as much as $2 billion over the next two years.
This is crazy. This would undo the hard work of the legislature to produce a budget that did not touch the Rainy Day Fund to make up for funds that came for one time Obama stimulus federal dollars. Everyone was notified that upon taking these funds, the money would not be replaced, yet now that seems to have been conveniently forgotten. That was the main sticking point of the federal money - it's a one time, short term boost that is not to be considered permanent budgeting monies.
So, now the call is for taxpayers to phone your elected officials in Austin tonight - yes, they are working tonight - and tell them to keep their hands off the Rainy Day Fund. Here is a strong statement from Texas Public Policy Foundation:
From Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy
Senate Bill 2 includes amendment that could divert billions from rainy day fund.
"An amendment offered to Senate Bill 2 – and adopted on a non-record vote – would require that any rainy day fund balance projected in excess of $6.5 billion at the end of the 2012-13 biennium be directed immediately into the Foundation School Program. If passed, this amendment could siphon as much as $2 billion away from the rainy day fund over the next two years, according to preliminary estimates.
The Texas House and Senate accomplished a historic feat at the end of the regular session mere days ago, when they passed a budget that was an all-funds cut from the preceding biennium, did not raise taxes, and did not squander a penny of the rainy day fund. This amendment would threaten that tremendous accomplishment and undo one of the most important outcomes of the regular session of the 82nd Texas Legislature.
Voters conveyed a clear message last November that they wanted to see the state’s budget shortfall addressed by pruning the overgrowth in spending. With this amendment, the Texas House would respond that it views the budget shortfall as a mere math problem.
School spending has grown far faster than enrollment growth or inflation, in part due to poor decisions by local school districts. Two years ago, the Legislature propped up the school districts with $2.3 billion in federal stimulus funds, with the understanding that these one-time funds would not be replaced. School districts need to be challenged to become more efficient and prudent in how they spend taxpayer dollars, and the time for them to bite the bullet has come.
I encourage Members to remove this provision when Senate Bill 2 comes up on third reading."
Now is not the time to allow this sneaky maneuver to flourish.
This is crazy. This would undo the hard work of the legislature to produce a budget that did not touch the Rainy Day Fund to make up for funds that came for one time Obama stimulus federal dollars. Everyone was notified that upon taking these funds, the money would not be replaced, yet now that seems to have been conveniently forgotten. That was the main sticking point of the federal money - it's a one time, short term boost that is not to be considered permanent budgeting monies.
So, now the call is for taxpayers to phone your elected officials in Austin tonight - yes, they are working tonight - and tell them to keep their hands off the Rainy Day Fund. Here is a strong statement from Texas Public Policy Foundation:
From Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy
Senate Bill 2 includes amendment that could divert billions from rainy day fund.
"An amendment offered to Senate Bill 2 – and adopted on a non-record vote – would require that any rainy day fund balance projected in excess of $6.5 billion at the end of the 2012-13 biennium be directed immediately into the Foundation School Program. If passed, this amendment could siphon as much as $2 billion away from the rainy day fund over the next two years, according to preliminary estimates.
The Texas House and Senate accomplished a historic feat at the end of the regular session mere days ago, when they passed a budget that was an all-funds cut from the preceding biennium, did not raise taxes, and did not squander a penny of the rainy day fund. This amendment would threaten that tremendous accomplishment and undo one of the most important outcomes of the regular session of the 82nd Texas Legislature.
Voters conveyed a clear message last November that they wanted to see the state’s budget shortfall addressed by pruning the overgrowth in spending. With this amendment, the Texas House would respond that it views the budget shortfall as a mere math problem.
School spending has grown far faster than enrollment growth or inflation, in part due to poor decisions by local school districts. Two years ago, the Legislature propped up the school districts with $2.3 billion in federal stimulus funds, with the understanding that these one-time funds would not be replaced. School districts need to be challenged to become more efficient and prudent in how they spend taxpayer dollars, and the time for them to bite the bullet has come.
I encourage Members to remove this provision when Senate Bill 2 comes up on third reading."
Now is not the time to allow this sneaky maneuver to flourish.
Oil and Gas Industry Produces Good News
Two items from the world of energy exploration and production are both positive and welcome.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) released the following statement in response to today's news that exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has uncovered existence of a massive oil and gas field.
"This discovery underscores the great potential of America's vast energy resources. The prospect of new American-made energy supplies means less pain at the pump for American families and more American jobs.
"ExxonMobil began work on this discovery well before the administration’s drilling moratorium was initially put in place. Without the moratorium, this discovery could have been made months sooner. Instead, development of an oil resource of nearly one billion barrels was stalled at a time when millions of Americans continue to struggle with high gas prices. While the administration's actions in the Gulf have resulted in a direct loss of jobs and revenue, as this discovery demonstrates, one of the greatest costs of the moratorium may be the delayed energy opportunities."
As part of the American Energy Initiative, House Republicans are working to remove roadblocks to American energy supplies, which will keep energy costs down, fortify our energy security, and create American jobs. Click here to view committee hearing materials related to the moratorium."
And, Shell has approved a $2.5 billion project to develop its Cardamom oil and gas field in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, marking the latest vote of confidence in the U.S. offshore region following the BP oil spill last year.
The Cardamom field, located roughly 225 miles southwest of New Orleans, is expected to produce 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day at its peak and more than 140 million barrels of oil equivalent over its lifespan, Houston-based Shell Oil, the U.S. arm of European oil major Royal Dutch Shell, said in a statement today.
Rather than build a free-standing facility, Shell said it will install production equipment on the sea floor at Cardamom that extracts the oil and gas and routes it to Shell’s nearby Auger offshore platform, which will be modified to handle the additional output. A first Cardamom exploration well has been producing from Auger since late last year, Shell said.
Yes, Virginia, that is a $2.5 billion investment that Shell has decided to gamble on. Something often lost in the bellowing of those who would deny oil and gas companies profits is that the business is unbelievably expensive. This new anticipated production will not come online until 2014, if all goes well. Nothing happens quickly in energy production.
Despite the Obama administration's best efforts, the domestic oil and gas industry is not completely gone. Yet.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) released the following statement in response to today's news that exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has uncovered existence of a massive oil and gas field.
"This discovery underscores the great potential of America's vast energy resources. The prospect of new American-made energy supplies means less pain at the pump for American families and more American jobs.
"ExxonMobil began work on this discovery well before the administration’s drilling moratorium was initially put in place. Without the moratorium, this discovery could have been made months sooner. Instead, development of an oil resource of nearly one billion barrels was stalled at a time when millions of Americans continue to struggle with high gas prices. While the administration's actions in the Gulf have resulted in a direct loss of jobs and revenue, as this discovery demonstrates, one of the greatest costs of the moratorium may be the delayed energy opportunities."
As part of the American Energy Initiative, House Republicans are working to remove roadblocks to American energy supplies, which will keep energy costs down, fortify our energy security, and create American jobs. Click here to view committee hearing materials related to the moratorium."
And, Shell has approved a $2.5 billion project to develop its Cardamom oil and gas field in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, marking the latest vote of confidence in the U.S. offshore region following the BP oil spill last year.
The Cardamom field, located roughly 225 miles southwest of New Orleans, is expected to produce 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day at its peak and more than 140 million barrels of oil equivalent over its lifespan, Houston-based Shell Oil, the U.S. arm of European oil major Royal Dutch Shell, said in a statement today.
Rather than build a free-standing facility, Shell said it will install production equipment on the sea floor at Cardamom that extracts the oil and gas and routes it to Shell’s nearby Auger offshore platform, which will be modified to handle the additional output. A first Cardamom exploration well has been producing from Auger since late last year, Shell said.
Yes, Virginia, that is a $2.5 billion investment that Shell has decided to gamble on. Something often lost in the bellowing of those who would deny oil and gas companies profits is that the business is unbelievably expensive. This new anticipated production will not come online until 2014, if all goes well. Nothing happens quickly in energy production.
Despite the Obama administration's best efforts, the domestic oil and gas industry is not completely gone. Yet.
Obamacare Arguments Heard in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Wednesday ushered in the latest battle in court centered around Obamacare. The 26 states legally challenging Obamacare are now in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta making their case. Some reports are being written that the judges - a 3 judge panel consisting of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican - appear to be uncomfortable with the mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance.
The Los Angeles Times reported:
A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional....
And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.
The Associated Press had a similar take: "Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties."
While oral arguments are not always revealing because judges may be asking questions to assist them in writing their opinions, this has to seen as a positive sign for opponents of the law, especially given that two out of the three judges were Clinton appointees.
The mandate on the individual to purchase a product, any product, is an easy argument to make against Obamacare, it would seem. Others have focused on the law’s Medicaid provisions, which they argue are coercive to the point of violating the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. The Texas Public Policy Foundation also argued this point in the amicus brief submitted for the 11th Circuit.
TPPF’s Mario Loyola and renowned constitutional scholar Professor Richard Epstein address this part of Obamacare in The Wall Street Journal. The Medicaid provision of ObamaCare spells the death knell to competition among the states. States cannot function as "laboratories of democracy"—as the 10th Amendment intended—if the federal government can use its power to tax and spend to bludgeon all states into conformity.
In New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require state governments to take ownership of nuclear waste that citizens could not otherwise dispose of safely. And in Printz v. United States (1997), the Court held that the U.S. could not compel local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun owners without their consent, because such commandeering of state public officials is contrary to the federal structure of our Constitution.
In neither New York nor Printz did the result turn on the "level" of coercion, nor should it do so in the current case. The constant backdrop of the federal taxing power makes a mockery of the claim that state participation under ObamaCare is voluntary. The only way to prevent this grave intrusion on state autonomy is to strike down the Medicaid provisions of the health-reform law.
This newest ruling will be interesting as the previous rulings going in favor of Obamacare were from Democratic appointed judges ruling on it, while those going against Obamacare have come down from Republican appointed judges. The Justice Department sent its top lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, to plead its case.
Not to be outdone, the states will be represented by President George W. Bush's former solicitor general, Paul Clement — the same guy who recently quit King & Spalding in protest after the Atlanta-based law firm bowed to intense public pressure and backed out of defending the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of the GOP House Caucus.
The Los Angeles Times reported:
A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional....
And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.
The Associated Press had a similar take: "Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties."
While oral arguments are not always revealing because judges may be asking questions to assist them in writing their opinions, this has to seen as a positive sign for opponents of the law, especially given that two out of the three judges were Clinton appointees.
The mandate on the individual to purchase a product, any product, is an easy argument to make against Obamacare, it would seem. Others have focused on the law’s Medicaid provisions, which they argue are coercive to the point of violating the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. The Texas Public Policy Foundation also argued this point in the amicus brief submitted for the 11th Circuit.
TPPF’s Mario Loyola and renowned constitutional scholar Professor Richard Epstein address this part of Obamacare in The Wall Street Journal. The Medicaid provision of ObamaCare spells the death knell to competition among the states. States cannot function as "laboratories of democracy"—as the 10th Amendment intended—if the federal government can use its power to tax and spend to bludgeon all states into conformity.
In New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require state governments to take ownership of nuclear waste that citizens could not otherwise dispose of safely. And in Printz v. United States (1997), the Court held that the U.S. could not compel local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun owners without their consent, because such commandeering of state public officials is contrary to the federal structure of our Constitution.
In neither New York nor Printz did the result turn on the "level" of coercion, nor should it do so in the current case. The constant backdrop of the federal taxing power makes a mockery of the claim that state participation under ObamaCare is voluntary. The only way to prevent this grave intrusion on state autonomy is to strike down the Medicaid provisions of the health-reform law.
This newest ruling will be interesting as the previous rulings going in favor of Obamacare were from Democratic appointed judges ruling on it, while those going against Obamacare have come down from Republican appointed judges. The Justice Department sent its top lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, to plead its case.
Not to be outdone, the states will be represented by President George W. Bush's former solicitor general, Paul Clement — the same guy who recently quit King & Spalding in protest after the Atlanta-based law firm bowed to intense public pressure and backed out of defending the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of the GOP House Caucus.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
DNC Chairwoman Wasserman-Schultz is No Leader
The new Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee is an insult to women and people of intelligence everywhere. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-FL, has overstepped once too often as she slurs Republicans for what she perceives as political gain. Instead, she brings the focus onto herself and her utter ignorance of American history.
It doesn't matter how much she dislikes Republicans - it is not ok to re-write history and slander Republicans along the way. It is time for the RNC and all Republicans to grow a spine and speak up. She must be shut down each and every time she makes outlandish statements, like the latest one.
Voicing displeasure at new laws passed in states concerned with voter fraud and the integrity of the ballot, Wasserman-Schultz decided to paint the entire GOP with the wide stroke of racism. Yes, racism, the common insult used by Democrats against Republicans when common sense is not on their side.
There are some people out there who don’t like the recent GOP push to make the presentation of a photo ID a pre-condition of being able to cast a ballot. Count among them Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a U.S. representative from Florida.
Speaking with Roland Martin of TV One, a network that, according to its website, provides “real-life and entertainment television for African-American adults,” Wasserman Schultz equated GOP support for the anti voter fraud measure with a desire to “literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”
Wasserman-Schultz insulted the intelligence of the viewers of the predominantly black audience of that television show and she stupidly showed her utter ignorance of the history of the Jim Crow laws. It was, in fact, put into place by Democrats who were the ruling political party of the South.
The fact that the Voting Rights Act was pushed through Congress by a Democrat—Lyndon Johnson—does not erase the party’s history of support for institutionalized de jure racism. LBJ was only able to get the bill through with the support of Republicans, led by Senate GOP leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois.
The Democratic Party’s longtime love affair with segregation is undeniable. Who stood up for “Jim Crow” when President Eisenhower tried to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas’ Central High School? Democrats like Arkansas Gov. Orvall Faubus, who called out the state’s National Guard to prevent black students from entering the school. It was a Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who famously proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And it was a Democratically-controlled Georgia legislature that picked nationally-known segregationist Lester Maddox to be their state’s 75th governor in 1966.
Democrats like to pretend that they are sole defenders of people of color. It's a complete re-write of history that has been allowed to permeate for far too long. It is time for Republicans to speak up and correct the telling of history.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote, in part, recently:
More and more, elections are decided not on election night but in the incessant legal wrangling that too often ensues in the weeks after an election. Voter intimidation. Machine malfunctions. Suspect absentee ballots. Though our electoral system sets a high bar for integrity on a global scale, uncertainty too often abounds. When and where a reasonable opportunity arises to address that uncertainty, we should—as Americans—embrace it.
That is what elected leaders in countless states have done in recent months. Legislators in more than 30 states are working to institute photo identification laws. The laws simply require a voter to present a legitimate government-issued photo ID upon arriving at the polls to vote.
This common-sense proposal seeks to further preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote in American elections. And what makes one eligible? Presenting a simple government-issued photo identification card—a driver's license, for example. The very same ID card required to cash a government check, enter a federal building, obtain registered mail, drive a car, apply for Medicare or Medicaid, and countless other everyday activities. States like Wisconsin even ensure that those who cannot afford a state identification card are issued one free of charge.
Democrats must let their new DNC Chairwoman know that they expect more honest and respectful representation. Remember the whole bit about striking a New Tone that President Obama spoke about earlier this year? The Democrats have so often lobbed the charge of racism against Republicans and Independent voters that it no longer packs the wallop it once did.
Wasserman-Schultz is dishonest and deceitful. Shame on her.
It doesn't matter how much she dislikes Republicans - it is not ok to re-write history and slander Republicans along the way. It is time for the RNC and all Republicans to grow a spine and speak up. She must be shut down each and every time she makes outlandish statements, like the latest one.
Voicing displeasure at new laws passed in states concerned with voter fraud and the integrity of the ballot, Wasserman-Schultz decided to paint the entire GOP with the wide stroke of racism. Yes, racism, the common insult used by Democrats against Republicans when common sense is not on their side.
There are some people out there who don’t like the recent GOP push to make the presentation of a photo ID a pre-condition of being able to cast a ballot. Count among them Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a U.S. representative from Florida.
Speaking with Roland Martin of TV One, a network that, according to its website, provides “real-life and entertainment television for African-American adults,” Wasserman Schultz equated GOP support for the anti voter fraud measure with a desire to “literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”
Wasserman-Schultz insulted the intelligence of the viewers of the predominantly black audience of that television show and she stupidly showed her utter ignorance of the history of the Jim Crow laws. It was, in fact, put into place by Democrats who were the ruling political party of the South.
The fact that the Voting Rights Act was pushed through Congress by a Democrat—Lyndon Johnson—does not erase the party’s history of support for institutionalized de jure racism. LBJ was only able to get the bill through with the support of Republicans, led by Senate GOP leader Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois.
The Democratic Party’s longtime love affair with segregation is undeniable. Who stood up for “Jim Crow” when President Eisenhower tried to enforce desegregation at Little Rock, Arkansas’ Central High School? Democrats like Arkansas Gov. Orvall Faubus, who called out the state’s National Guard to prevent black students from entering the school. It was a Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who famously proclaimed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." And it was a Democratically-controlled Georgia legislature that picked nationally-known segregationist Lester Maddox to be their state’s 75th governor in 1966.
Democrats like to pretend that they are sole defenders of people of color. It's a complete re-write of history that has been allowed to permeate for far too long. It is time for Republicans to speak up and correct the telling of history.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote, in part, recently:
More and more, elections are decided not on election night but in the incessant legal wrangling that too often ensues in the weeks after an election. Voter intimidation. Machine malfunctions. Suspect absentee ballots. Though our electoral system sets a high bar for integrity on a global scale, uncertainty too often abounds. When and where a reasonable opportunity arises to address that uncertainty, we should—as Americans—embrace it.
That is what elected leaders in countless states have done in recent months. Legislators in more than 30 states are working to institute photo identification laws. The laws simply require a voter to present a legitimate government-issued photo ID upon arriving at the polls to vote.
This common-sense proposal seeks to further preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote in American elections. And what makes one eligible? Presenting a simple government-issued photo identification card—a driver's license, for example. The very same ID card required to cash a government check, enter a federal building, obtain registered mail, drive a car, apply for Medicare or Medicaid, and countless other everyday activities. States like Wisconsin even ensure that those who cannot afford a state identification card are issued one free of charge.
Democrats must let their new DNC Chairwoman know that they expect more honest and respectful representation. Remember the whole bit about striking a New Tone that President Obama spoke about earlier this year? The Democrats have so often lobbed the charge of racism against Republicans and Independent voters that it no longer packs the wallop it once did.
Wasserman-Schultz is dishonest and deceitful. Shame on her.
Gov Barbour Explains Job Loss Due to Drilling Moratorium
Recently Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Oversight and Reform Committee heard testimony from those affected by the continued Obama moratorium on oil and gas drilling.
The House Oversight Committee just completed a report entitled “Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result Of Government Action.”
Issa finds proof that this administration is deliberately ignoring a federal judge's ruling to end the moratorium - now a permatorium as permits and leases are not processed as they should be processed in a timely manner - and jobs are lost in the process.
MississippiGovernor Barbour
explains it so that everyone can understand the problem, even the Obama administration.
The House Oversight Committee just completed a report entitled “Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result Of Government Action.”
Issa finds proof that this administration is deliberately ignoring a federal judge's ruling to end the moratorium - now a permatorium as permits and leases are not processed as they should be processed in a timely manner - and jobs are lost in the process.
MississippiGovernor Barbour
explains it so that everyone can understand the problem, even the Obama administration.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Weiner Confesses, Apologizes and Doesn't Resign
Monday afternoon in a hotel in Manhattan, Congressman Anthony Weiner confessed that yes, indeed, it was he who tweeted that college student in Washington state a photo of his gray underwear and everything in it. He proclaimed great regret and sorrow for disgracing himself before the nation. He stated he loved his wife and they were not going to split up over this.
Mercifully, Weiner's new wife was not present. Is there anything worse that a woman standing beside her sleazy politician husband as he airs their personal life to everyone who will listen? What kind of medication does one take to be able to stand there with a non-expressive face and suffer that embarrassment?
Here's the thing - Weiner not only confessed to this tawdry escapade, he confessed to having a total of six women he virtually sexualized. He said some were up to three years ago but some more recently. It should be noted that Weiner and the wife have only been married since this past Spring.
And then the saddest tidbit of it all - Weiner said he told his wife of his fondness of virtual sex but that they talked it out and proceeded with the marriage. So, to repay her trust in him that he would improve his behavior, he continued his photographic hobby. What a guy.
The press conference had a little of everything in it. First, there was the guest appearance of Andrew Breitbart, the fearless fledgling conservative media mogul who put the initial story out there last week and Weiner decided to try and ruin over it. Breitbart was in town for a book tour, he said, and showed up at the press conference to hear the story. He also spoke about the latest woman to come forward with sorted photos and story about herself and Weiner. This woman, verified through an interview earlier in the afternoon by ABC News, must have been the final straw for Camp Weiner. I would imagine as she came forward Weiner's legal adviser must have said, "Dude. Just get out there and get it over with already." Somewhere a fat lady was singing.
See, when it was a story told by conservative social media, then it was a lie, or at best, questionable. But once a dinosaur alphabet network verified the story, then it was legit.
Weiner came out after waiting for Breitbart to finish - delicious enough - and launched into his story. He wiped away a few tears and took out a hankie for good measure. He said he took full responsibility numerous times. And, after being coaxed several times by reporters, he even apologized to Andrew Breitbart. By name.
Weiner claims he did nothing illegal. He doesn't appear to be too concerned about the breach of ethics that involves lying and misuse of federal property. A different woman has come forward and claims Weiner had phone sex with her as he used a telephone in his Congressional office. That would be federal property. He said it was his personal cell phone that was used in the Twitter photos. That will remain to be seen.
Minority Leader Pelosi has called for a House Ethics Committee investigation into the whole thing.
Weiner claims he didn't violate his oath of office - to uphold the Constitution - and is not resigning. That's because he is a Democrat. Just last year, a Republican congressman, also from New York, resigned immediately after cell phone photos of himself shirtless surfaced. To here the House Democrats at that time, you would have thought the Congressman was the biggest pervert that ever walked the earth.
That was then. This is now. That was a Republican. This is a Democrat.
The icky factor magnifies as we get an unobstructed view of how Democrats treat women. Weiner said he wasn't sure how old these women are, during questioning. That would be a problem if they were underage, now wouldn't it, in the real world? He said his wife knew of his sleazy behavior before the marriage but she married him anyway. Then he orginally denied knowing the Washington college student at all and that someone hacked his Twitter account - maybe implying she had something to do with it. And the so-called feminists on the left side of the political aisle? They were so very quick to jump to Weiner's defense from the very beginning. It's sick.
Instead of resigning and letting the story die quickly, Weiner is hanging on. The Democrats will have to deal with the ethics investigation and that narrative instead of the policy messages they are desperately trying to have heard. Weiner is an arrogant and ego-driven man. It has brought him down and time will not be his friend.
Karma. It's a bitch.
Mercifully, Weiner's new wife was not present. Is there anything worse that a woman standing beside her sleazy politician husband as he airs their personal life to everyone who will listen? What kind of medication does one take to be able to stand there with a non-expressive face and suffer that embarrassment?
Here's the thing - Weiner not only confessed to this tawdry escapade, he confessed to having a total of six women he virtually sexualized. He said some were up to three years ago but some more recently. It should be noted that Weiner and the wife have only been married since this past Spring.
And then the saddest tidbit of it all - Weiner said he told his wife of his fondness of virtual sex but that they talked it out and proceeded with the marriage. So, to repay her trust in him that he would improve his behavior, he continued his photographic hobby. What a guy.
The press conference had a little of everything in it. First, there was the guest appearance of Andrew Breitbart, the fearless fledgling conservative media mogul who put the initial story out there last week and Weiner decided to try and ruin over it. Breitbart was in town for a book tour, he said, and showed up at the press conference to hear the story. He also spoke about the latest woman to come forward with sorted photos and story about herself and Weiner. This woman, verified through an interview earlier in the afternoon by ABC News, must have been the final straw for Camp Weiner. I would imagine as she came forward Weiner's legal adviser must have said, "Dude. Just get out there and get it over with already." Somewhere a fat lady was singing.
See, when it was a story told by conservative social media, then it was a lie, or at best, questionable. But once a dinosaur alphabet network verified the story, then it was legit.
Weiner came out after waiting for Breitbart to finish - delicious enough - and launched into his story. He wiped away a few tears and took out a hankie for good measure. He said he took full responsibility numerous times. And, after being coaxed several times by reporters, he even apologized to Andrew Breitbart. By name.
Weiner claims he did nothing illegal. He doesn't appear to be too concerned about the breach of ethics that involves lying and misuse of federal property. A different woman has come forward and claims Weiner had phone sex with her as he used a telephone in his Congressional office. That would be federal property. He said it was his personal cell phone that was used in the Twitter photos. That will remain to be seen.
Minority Leader Pelosi has called for a House Ethics Committee investigation into the whole thing.
Weiner claims he didn't violate his oath of office - to uphold the Constitution - and is not resigning. That's because he is a Democrat. Just last year, a Republican congressman, also from New York, resigned immediately after cell phone photos of himself shirtless surfaced. To here the House Democrats at that time, you would have thought the Congressman was the biggest pervert that ever walked the earth.
That was then. This is now. That was a Republican. This is a Democrat.
The icky factor magnifies as we get an unobstructed view of how Democrats treat women. Weiner said he wasn't sure how old these women are, during questioning. That would be a problem if they were underage, now wouldn't it, in the real world? He said his wife knew of his sleazy behavior before the marriage but she married him anyway. Then he orginally denied knowing the Washington college student at all and that someone hacked his Twitter account - maybe implying she had something to do with it. And the so-called feminists on the left side of the political aisle? They were so very quick to jump to Weiner's defense from the very beginning. It's sick.
Instead of resigning and letting the story die quickly, Weiner is hanging on. The Democrats will have to deal with the ethics investigation and that narrative instead of the policy messages they are desperately trying to have heard. Weiner is an arrogant and ego-driven man. It has brought him down and time will not be his friend.
Karma. It's a bitch.
Monday, June 06, 2011
Some Thoughts on Weinergate
Just when you think the air in Washington can get no more polluted, along comes a fresh sex scandal. And, this time it's a Democrat. A Democrat who wanted to be mayor of New York City, no less.
Representative Anthony Weiner claims that the photo sent to a college student in Washington state may or may not be his private parts and may or may not have come from his cell phone. He also claims his Twitter account, from where the photo sprang, was hacked.
He went on to tell reporters that he couldn't say "with certitude" that the private area in question was his or not.
Does the man have so many photos on file of his junk that he doesn't keep track of them? Wouldn't a guy know if a photo was taken, especially by someone else? Is it just a common occurrence for the man? No big deal?
Here is a quite amusing and very logical column on Weinergate. It is particularly because Carl Hiaasen is no conservative.
Here's the thing, I'm of the opinion that Representative Anthony Weiner is guilty. I don't for a minute believe the whole hacked account story. Maybe that's just me.
Weiner has the reputation of that of an attack dog. He is nasty and takes no prisoners in debating the opposition. The Democrats like to point to him as one of their intellectuals. He also was a bachelor until earlier this year when he married a beautiful young woman, an long time aide to Hillary Clinton. There's some irony, right?
Weiner boasts of the number of followers he has on social media - like Twitter. He even was so bold as to berate Rep Michele Bachmann as he was battling questions from reporters about his naughty photo. He's just a classless, tacky guy. And, apparently, a misogynist. You'd think such a savvy, smart guy who is now 47 years old would have better things to do than show his stuff to a college student half his age.
As an interesting little tidbit that has now re-surfaced, back in 2008 Weiner introduced a bill to allow visas for 1,000 foreign super models. Well, the man does like the ladies.
A New York congressman has introduced a bill that would create 1,000 new visa slots for foreign fashion models. Democrat Anthony Weiner said the measure would boost New York's fashion industry.
"From Fashion Week to our vibrant publishing industry to the many designers that call New York City home, fashion is a vital part of our economy that drives thousands of jobs," Weiner told the New York Daily News.
Overseas models currently compete for so-called H-1B visas, which are intended for highly skilled foreigners who may be computer experts or doctors. The models have not done well, with only 349 slots going to models out of the 85,000 available, the New York Post reported.
New York's tabloid newspapers said Weiner, 43, is currently dating Huma Abedin, a Hillary Clinton aide who has posed for Vogue magazine.
Ms. Abedin, a Muslim, must be mortified. She married a putz. Maybe Hillary can give her some guidance on handling the publicity.
Weiner didn't notify the FBI, as is the next step if a Congressman is attacked by a hacker. The only time he has bothered to call the police is when a reporter went to his office to ask questions. That's right. He called the police on a reporter who went into his taxpayer funded office but not about the scandal.
Something is just not right here if he is so totally innocent. Plus there is the porn star who came forward to say Weiner sent a private message to her on Twitter.
Weiner is a publicist's nightmare. Last week he wouldn't stop talking about his innocence and the hack attack. Then he ridiculed and lambasted, on tape, reporters who finally decided to ask a few questions. The press was slow on this since it was a member of their own political party. Had Weiner been a Republican, they would be asking about resignation in the first questions.
Yes, the double standard coming from the press was evident once again. They don't even bother to disguise it anymore.
Now we wait and watch as Weiner moves forward. He will surely remain in his seat and continue to deny any wrongdoing. But, the step up to mayor of NYC? That dream is gone.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Representative Anthony Weiner claims that the photo sent to a college student in Washington state may or may not be his private parts and may or may not have come from his cell phone. He also claims his Twitter account, from where the photo sprang, was hacked.
He went on to tell reporters that he couldn't say "with certitude" that the private area in question was his or not.
Does the man have so many photos on file of his junk that he doesn't keep track of them? Wouldn't a guy know if a photo was taken, especially by someone else? Is it just a common occurrence for the man? No big deal?
Here is a quite amusing and very logical column on Weinergate. It is particularly because Carl Hiaasen is no conservative.
Here's the thing, I'm of the opinion that Representative Anthony Weiner is guilty. I don't for a minute believe the whole hacked account story. Maybe that's just me.
Weiner has the reputation of that of an attack dog. He is nasty and takes no prisoners in debating the opposition. The Democrats like to point to him as one of their intellectuals. He also was a bachelor until earlier this year when he married a beautiful young woman, an long time aide to Hillary Clinton. There's some irony, right?
Weiner boasts of the number of followers he has on social media - like Twitter. He even was so bold as to berate Rep Michele Bachmann as he was battling questions from reporters about his naughty photo. He's just a classless, tacky guy. And, apparently, a misogynist. You'd think such a savvy, smart guy who is now 47 years old would have better things to do than show his stuff to a college student half his age.
As an interesting little tidbit that has now re-surfaced, back in 2008 Weiner introduced a bill to allow visas for 1,000 foreign super models. Well, the man does like the ladies.
A New York congressman has introduced a bill that would create 1,000 new visa slots for foreign fashion models. Democrat Anthony Weiner said the measure would boost New York's fashion industry.
"From Fashion Week to our vibrant publishing industry to the many designers that call New York City home, fashion is a vital part of our economy that drives thousands of jobs," Weiner told the New York Daily News.
Overseas models currently compete for so-called H-1B visas, which are intended for highly skilled foreigners who may be computer experts or doctors. The models have not done well, with only 349 slots going to models out of the 85,000 available, the New York Post reported.
New York's tabloid newspapers said Weiner, 43, is currently dating Huma Abedin, a Hillary Clinton aide who has posed for Vogue magazine.
Ms. Abedin, a Muslim, must be mortified. She married a putz. Maybe Hillary can give her some guidance on handling the publicity.
Weiner didn't notify the FBI, as is the next step if a Congressman is attacked by a hacker. The only time he has bothered to call the police is when a reporter went to his office to ask questions. That's right. He called the police on a reporter who went into his taxpayer funded office but not about the scandal.
Something is just not right here if he is so totally innocent. Plus there is the porn star who came forward to say Weiner sent a private message to her on Twitter.
Weiner is a publicist's nightmare. Last week he wouldn't stop talking about his innocence and the hack attack. Then he ridiculed and lambasted, on tape, reporters who finally decided to ask a few questions. The press was slow on this since it was a member of their own political party. Had Weiner been a Republican, they would be asking about resignation in the first questions.
Yes, the double standard coming from the press was evident once again. They don't even bother to disguise it anymore.
Now we wait and watch as Weiner moves forward. He will surely remain in his seat and continue to deny any wrongdoing. But, the step up to mayor of NYC? That dream is gone.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Food Pyramid Morphs Into $2 Million Plate
Last week, President Obama went to Ohio to distract from the dismal economic reports of the week. He went on the premise of highlighting the success of the auto bail-outs. While he was in town, he mentioned he enjoyed two chili hot dogs with onions. And French fries.
Innocent enough for most Presidents. This President, however, is married to the First Lady who has determined that her premiere issue will be childhood nutrition. She wants to use her megaphone to bring awareness to the growing childhood obesity epidemic.
Both are guilty of indulging in the kinds of foods everyone enjoys but they do so in public. Again, not a big deal for regular mortals but for them it is pointing to a disconnect. If Michelle Obama is trying to educate families and children on healthy eating, shouldn't the First Couple do so publicly? Shouldn't they show that it can be done with a bit of effort?
Under Michelle Obama's watch, the USDA revamped the food pyramid - tossing it aside - and has replaced that with a plate design to show the recommended food distribution of a healthy diet. And, it came with a price tag of $2 million.
U.S.D.A. Spent approximately $2 million to develop and promote the new logo to replace the food pyramid. The campaign is being used to convey several health messages such as eating smaller portions, drinking water over sugary drinks, minimizing salt intake and switching to low-fat or fat-free milk.
Are you a viewer of Jamie Oliver's television program? The one where he is re-educating American public school systems on proper nutrition and showing ways of preparing healthy school lunches for students that they will actually eat? Well, he is currently shown in Los Angeles and what is his number one biggest obstacle to healthy reform? The cafeteria workers union. Yep. Union workers are protected over school children by the Los Angeles school board.
Now, let's see. Who was a driving force in the election of Barack Obama? Unions. Couldn't Michelle Obama, if she is so committed to nutrition reform efforts, look into the road blocks here? Instead of demanding restaurants serve smaller portions and healthier foods, maybe she could focus on her own initiatives closer to the true problems.
Innocent enough for most Presidents. This President, however, is married to the First Lady who has determined that her premiere issue will be childhood nutrition. She wants to use her megaphone to bring awareness to the growing childhood obesity epidemic.
Both are guilty of indulging in the kinds of foods everyone enjoys but they do so in public. Again, not a big deal for regular mortals but for them it is pointing to a disconnect. If Michelle Obama is trying to educate families and children on healthy eating, shouldn't the First Couple do so publicly? Shouldn't they show that it can be done with a bit of effort?
Under Michelle Obama's watch, the USDA revamped the food pyramid - tossing it aside - and has replaced that with a plate design to show the recommended food distribution of a healthy diet. And, it came with a price tag of $2 million.
U.S.D.A. Spent approximately $2 million to develop and promote the new logo to replace the food pyramid. The campaign is being used to convey several health messages such as eating smaller portions, drinking water over sugary drinks, minimizing salt intake and switching to low-fat or fat-free milk.
Are you a viewer of Jamie Oliver's television program? The one where he is re-educating American public school systems on proper nutrition and showing ways of preparing healthy school lunches for students that they will actually eat? Well, he is currently shown in Los Angeles and what is his number one biggest obstacle to healthy reform? The cafeteria workers union. Yep. Union workers are protected over school children by the Los Angeles school board.
Now, let's see. Who was a driving force in the election of Barack Obama? Unions. Couldn't Michelle Obama, if she is so committed to nutrition reform efforts, look into the road blocks here? Instead of demanding restaurants serve smaller portions and healthier foods, maybe she could focus on her own initiatives closer to the true problems.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
FLOTUS Fashion Faux Pas in Europe
First Lady Michelle Obama enjoys the adoration of the Washington fashion police and frankly, it is something that has been lost on me. The fact that she used to shop at Target and J. Crew and other retail outlets doesn't seem praiseworthy to me, it's just normal.
This photo is from the recent vacation to Europe with her husband, President Obama, on the story line that they were there to attend the G8 summit. This was not their first meeting with the Queen of England and you would think that Mrs. Obama would have picked up on a few clues along the way. Not only was she the only woman that was not wearing a hat - ok, she's an ignorant American - but she wore a skirt that flew up in the wind, exposing her undergarment.
Seriously?
What if Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton had been caught like that? Both of them were taunted in the press for lack of style in clothing yet neither had this kind of moment on the international stage. And, the press would have plastered the picture everywhere, above the fold. No such worries for my belle, Michelle.
With her newly filled bank accounts, it would seem to me that Michelle Obama could well afford a decent stylist who could let her know when it's windy outside, and to help her dress accordingly.
The GOP Candidate Pool Settles In for a Race
While the popular banter within the press is whether or not Sarah Palin will jump in and run for President - she won't - I think Republicans, Tea Party conservatives and Independents all must settle down and stop the nonsense.
If I may make a suggestion - stop waiting for Godot. There is no Godot this time around. The field is set. Get over yourselves and start paying attention to those entering the race now. Start doing your own research and figure out who will earn your vote in the primary election.
There is plenty of time. It is going to be a long summer and the continuing news of our economic recovery is still quite dismal for Team Obama. There is a real possibility of making Obama a one-term President. Other than killing bin Laden, not much is going well for Barack Obama.
A friend of mine summers in New Hampshire. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? She is very active in Republican politics here in Houston and also there. Today I received an e-mail from her with her impressions so far of the Republican candidates. She has spoken with and attended gatherings with several of them so far this summer.
The first she wrote of was Newt Gingrich. Like me, she has come to the conclusion that his time has come and gone. He is still the smartest guy in the room but he is too cagey these days with not answering the questions he chooses to ignore and he doesn't inspire much enthusiasm.
The next was Jon Huntsman. She views him as the Dark Horse in the race. Sitting next to his wife at an event, she was impressed. "Strong speaker, articulates well, will hold his own in a debate and is extremely personable. He is broad-based in background: businessman, ex-governor, understands the value of a good foreign policy to set the U.S. apart from other countries." I remember when Huntsman was nominated to be Ambassador to China. I wrote at the time that this would round out all his other qualifications by getting the foreign policy experience and that Obama did it in hopes of squelching competition from him in 2012. I love that it is going to backfire on Team Obama. Huntsman will be real competition for Obama to worry about.
My friend has heard Tim Pawlenty speak in the past and looks forward to hearing him this summer. Many of her friends there are saying good things about him. They like that he is coming out swinging.
And last, Herman Cain. She heard Cain quite recently in Austin and knows he is impressive in his speeches. She, like me, however, is yet to be convinced of his foreign policy chops. You may remember recently during an interview on Fox News Cain didn't know what "right of return" was when questioned about it. That's a problem for me.
I am attending Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans later this month and am really looking forward to hearing from all the candidates.
If I may make a suggestion - stop waiting for Godot. There is no Godot this time around. The field is set. Get over yourselves and start paying attention to those entering the race now. Start doing your own research and figure out who will earn your vote in the primary election.
There is plenty of time. It is going to be a long summer and the continuing news of our economic recovery is still quite dismal for Team Obama. There is a real possibility of making Obama a one-term President. Other than killing bin Laden, not much is going well for Barack Obama.
A friend of mine summers in New Hampshire. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? She is very active in Republican politics here in Houston and also there. Today I received an e-mail from her with her impressions so far of the Republican candidates. She has spoken with and attended gatherings with several of them so far this summer.
The first she wrote of was Newt Gingrich. Like me, she has come to the conclusion that his time has come and gone. He is still the smartest guy in the room but he is too cagey these days with not answering the questions he chooses to ignore and he doesn't inspire much enthusiasm.
The next was Jon Huntsman. She views him as the Dark Horse in the race. Sitting next to his wife at an event, she was impressed. "Strong speaker, articulates well, will hold his own in a debate and is extremely personable. He is broad-based in background: businessman, ex-governor, understands the value of a good foreign policy to set the U.S. apart from other countries." I remember when Huntsman was nominated to be Ambassador to China. I wrote at the time that this would round out all his other qualifications by getting the foreign policy experience and that Obama did it in hopes of squelching competition from him in 2012. I love that it is going to backfire on Team Obama. Huntsman will be real competition for Obama to worry about.
My friend has heard Tim Pawlenty speak in the past and looks forward to hearing him this summer. Many of her friends there are saying good things about him. They like that he is coming out swinging.
And last, Herman Cain. She heard Cain quite recently in Austin and knows he is impressive in his speeches. She, like me, however, is yet to be convinced of his foreign policy chops. You may remember recently during an interview on Fox News Cain didn't know what "right of return" was when questioned about it. That's a problem for me.
I am attending Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans later this month and am really looking forward to hearing from all the candidates.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Friday, June 03, 2011
Obama Dances Around Dismal Economic Reports
The economic numbers have been dismal, to say the least, this week and what is the message from President Obama and the Democrats? Spend more. Yes, the very definition of insanity - keep doing what you are doing though what you are doing is failing - that is what the President wants to do.
President Obama traveled to Ohio (swing state) to tout the so-called success of the auto industry bail-out at a Chrysler plant. There he tried to make the case for more spending on infrastructure.
He's in re-election campaign mode and he sure does want to count on Ohio. The numbers Friday he was trying to spin went something like this:
The May employment report: Expected 150,000 jobs & 8.9% unemployment rate.
Actual 54,000 jobs created & 9.1% unemployment rate.
Non farm payrolls are at the weakest levels since September 2010.
The March and April jobs reports were revised down by 39,000.
Is all of this winning the future?
Democrats responded by stating it's just a bump in the road. Republicans responded by saying we must change course on the economic decisions being made in Washington. Both sides continue to talk past each other.
The fact is, this is the recovery that President Obama is quite comfortable with, as he continues to say. He tells us we are chugging right along. Then he says taxes must go up and spending must continue. The man simply has a very different way of looking at economics than Republicans. He believes in big government solutions and shows contempt for business - especially successful business.
The Democrats are fond of spouting off that up to 2 million jobs have been created since Obama took office. The Labor Department, however, concludes that there is a 2 1/2 million net loss of jobs. And, the Labor Department got out in front of the standard finger pointing from Democrats that it was bad weather and other unusual circumstances that moved the employment numbers the wrong way - they deny that as a factor.
The back and forth between the two parties in Washington has continued all week, as various reports have been presented.
The weak jobs numbers prompted a spate of press conferences and press releases in Washington. The Republicans blamed excessive federal spending, lack of progress on reforming entitlements, and the high federal debt levels.
“Instead of more stimulus, more debt, more regulations, and yes, more taxes, the President needs to take a cue from the Reagan recovery and get Washington out of the way of our job creators," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R) of Texas, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, in an announcement.
At the same time, Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, called the numbers a bump in the road, noting it’s important not to read too much into one monthly report. “The overall trajectory of the economy has improved dramatically over the past two years,” he said in a statement.
The stock market isn't lovin' it, either.
U.S. stocks extended a fifth straight weekly drop, the longest slump for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 2004, as slower-than-estimated growth in jobs fueled concern that earnings forecasts are too optimistic.
So, the President flew off to Ohio to act as though everything is going as planned, just maybe a little slower than he'd like.
The president is often very selective in his citation of figures, accentuating the positive wherever possible.
President Obama’s comments today made no specific mention of the disappointing jobs report or the fact that the unemployment rate ticked upward.
Instead the president focused on signs of life in the auto industry, while saying: “I don’t want to pretend like everything is solved. We’ve still got a long way to go not just in this industry, but in our economy; for all our friends, all our neighbors who are still feeling the sting of recession. …Even though the economy is growing, even though it’s created more than 2 million jobs over the past 15 months, we still face some tough times. We still face some challenges.”
While House officials claimed that there was no change in the president’s general message. And it’s true that the president generally has the same talking points about how things are getting better though we’re not out of the woods yet, and there are ups and downs.
But when the jobs numbers are good, the president likes to acknowledge them, and tell people the number.
The numbers this week just haven't been so convenient for the President's stump speeches.
President Obama traveled to Ohio (swing state) to tout the so-called success of the auto industry bail-out at a Chrysler plant. There he tried to make the case for more spending on infrastructure.
He's in re-election campaign mode and he sure does want to count on Ohio. The numbers Friday he was trying to spin went something like this:
The May employment report: Expected 150,000 jobs & 8.9% unemployment rate.
Actual 54,000 jobs created & 9.1% unemployment rate.
Non farm payrolls are at the weakest levels since September 2010.
The March and April jobs reports were revised down by 39,000.
Is all of this winning the future?
Democrats responded by stating it's just a bump in the road. Republicans responded by saying we must change course on the economic decisions being made in Washington. Both sides continue to talk past each other.
The fact is, this is the recovery that President Obama is quite comfortable with, as he continues to say. He tells us we are chugging right along. Then he says taxes must go up and spending must continue. The man simply has a very different way of looking at economics than Republicans. He believes in big government solutions and shows contempt for business - especially successful business.
The Democrats are fond of spouting off that up to 2 million jobs have been created since Obama took office. The Labor Department, however, concludes that there is a 2 1/2 million net loss of jobs. And, the Labor Department got out in front of the standard finger pointing from Democrats that it was bad weather and other unusual circumstances that moved the employment numbers the wrong way - they deny that as a factor.
The back and forth between the two parties in Washington has continued all week, as various reports have been presented.
The weak jobs numbers prompted a spate of press conferences and press releases in Washington. The Republicans blamed excessive federal spending, lack of progress on reforming entitlements, and the high federal debt levels.
“Instead of more stimulus, more debt, more regulations, and yes, more taxes, the President needs to take a cue from the Reagan recovery and get Washington out of the way of our job creators," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R) of Texas, the top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, in an announcement.
At the same time, Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, called the numbers a bump in the road, noting it’s important not to read too much into one monthly report. “The overall trajectory of the economy has improved dramatically over the past two years,” he said in a statement.
The stock market isn't lovin' it, either.
U.S. stocks extended a fifth straight weekly drop, the longest slump for the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 2004, as slower-than-estimated growth in jobs fueled concern that earnings forecasts are too optimistic.
So, the President flew off to Ohio to act as though everything is going as planned, just maybe a little slower than he'd like.
The president is often very selective in his citation of figures, accentuating the positive wherever possible.
President Obama’s comments today made no specific mention of the disappointing jobs report or the fact that the unemployment rate ticked upward.
Instead the president focused on signs of life in the auto industry, while saying: “I don’t want to pretend like everything is solved. We’ve still got a long way to go not just in this industry, but in our economy; for all our friends, all our neighbors who are still feeling the sting of recession. …Even though the economy is growing, even though it’s created more than 2 million jobs over the past 15 months, we still face some tough times. We still face some challenges.”
While House officials claimed that there was no change in the president’s general message. And it’s true that the president generally has the same talking points about how things are getting better though we’re not out of the woods yet, and there are ups and downs.
But when the jobs numbers are good, the president likes to acknowledge them, and tell people the number.
The numbers this week just haven't been so convenient for the President's stump speeches.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate Receives Major Endorsements
Thursday was a very big day for the Ted Cruz for Senate campaign in Texas. Three nationally known endorsements were announced.
Club for Growth:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/pr/?postID=929
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/endorsedcandidates/?id=927
FreedomWorks
http://www.tedcruz.org/post/2011/06/02/FreedomWorks-FreedomWorks-PAC-Ted-Cruz.aspx
RedState.com
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/06/02/ted-cruz-for-senate-in-texas/
All point to the ability of Cruz to maintain a consistent message of fiscal conservatism as well as states rights when push comes to shove against the intrusions of the federal government.
The race continues.
Club for Growth:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/pr/?postID=929
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/endorsedcandidates/?id=927
FreedomWorks
http://www.tedcruz.org/post/2011/06/02/FreedomWorks-FreedomWorks-PAC-Ted-Cruz.aspx
RedState.com
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/06/02/ted-cruz-for-senate-in-texas/
All point to the ability of Cruz to maintain a consistent message of fiscal conservatism as well as states rights when push comes to shove against the intrusions of the federal government.
The race continues.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
House GOP Meet with Obama on Debt Ceiling
This piece written by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal describes the game plan for Team Obama in this re-election campaign season:
If Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling's presentation at the summit was indicative of White House strategy, then we're in trouble. Because that strategy comes down to windy and manipulative statements about how "we're all in this together" but GOP proposals "will lead to millions of children . . . losing their coverage." He added: "We are not criticizing their plan, we are explaining it."
It is a long time since I've seen such transparent demagoguery, such determined dodging. It's obvious the White House political plan for 2012 is this: The Democrats will call for fiscal discipline and offer no specifics or good-faith starting points. They will leave the Republicans to be specific, and then let them be hanged with their candor. Democrats will speak not of what they'll do but only of what they would never do, such as throw grandma out in the snow. In honeyed tones, Mr. Sperling said both parties should "hold hands and jump together," like Butch and Sundance. But it was clear Sundance was going to stop at the edge of the cliff and hope Butch gets broken on the rocks.
She was writing about the Mediscare campaign against the GOP plan - the Ryan plan - that the Democrats thinks will serve them well in 2012. Team Obama is good at talking the talk of working together and acknowledging economic problems, they just don't actually want to do anything about them.
Wednesday, the President invited the House Republicans to the White House for a "listening session" with them about the economic recovery that is not happening in our country and the prospect of handling the debt ceiling vote. A symbolic vote on raising the debt ceiling was held in the House on Tuesday afternoon and failed to pass. The vote was 318 - 97, so it is evident there is a group of Democrats not comfortable with simply raising the debt ceiling without agreement on budget cuts.
The vote on the debt ceiling was symbolic, to be sure, but it was important. It was a "clean bill" - one without amendments - and that is what the Democrats, including President Obama, were calling for. Then, as the GOP stood together and announced there would be no passing of an increase to the debt ceiling if substantial cuts were not agreed upon, the Democrats decided to do what they always do - they called it a stunt. In fact, it gives each member a chance to put on the record what each of their positions are on the matter. It is a tactic used by both parties - the Democrats used it most recently for the Obamacare votes.
It's called gotcha politics.
After the GOP House members exited the meeting with the President, Speaker Boehner generously described the meeting as "productive". He said he repeated a message to the President that he delivered before - "This is the moment. This is the window of opportunity". He wants the President to understand that the GOP House members are serious on finding solutions to runaway national debt that is unsustainable.
Brit Hume said on Fox News that the Democrats are behaving "remarkably cynical" on the issue of raising the debt ceiling. A long time political reporter, Hume has seen it all, so this description is noteworthy. He reminded the viewer that the Democrats have not passed a budget in two years and that is a legal requirement. He asked the question that if it was the GOP who were neglecting their sworn duty, would the media be so willing to let the matter go without question?
Other members exiting the meeting expressed caution about President Obama's willingness to do what needs to be done. Obama is said to have parroted the standard response that "investments" must be made in the economy. That word, investment, is code for spending. He punted to say that Vice President Biden would re-start talks with the two parties on June 9.
If Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling's presentation at the summit was indicative of White House strategy, then we're in trouble. Because that strategy comes down to windy and manipulative statements about how "we're all in this together" but GOP proposals "will lead to millions of children . . . losing their coverage." He added: "We are not criticizing their plan, we are explaining it."
It is a long time since I've seen such transparent demagoguery, such determined dodging. It's obvious the White House political plan for 2012 is this: The Democrats will call for fiscal discipline and offer no specifics or good-faith starting points. They will leave the Republicans to be specific, and then let them be hanged with their candor. Democrats will speak not of what they'll do but only of what they would never do, such as throw grandma out in the snow. In honeyed tones, Mr. Sperling said both parties should "hold hands and jump together," like Butch and Sundance. But it was clear Sundance was going to stop at the edge of the cliff and hope Butch gets broken on the rocks.
She was writing about the Mediscare campaign against the GOP plan - the Ryan plan - that the Democrats thinks will serve them well in 2012. Team Obama is good at talking the talk of working together and acknowledging economic problems, they just don't actually want to do anything about them.
Wednesday, the President invited the House Republicans to the White House for a "listening session" with them about the economic recovery that is not happening in our country and the prospect of handling the debt ceiling vote. A symbolic vote on raising the debt ceiling was held in the House on Tuesday afternoon and failed to pass. The vote was 318 - 97, so it is evident there is a group of Democrats not comfortable with simply raising the debt ceiling without agreement on budget cuts.
The vote on the debt ceiling was symbolic, to be sure, but it was important. It was a "clean bill" - one without amendments - and that is what the Democrats, including President Obama, were calling for. Then, as the GOP stood together and announced there would be no passing of an increase to the debt ceiling if substantial cuts were not agreed upon, the Democrats decided to do what they always do - they called it a stunt. In fact, it gives each member a chance to put on the record what each of their positions are on the matter. It is a tactic used by both parties - the Democrats used it most recently for the Obamacare votes.
It's called gotcha politics.
After the GOP House members exited the meeting with the President, Speaker Boehner generously described the meeting as "productive". He said he repeated a message to the President that he delivered before - "This is the moment. This is the window of opportunity". He wants the President to understand that the GOP House members are serious on finding solutions to runaway national debt that is unsustainable.
Brit Hume said on Fox News that the Democrats are behaving "remarkably cynical" on the issue of raising the debt ceiling. A long time political reporter, Hume has seen it all, so this description is noteworthy. He reminded the viewer that the Democrats have not passed a budget in two years and that is a legal requirement. He asked the question that if it was the GOP who were neglecting their sworn duty, would the media be so willing to let the matter go without question?
Other members exiting the meeting expressed caution about President Obama's willingness to do what needs to be done. Obama is said to have parroted the standard response that "investments" must be made in the economy. That word, investment, is code for spending. He punted to say that Vice President Biden would re-start talks with the two parties on June 9.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Perry Gives Legislative Update
Governor Perry embraces new media. He is savvy enough to realize that bloggers can get his message out as well as traditional media outlets, in most instances. Tuesday afternoon he held a conference call with bloggers.
One glitch in the call was the oversight of a blogger to mute his/her phone. The Governor had to stop and ask that it be muted because of all the noise in the background. I kept thinking - Really? Someone didn't hit the mute button? The Governor took it in stride and handled it gracefully. Stuff happens.
He spoke of his accomplishments taken during the session of the state legislature that is now in Special Session. The top of the list was his resolve in not raiding the Rainy Day Fund for fiscal year 2012-2013. He said it is more responsible to save that fund for emergencies like natural disasters and not for recurring expenses. He used the example of the wild fires in the Amarillo area that ignited over the Memorial Day weekend.
Governor Perry is pleased with the stronger eminent domain law in Texas.
He is proud of the sonogram bill he signed into law.
Perry pointed to the bill referred to as the 'loser pays bill' that will further boost the reputation - already high - that Texas is an employer friendly atmosphere. The bill will cut frivolous law suits, much like the medical tort reform did for frivolous medical lawsuits. He said the long term results would include employers being able to spend money on new hires and equipment instead of attorney fees. Texas will remain the most friendly state for new business and family relocation.
Most of the questions the Governor took were from Texas bloggers but one from Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post spoke to his national exposure. She asked about his decision making process for a potential presidential run. He answered that he isn't talking about that during the legislative session, including the Special Session.
On the issue of re-districting, which is not written in his proclamation calling for the Special Session, he said, "stay tuned". He implied it may be added to the call before the legislature is allowed to go home.
Governor Perry stated that he intends to keep a close handle on the agenda for the session. Though everyone has preferences in legislation that were not passed, he said he is grateful for the Founders who put a limit on the amount of time that the legislature is in session.
Perry closed with, "Onward and upward. God Bless America and God Bless Texas."
One glitch in the call was the oversight of a blogger to mute his/her phone. The Governor had to stop and ask that it be muted because of all the noise in the background. I kept thinking - Really? Someone didn't hit the mute button? The Governor took it in stride and handled it gracefully. Stuff happens.
He spoke of his accomplishments taken during the session of the state legislature that is now in Special Session. The top of the list was his resolve in not raiding the Rainy Day Fund for fiscal year 2012-2013. He said it is more responsible to save that fund for emergencies like natural disasters and not for recurring expenses. He used the example of the wild fires in the Amarillo area that ignited over the Memorial Day weekend.
Governor Perry is pleased with the stronger eminent domain law in Texas.
He is proud of the sonogram bill he signed into law.
Perry pointed to the bill referred to as the 'loser pays bill' that will further boost the reputation - already high - that Texas is an employer friendly atmosphere. The bill will cut frivolous law suits, much like the medical tort reform did for frivolous medical lawsuits. He said the long term results would include employers being able to spend money on new hires and equipment instead of attorney fees. Texas will remain the most friendly state for new business and family relocation.
Most of the questions the Governor took were from Texas bloggers but one from Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post spoke to his national exposure. She asked about his decision making process for a potential presidential run. He answered that he isn't talking about that during the legislative session, including the Special Session.
On the issue of re-districting, which is not written in his proclamation calling for the Special Session, he said, "stay tuned". He implied it may be added to the call before the legislature is allowed to go home.
Governor Perry stated that he intends to keep a close handle on the agenda for the session. Though everyone has preferences in legislation that were not passed, he said he is grateful for the Founders who put a limit on the amount of time that the legislature is in session.
Perry closed with, "Onward and upward. God Bless America and God Bless Texas."
Monday, May 30, 2011
Tx Legislature Goes Into Special Session
Texans, we have a Special Session. The state legislature, as predicted, failed to finish the peoples' business so they will begin again tomorrow in a Special Session.
Lt. Governor Dewhurst sent a list of bills deemed important and asking that they be included.
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst sent the following letter to Governor Rick Perry regarding the Special Session that is expected to begin tomorrow:
Dear Governor Perry,
Unfortunately, despite the very hard work and determination of the majority of Members of both the House and Senate, the Legislature was unable to pass a number of important bills, including SB 1811 needed to fund the budget, before the deadline of midnight last night.
Still, there is still an outside possibility that SB 1811 could pass the Texas Senate today with the bipartisan support of four-fifths of the Members. However, if this vote should fail − forcing us into Special Session − I believe that it would be in the best interest of all Texans to start tomorrow and ask you to consider including the following bills in your call:
SB 1811 - Relating to certain state fiscal matters and making necessary appropriations; providing penalties;
SB 8 - Relating to improving the quality and efficiency of health care;
SB 23 - Relating to the administration of reforms, efficiency, cost-saving, fraud prevention, and funding measures for certain health and human services and health benefits programs;
HB 5 - Relating to establishing an Interstate Health Care Compact;
HB 12 - Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities;
HB 272 - Relating to the operation of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and to the resolution of certain disputes concerning claims made to that association;
SB 12/HB400 - Relating to the flexibility of the Board of Trustees of a school district in the management and operation of public schools in the district and the flexibility for public schools to administer primary and secondary education efficiently;
HB 1937 - Relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation; and
HB 900/SB 308 - Relating to the composition of the congressional districts for the State of Texas.
So, that's the latest from Austin.
Lt. Governor Dewhurst sent a list of bills deemed important and asking that they be included.
Lt. Governor David Dewhurst sent the following letter to Governor Rick Perry regarding the Special Session that is expected to begin tomorrow:
Dear Governor Perry,
Unfortunately, despite the very hard work and determination of the majority of Members of both the House and Senate, the Legislature was unable to pass a number of important bills, including SB 1811 needed to fund the budget, before the deadline of midnight last night.
Still, there is still an outside possibility that SB 1811 could pass the Texas Senate today with the bipartisan support of four-fifths of the Members. However, if this vote should fail − forcing us into Special Session − I believe that it would be in the best interest of all Texans to start tomorrow and ask you to consider including the following bills in your call:
SB 1811 - Relating to certain state fiscal matters and making necessary appropriations; providing penalties;
SB 8 - Relating to improving the quality and efficiency of health care;
SB 23 - Relating to the administration of reforms, efficiency, cost-saving, fraud prevention, and funding measures for certain health and human services and health benefits programs;
HB 5 - Relating to establishing an Interstate Health Care Compact;
HB 12 - Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities;
HB 272 - Relating to the operation of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and to the resolution of certain disputes concerning claims made to that association;
SB 12/HB400 - Relating to the flexibility of the Board of Trustees of a school district in the management and operation of public schools in the district and the flexibility for public schools to administer primary and secondary education efficiently;
HB 1937 - Relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression by the intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation; and
HB 900/SB 308 - Relating to the composition of the congressional districts for the State of Texas.
So, that's the latest from Austin.
TPPF Calls for Health Care Compact in Special Session
Monday, at the end of the Texas legislative session (Sine Die) a call for Governor Perry to include the Health Care Compact legislation in the Special Session was issued by Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin.
Legislation containing the Health Care Compact was approved twice by the Texas House and once by the Texas Senate. However, the final legislation containing the compact died due to tactics by a handful of House members.
Democrats voiced concern in the House, though many voted for it.
Kolkhorst said she was holding hostage SB 8, a key element of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s state health reform plan, to wait for her Health Care Compact bill to come up in the Senate. SB 8 provides a framework for health care collaboratives — the partnerships between hospitals, doctors and other health care providers that supporters say could lead to better medical quality and cost savings.
The House overwhelmingly passed SB 8. But some of those who supported it were still concerned with adding the Health Care Compact portion. Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, is an ardent opponent of the Health Care Compact — and said funding Medicaid with block grants is dangerous, because the money is based on standard inflation, not medical inflation, which grows at a far greater rate.
The compact language was straightforward:
The compact language was added to Senate Bill 8, which would allow doctors and hospitals to form health care collaboratives in hopes of improving efficiency and medical care. The bill next returns to the Senate, which can accept House changes with a simple majority or send it to a conference committee to work out the differences.
“Medicaid in its present form is unsustainable for Texas,” said TPPF Executive Director Arlene Wohlgemuth. “Without the flexibility and cost predictability provided by the Health Care Compact, the federal Medicaid program will further crowd out core state government functions such as education, public safety, and transportation.”
“Texans can decide for ourselves how to take care of our health needs," said House Public Health Chair Lois Kolkhorst. “With medical costs rising faster than inflation, let’s replace big government solutions with local oversight. Texas could create its own health care solutions, save billions of tax dollars, and still deliver better health outcomes. That’s what the Health Care Compact is all about. It’s unfortunate that a handful of House members put their own agenda ahead of Texas.”
Legislation containing the Health Care Compact was approved twice by the Texas House and once by the Texas Senate. However, the final legislation containing the compact died due to tactics by a handful of House members.
Democrats voiced concern in the House, though many voted for it.
Kolkhorst said she was holding hostage SB 8, a key element of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst’s state health reform plan, to wait for her Health Care Compact bill to come up in the Senate. SB 8 provides a framework for health care collaboratives — the partnerships between hospitals, doctors and other health care providers that supporters say could lead to better medical quality and cost savings.
The House overwhelmingly passed SB 8. But some of those who supported it were still concerned with adding the Health Care Compact portion. Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, is an ardent opponent of the Health Care Compact — and said funding Medicaid with block grants is dangerous, because the money is based on standard inflation, not medical inflation, which grows at a far greater rate.
The compact language was straightforward:
The compact language was added to Senate Bill 8, which would allow doctors and hospitals to form health care collaboratives in hopes of improving efficiency and medical care. The bill next returns to the Senate, which can accept House changes with a simple majority or send it to a conference committee to work out the differences.
“Medicaid in its present form is unsustainable for Texas,” said TPPF Executive Director Arlene Wohlgemuth. “Without the flexibility and cost predictability provided by the Health Care Compact, the federal Medicaid program will further crowd out core state government functions such as education, public safety, and transportation.”
“Texans can decide for ourselves how to take care of our health needs," said House Public Health Chair Lois Kolkhorst. “With medical costs rising faster than inflation, let’s replace big government solutions with local oversight. Texas could create its own health care solutions, save billions of tax dollars, and still deliver better health outcomes. That’s what the Health Care Compact is all about. It’s unfortunate that a handful of House members put their own agenda ahead of Texas.”
The History of Memorial Day
This concise history of the day set aside to honor our fallen heroes was part of an e-mail I received from The Republican Party of Fort Bend County as they provide information of events scheduled for that day.
Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day because it was a time set aside to honor the nation's Civil War dead by decorating their graves. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to honor the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:
The 30th of May 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
During the first celebration of Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery.
This 1868 celebration was inspired by local observances of the day in several towns throughout America that had taken place in the three years since the Civil War. In fact, several Northern and Southern cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, including Columbus, Miss.; Macon, Ga.; Richmond, Va.; Boalsburg, Pa.; and Carbondale, Ill.
In 1966, the federal government, under the direction of President Lyndon Johnson, declared Waterloo, N.Y., the official birthplace of Memorial Day. They chose Waterloo-which had first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866-because the town had made Memorial Day an annual, community-wide event during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.
By the late 1800s, many communities across the country had begun to celebrate Memorial Day and, after World War I, observances also began to honor those who had died in all of America's wars. In 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be celebrated the last Monday in May. (Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor all veterans, living and dead, is celebrated each year on November 11.)
Today, Memorial Day is celebrated at Arlington National Cemetery with a ceremony in which a small American flag is placed on each grave. Also, it is customary for the president or vice-president to give a speech honoring the contributions of the dead and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. About 5,000 people attend the ceremony annually.
Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day because it was a time set aside to honor the nation's Civil War dead by decorating their graves. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to honor the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:
The 30th of May 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
During the first celebration of Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery.
This 1868 celebration was inspired by local observances of the day in several towns throughout America that had taken place in the three years since the Civil War. In fact, several Northern and Southern cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, including Columbus, Miss.; Macon, Ga.; Richmond, Va.; Boalsburg, Pa.; and Carbondale, Ill.
In 1966, the federal government, under the direction of President Lyndon Johnson, declared Waterloo, N.Y., the official birthplace of Memorial Day. They chose Waterloo-which had first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866-because the town had made Memorial Day an annual, community-wide event during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.
By the late 1800s, many communities across the country had begun to celebrate Memorial Day and, after World War I, observances also began to honor those who had died in all of America's wars. In 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be celebrated the last Monday in May. (Veterans Day, a day set aside to honor all veterans, living and dead, is celebrated each year on November 11.)
Today, Memorial Day is celebrated at Arlington National Cemetery with a ceremony in which a small American flag is placed on each grave. Also, it is customary for the president or vice-president to give a speech honoring the contributions of the dead and lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. About 5,000 people attend the ceremony annually.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Obama Speaks at Memorial Service in Joplin
Does President Obama only attend memorial services if the politics are right for him?
Obama is described as "healer in chief" in this news account.
Though times of trouble can erase politics and unite people, a phenomenon Obama has commented on, his task as healer Sunday will be carried out on unfriendly political ground as his re-election campaign approaches. Obama narrowly lost Missouri to Republican John McCain in 2008, but in Jasper County, where Joplin is located, McCain won by a large margin: 66 percent to 33 percent.
Should the writer have said Obama is comforter-in-chief? He is described as "even tempered" and doesn't show tears or emotion. Maybe as his public persona, but we have all see the "bully in chief" on lecterns and at podiums around the country. He vilifies Republicans with carefree abandon. He even refers to Republicans as the enemy without any push back from the media who adore him.
The one opportunity Obama had to be comforter-in-chief was in Arizona during the memorial service for the Tucson shooting victims, including Rep Giffords, a Democrat. Obama included political rhetoric implying today's heating dialogues in politics are the reason for such violence. He not so subtly implied that conservative political rhetoric is the root of all evil. After the speech, liberal chat show hosts had a field day with what they considered a green light from above to go after conservatives, though Obama was supposed to be calling for a "new tone".
Obama is no doubt attending the memorial service Sunday since the tragedy is the worst in recent times for tornado activity. It's understandable to use that as a means of showing compassion.
Why didn't Obama attend the memorial service for the eleven men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon explosion? That was the worst tragedy in the history of oil and gas drilling in our country. Was it because it was in very red Mississippi or that oil and gas drilling isn't politically acceptable for Democrats?
Just a question to ponder.
And, where was First Lady Michelle? Obama did not disappoint those of us a bit cynical of his actions. He did, in fact, slide on into campaign mode dialect and loud voice during his remarks to get the crowd fired up. Then, he reined it back in, as if he realized he was getting carried away again.
One suggestion - next time lose the chewing gum before you go into the service and are video taped for the world to see you chomping down in the audience, Mr. President. Decorum is a good thing.
Obama is described as "healer in chief" in this news account.
Though times of trouble can erase politics and unite people, a phenomenon Obama has commented on, his task as healer Sunday will be carried out on unfriendly political ground as his re-election campaign approaches. Obama narrowly lost Missouri to Republican John McCain in 2008, but in Jasper County, where Joplin is located, McCain won by a large margin: 66 percent to 33 percent.
Should the writer have said Obama is comforter-in-chief? He is described as "even tempered" and doesn't show tears or emotion. Maybe as his public persona, but we have all see the "bully in chief" on lecterns and at podiums around the country. He vilifies Republicans with carefree abandon. He even refers to Republicans as the enemy without any push back from the media who adore him.
The one opportunity Obama had to be comforter-in-chief was in Arizona during the memorial service for the Tucson shooting victims, including Rep Giffords, a Democrat. Obama included political rhetoric implying today's heating dialogues in politics are the reason for such violence. He not so subtly implied that conservative political rhetoric is the root of all evil. After the speech, liberal chat show hosts had a field day with what they considered a green light from above to go after conservatives, though Obama was supposed to be calling for a "new tone".
Obama is no doubt attending the memorial service Sunday since the tragedy is the worst in recent times for tornado activity. It's understandable to use that as a means of showing compassion.
Why didn't Obama attend the memorial service for the eleven men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon explosion? That was the worst tragedy in the history of oil and gas drilling in our country. Was it because it was in very red Mississippi or that oil and gas drilling isn't politically acceptable for Democrats?
Just a question to ponder.
And, where was First Lady Michelle? Obama did not disappoint those of us a bit cynical of his actions. He did, in fact, slide on into campaign mode dialect and loud voice during his remarks to get the crowd fired up. Then, he reined it back in, as if he realized he was getting carried away again.
One suggestion - next time lose the chewing gum before you go into the service and are video taped for the world to see you chomping down in the audience, Mr. President. Decorum is a good thing.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Lech Walesa Skips Obama Visit to Poland
Speaking of his decision to not accept an invitation to join a group of dignitaries in welcoming President Obama to Poland, Lech Walesa said this:
"It’s difficult to tell journalists what you’d like to say to the president of a superpower. This time I won’t tell him, I won’t meet him, it doesn’t suit me."
Ouch. It doesn't suit him?
Small wonder, really. Lech Walesa knows about sacrificing for freedom. He is beloved in his native Poland. While Barack Obama pursues Russia as his best buddy in Europe, the rest of Europe is shoved aside. Unlike George W. Bush who built strong alliances with European nations, Barack Obama is more interested in cutting Poland off at the knees by scrapping the missile defense system and pursuing the new START Treaty with Russia.
Barack Obama stands in sharp contrast with Walesa. Instead of standing up as a freedom fighter, as Walesa did for his country against the former Soviet Union, Obama has to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting those who rise up against dictators and regimes - as the recent events in the middle east have shown.
Lech Walesa knew what a meeting would be - a photo op for Obama's re-election literature. Mr Walesa, a former president still sought out by international visitors, said he had turned down the Obama invitation because it amounted to little more than a photo opportunity
Truth to power.
And, the Jews in Poland expressed concern towards Obama's mixed messages in support of Israel. President Obama was confronted Friday with a plea from a Polish Jew to support Israel just moments after he landed in the country where Nazis staged the Holocaust.
"It's the only Jewish state we have," Monika Krawczyk told the President on his first visit to Poland.
"I will always be there for Israel," Obama replied.
Obama also planted a kiss on Halina Szpilman, the widow of Holocaust survivor Wladyslaw Szpilman, whose harrowing story was the subject of Roman Polanski's Oscar-winning movie "The Pianist."
I hear busses.
"It’s difficult to tell journalists what you’d like to say to the president of a superpower. This time I won’t tell him, I won’t meet him, it doesn’t suit me."
Ouch. It doesn't suit him?
Small wonder, really. Lech Walesa knows about sacrificing for freedom. He is beloved in his native Poland. While Barack Obama pursues Russia as his best buddy in Europe, the rest of Europe is shoved aside. Unlike George W. Bush who built strong alliances with European nations, Barack Obama is more interested in cutting Poland off at the knees by scrapping the missile defense system and pursuing the new START Treaty with Russia.
Barack Obama stands in sharp contrast with Walesa. Instead of standing up as a freedom fighter, as Walesa did for his country against the former Soviet Union, Obama has to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting those who rise up against dictators and regimes - as the recent events in the middle east have shown.
Lech Walesa knew what a meeting would be - a photo op for Obama's re-election literature. Mr Walesa, a former president still sought out by international visitors, said he had turned down the Obama invitation because it amounted to little more than a photo opportunity
Truth to power.
And, the Jews in Poland expressed concern towards Obama's mixed messages in support of Israel. President Obama was confronted Friday with a plea from a Polish Jew to support Israel just moments after he landed in the country where Nazis staged the Holocaust.
"It's the only Jewish state we have," Monika Krawczyk told the President on his first visit to Poland.
"I will always be there for Israel," Obama replied.
Obama also planted a kiss on Halina Szpilman, the widow of Holocaust survivor Wladyslaw Szpilman, whose harrowing story was the subject of Roman Polanski's Oscar-winning movie "The Pianist."
I hear busses.
Governor Perry Signs Voter ID Bill
Friday, Governor Perry signed into law the bill known as the Voter Id bill into law.
The law would require voters to present a valid state or federal photo ID. A driver’s license, personal ID card, military ID, passport or concealed handgun permit is acceptable.
Voters without IDs could cast provisional ballots but would have to show identification within six days for their votes to count.
This bill is a bit more restrictive on acceptable identification than other states but mostly only because a student ID is not included.
The bill signed today enacts a voter ID law more stringent than its counterparts in other states. Unlike Indiana's law—which the bill was largely based on—Texas' voter ID law doesn't recognize student IDs as acceptable forms of voter identification
"This simple action, no more complicated then cashing a check down at the HEB or applying for a library card down the street, will appropriately help maintain the integrity and fairness of our electoral system here in the Lone Star State,” Gov. Perry said at the signing.
The standard cry sprang from the Democrats. They claim this will cause voter intimidation and harass the poor. Ridiculous.
Only in the world of a Democrat would showing personal identification be a form of intimidation. What other activity can one pursue without proper identification? To open a bank account, draw government funds, purchase property, drink liquor, buy cigarettes, register for school, etc, all require personal identification.
The vote is too precious to allow fraudulent actions to steal it.
The law would require voters to present a valid state or federal photo ID. A driver’s license, personal ID card, military ID, passport or concealed handgun permit is acceptable.
Voters without IDs could cast provisional ballots but would have to show identification within six days for their votes to count.
This bill is a bit more restrictive on acceptable identification than other states but mostly only because a student ID is not included.
The bill signed today enacts a voter ID law more stringent than its counterparts in other states. Unlike Indiana's law—which the bill was largely based on—Texas' voter ID law doesn't recognize student IDs as acceptable forms of voter identification
"This simple action, no more complicated then cashing a check down at the HEB or applying for a library card down the street, will appropriately help maintain the integrity and fairness of our electoral system here in the Lone Star State,” Gov. Perry said at the signing.
The standard cry sprang from the Democrats. They claim this will cause voter intimidation and harass the poor. Ridiculous.
Only in the world of a Democrat would showing personal identification be a form of intimidation. What other activity can one pursue without proper identification? To open a bank account, draw government funds, purchase property, drink liquor, buy cigarettes, register for school, etc, all require personal identification.
The vote is too precious to allow fraudulent actions to steal it.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Obama Gaffes and Insults Dominate G8 Trip
What are we to make of President Obama and his, shall we say 'glitches' as he vacations in Europe with First Lady Michelle en route to the G8 meeting? Is vacation the correct term? I think it may be since it began with a visit to Ireland and his partially ancestral village.
The money shot from that excursion was the pub stop and the hoisting of a pint of Guiness. Michelle sipped some, too. See, they are really just ordinary folks, those Obama's.
Following the pub photo op - complete with a distant cousin - presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty tweeted: "sorry to interrupt your European pub crawl, but what was your Medicare plan?" I know it rings true because the left immediately went into whine mode. And, as the left calls the tweet 'classless' let's all remind them that Barack enjoys extending the middle finger along the side of his face in a fake rub, shall we?
Then the volcano erupted in Iceland and Team Obama had to leave the festivities in Ireland a day early and headed to the next stop, England. So, Barack and Michelle became one of those couples. You know the ones, they arrive way to early to the party and you have to find something to entertain them as the preparations are completed.
Signing into Buckingham Palace, Barack dated his signature with the year 2008 instead of the current one. Oops. Well, you can understand since 2008 was such a very good year for the man. Why wouldn't he want to live there? Besides Europe was embarrassingly smitten with him and the man does love the adoration of a crowd.
During the formal state dinner hosted by the Queen, Obama rose to do the traditional toast but his wires were crossed. The band broke into God Save the Queen about half way through the toast and Obama powered through. He ended by moving his glass toward the Queen, sitting next to him, and she simply looked at him and turned away. She wasn't abandoning protocol. Not even for Barack Obama. Ouch. He had to re-toast at the end of the anthem.
I won't go into the faux pas of Michelle not wearing a hat as she visited the Queen. It's traditional and a show of respect but Michelle has not shown decorum in the past with wardrobe choices, so why expect it now? She's American so it's not such a big deal. And, as long as the Washington Post continues to write stories that she is the most fashionable First Lady ever, well, that's that.
Obama was extended the invitation to address Parliament. The last American President to do so was George W. Bush in 2003. Columnist Wesley Prudent wrote of Obama's unfortunate habit of showing a distinct lack of knowledge of American history, this time as it relates to the Brits:
First, a quote from the London Daily Telegraph:
“The presidential text,” observed the London Daily Telegraph, “sounded as if it had been worked on so hard and conscientiously by a vast team of helpers that it had lost all savor, and had been reduced to a series of orotund banalities of the sort which can be heard at every tedious Anglo-American conference: ‘Profound challenges stretch out before us . . . the time of our leadership is now . . . Our alliance must remain indispensable.’”
The president’s bromides, meant to warm the occasion, could teach him to be wary of historical allusions when he attempts to match his Harvard education against learning from Oxford, Cambridge and the University of East Anglia. Everything between Britain and the United States has been “smooth sailing,” the president said, “ever since 1812,” when the Redcoats took a burning brand to Dolley Madison’s White House. This assertion invited critics to recall a few occasions of rough sailing since then, such as the British attempt to retain the Suez Canal in 1956 over the obstructions of the Eisenhower administration—when even the French wanted to help.
The history and lore of America and the exploits of American heroes once familiar to every schoolboy have never much interested Mr. Obama, who received his early education, where the longest-lasting cultural impressions are formed, in a Muslim school in Indonesia. He gives the impression of being above it all, an impression he carefully cultivates.
Ok, then.
On to Deauville, France where the actual summit convenes. Obama made great noises about how swimmingly he and Medvedev got on after meeting together. Unfortunately, Medvedev had a different take on the results:
President Obama had just finished touting the “outstanding relationship” he and Dmitry Medvedev have built between themselves and their nations – the American leader even used the “reset” button metaphor again – when the Russian president turned to the thorny issue of Washington’s plan to upgrade its missile defense shield, and uncorked a stunner.
“I have told my counterpart, Barack Obama, that this issue will be finally solved in the future,” Medvedev told reporters in Deauville, France, “like, for example, in the year 2020.”
It wasn’t merely that Medvedev had chosen a date almost comically far into the future to suggest when the two nations might come to terms; the particular date he chose carried special meaning. 2020 is the year when the State Department has estimated the U.S. will deploy the SM-3 Block IIB, a missile still on the drawing board but being designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range missiles that might be launched from the Middle East.
Since the Russians purport to see the Block IIB as a threat to Moscow’s own ballistic missile arsenal, Medvedev’s reference to the projected date of its deployment, in an otherwise cordial photo-op with the American president on the sidelines of an international summit, sent an unmistakable signal
Plus the added fact that the House of Representatives voted on a defense bill that may delay the START II treaty between Russia and the U.S. that Obama was so very proud of as he signed it.
And, yet another smack up the side of the President's head occurred in the U.S. Senate. The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
POLITICO’s David Rogers reports: “The vote on the president’s plan turned into a rout, with neither Republicans nor Democrats voting in favor of taking it up. At one level, the 97-0 vote showed how out-of-date the February requests can seem after so much has changed in the spending debate already this year. But for Democrats, it also proved a convenient way to mask their substantial internal differences over how to proceed” on addressing the government’s fiscal problems
This sound defeat of the President's proposed plan (budget) for the way forward was little reported in the media, just glossed over, really. Not surprising since the American press are in re-election campaign mode for their candidate, Barack Obama.
The President's spokesman did announce that Air Force One will touch down in Missouri so that he can survey the damage of the tornado activity that destroyed the city of Joplin. He didn't exactly receive compliments for the timing of events with his pub crawling in Ireland and those photos and video that came out as the people of Joplin were experiencing their devastation.
The money shot from that excursion was the pub stop and the hoisting of a pint of Guiness. Michelle sipped some, too. See, they are really just ordinary folks, those Obama's.
Following the pub photo op - complete with a distant cousin - presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty tweeted: "sorry to interrupt your European pub crawl, but what was your Medicare plan?" I know it rings true because the left immediately went into whine mode. And, as the left calls the tweet 'classless' let's all remind them that Barack enjoys extending the middle finger along the side of his face in a fake rub, shall we?
Then the volcano erupted in Iceland and Team Obama had to leave the festivities in Ireland a day early and headed to the next stop, England. So, Barack and Michelle became one of those couples. You know the ones, they arrive way to early to the party and you have to find something to entertain them as the preparations are completed.
Signing into Buckingham Palace, Barack dated his signature with the year 2008 instead of the current one. Oops. Well, you can understand since 2008 was such a very good year for the man. Why wouldn't he want to live there? Besides Europe was embarrassingly smitten with him and the man does love the adoration of a crowd.
During the formal state dinner hosted by the Queen, Obama rose to do the traditional toast but his wires were crossed. The band broke into God Save the Queen about half way through the toast and Obama powered through. He ended by moving his glass toward the Queen, sitting next to him, and she simply looked at him and turned away. She wasn't abandoning protocol. Not even for Barack Obama. Ouch. He had to re-toast at the end of the anthem.
I won't go into the faux pas of Michelle not wearing a hat as she visited the Queen. It's traditional and a show of respect but Michelle has not shown decorum in the past with wardrobe choices, so why expect it now? She's American so it's not such a big deal. And, as long as the Washington Post continues to write stories that she is the most fashionable First Lady ever, well, that's that.
Obama was extended the invitation to address Parliament. The last American President to do so was George W. Bush in 2003. Columnist Wesley Prudent wrote of Obama's unfortunate habit of showing a distinct lack of knowledge of American history, this time as it relates to the Brits:
First, a quote from the London Daily Telegraph:
“The presidential text,” observed the London Daily Telegraph, “sounded as if it had been worked on so hard and conscientiously by a vast team of helpers that it had lost all savor, and had been reduced to a series of orotund banalities of the sort which can be heard at every tedious Anglo-American conference: ‘Profound challenges stretch out before us . . . the time of our leadership is now . . . Our alliance must remain indispensable.’”
The president’s bromides, meant to warm the occasion, could teach him to be wary of historical allusions when he attempts to match his Harvard education against learning from Oxford, Cambridge and the University of East Anglia. Everything between Britain and the United States has been “smooth sailing,” the president said, “ever since 1812,” when the Redcoats took a burning brand to Dolley Madison’s White House. This assertion invited critics to recall a few occasions of rough sailing since then, such as the British attempt to retain the Suez Canal in 1956 over the obstructions of the Eisenhower administration—when even the French wanted to help.
The history and lore of America and the exploits of American heroes once familiar to every schoolboy have never much interested Mr. Obama, who received his early education, where the longest-lasting cultural impressions are formed, in a Muslim school in Indonesia. He gives the impression of being above it all, an impression he carefully cultivates.
Ok, then.
On to Deauville, France where the actual summit convenes. Obama made great noises about how swimmingly he and Medvedev got on after meeting together. Unfortunately, Medvedev had a different take on the results:
President Obama had just finished touting the “outstanding relationship” he and Dmitry Medvedev have built between themselves and their nations – the American leader even used the “reset” button metaphor again – when the Russian president turned to the thorny issue of Washington’s plan to upgrade its missile defense shield, and uncorked a stunner.
“I have told my counterpart, Barack Obama, that this issue will be finally solved in the future,” Medvedev told reporters in Deauville, France, “like, for example, in the year 2020.”
It wasn’t merely that Medvedev had chosen a date almost comically far into the future to suggest when the two nations might come to terms; the particular date he chose carried special meaning. 2020 is the year when the State Department has estimated the U.S. will deploy the SM-3 Block IIB, a missile still on the drawing board but being designed to intercept medium- and intermediate-range missiles that might be launched from the Middle East.
Since the Russians purport to see the Block IIB as a threat to Moscow’s own ballistic missile arsenal, Medvedev’s reference to the projected date of its deployment, in an otherwise cordial photo-op with the American president on the sidelines of an international summit, sent an unmistakable signal
Plus the added fact that the House of Representatives voted on a defense bill that may delay the START II treaty between Russia and the U.S. that Obama was so very proud of as he signed it.
And, yet another smack up the side of the President's head occurred in the U.S. Senate. The budget proposal released by the White House back in February didn’t win a single vote in the Senate on Wednesday— the final tally was 0-97. Senate Republicans pushed for the vote as a counterpoint to the defeat of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
POLITICO’s David Rogers reports: “The vote on the president’s plan turned into a rout, with neither Republicans nor Democrats voting in favor of taking it up. At one level, the 97-0 vote showed how out-of-date the February requests can seem after so much has changed in the spending debate already this year. But for Democrats, it also proved a convenient way to mask their substantial internal differences over how to proceed” on addressing the government’s fiscal problems
This sound defeat of the President's proposed plan (budget) for the way forward was little reported in the media, just glossed over, really. Not surprising since the American press are in re-election campaign mode for their candidate, Barack Obama.
The President's spokesman did announce that Air Force One will touch down in Missouri so that he can survey the damage of the tornado activity that destroyed the city of Joplin. He didn't exactly receive compliments for the timing of events with his pub crawling in Ireland and those photos and video that came out as the people of Joplin were experiencing their devastation.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Clinton Channels His Inner Republican
After former President Clinton sounded a whole lot like a Republican about the upcoming debt limit vote - the one that Treasury Secretary Geithner claims the world will end if the vote isn't taken and passed by the time the actual default occurs - his spokesperson tried to smooth the ruffled feathers of Democrats but ended up saying exactly what Clinton originally said.
"What he meant to say was that if a vote to extend the debt limit failed in advance of a default, that might not be harmful for a couple of days, but that if people thought that we might actually default, that in his words 'we were literally not going to pay our bills anymore,' then they would stop [people from] buying our debt."
Truth is good.
And, then if that wasn't enough, turns out Clinton showed some love for Rep Paul Ryan and his courage in presenting a plan to reform big entitlements, specifically Medicare. In light of the win by a Democrat in an historically Republican New York seat for the House of Representatives - a special election - Clinton cautioned Democrats against scoring short term victories at the expense of working on serious reforms.
Former President Bill Clinton cautioned his party Wednesday against avoiding reforms to Medicare even though the GOP’s unpopular overhaul plan helped Democrats score an upset victory in New York’s 26th district.
“The race was about Medicare,” Clinton said of Democrat Kathy Hochul's win in Tuesday's special election. But, he added, “I am afraid that the Democrats will draw the conclusion … that we shouldn’t do anything. I completely disagree with that.
“The Democrats may have to give up some short-term political gain by whipping up fear, if it’s a reasonable Social Security proposal, if it’s a reasonable Medicare proposal. You cannot have healthcare devour the economy,” he said.
While Clinton doesn't endorse the Ryan plan, he did have a private conversation with Ryan Tuesday, it was reported, (video by ABC News) and welcomed Ryan to call on him for dialogue on the matter as the battle goes on. That ought to send some chills down some Democrat spines, right?
That is why Clinton was successful as President with the majority of Americans and why strict ideologues like Barack Obama are not, in the end. There are times that the bare politics of big policy decisions must be set aside and clear focus on solutions must surface.
It takes a grown up voice.
Republicans lost a seat in the House of Representatives because the wrong candidate ran against a Democrat unafraid to demagogue Medicare reform to win the election. For whatever reason, the Republican was unable to stand and deliver. She wasn't able to state clearly and without hesitation why she supported the Ryan plan and the importance of reform. She allowed the Democrats to scare the senior citizen voter and this won't be the way forward for Republicans.
It is clear that Paul Ryan is needed in the House of Representatives to continue to educate the general public on the reforms. It must be brought home that no one from age 55 and up will be affected by the Ryan plan. Everything remains the same. Those younger than 55 years of age will have adjustments to make, some reforms not beginning for up to twelve years out.
The way forward for the GOP is to stay focused and continue to teach what is in the proposed plan. Let Ryan speak to compromises that can be put into the plan. He is the smartest guy in the room on all of this. The bonus is that he articulates the policy in terms that ordinary people understand - no one need be a policy wonk to review a Ryan speech for information.
Here is the latest video by Ryan. It is worth watching to understand his plan:
"What he meant to say was that if a vote to extend the debt limit failed in advance of a default, that might not be harmful for a couple of days, but that if people thought that we might actually default, that in his words 'we were literally not going to pay our bills anymore,' then they would stop [people from] buying our debt."
Truth is good.
And, then if that wasn't enough, turns out Clinton showed some love for Rep Paul Ryan and his courage in presenting a plan to reform big entitlements, specifically Medicare. In light of the win by a Democrat in an historically Republican New York seat for the House of Representatives - a special election - Clinton cautioned Democrats against scoring short term victories at the expense of working on serious reforms.
Former President Bill Clinton cautioned his party Wednesday against avoiding reforms to Medicare even though the GOP’s unpopular overhaul plan helped Democrats score an upset victory in New York’s 26th district.
“The race was about Medicare,” Clinton said of Democrat Kathy Hochul's win in Tuesday's special election. But, he added, “I am afraid that the Democrats will draw the conclusion … that we shouldn’t do anything. I completely disagree with that.
“The Democrats may have to give up some short-term political gain by whipping up fear, if it’s a reasonable Social Security proposal, if it’s a reasonable Medicare proposal. You cannot have healthcare devour the economy,” he said.
While Clinton doesn't endorse the Ryan plan, he did have a private conversation with Ryan Tuesday, it was reported, (video by ABC News) and welcomed Ryan to call on him for dialogue on the matter as the battle goes on. That ought to send some chills down some Democrat spines, right?
That is why Clinton was successful as President with the majority of Americans and why strict ideologues like Barack Obama are not, in the end. There are times that the bare politics of big policy decisions must be set aside and clear focus on solutions must surface.
It takes a grown up voice.
Republicans lost a seat in the House of Representatives because the wrong candidate ran against a Democrat unafraid to demagogue Medicare reform to win the election. For whatever reason, the Republican was unable to stand and deliver. She wasn't able to state clearly and without hesitation why she supported the Ryan plan and the importance of reform. She allowed the Democrats to scare the senior citizen voter and this won't be the way forward for Republicans.
It is clear that Paul Ryan is needed in the House of Representatives to continue to educate the general public on the reforms. It must be brought home that no one from age 55 and up will be affected by the Ryan plan. Everything remains the same. Those younger than 55 years of age will have adjustments to make, some reforms not beginning for up to twelve years out.
The way forward for the GOP is to stay focused and continue to teach what is in the proposed plan. Let Ryan speak to compromises that can be put into the plan. He is the smartest guy in the room on all of this. The bonus is that he articulates the policy in terms that ordinary people understand - no one need be a policy wonk to review a Ryan speech for information.
Here is the latest video by Ryan. It is worth watching to understand his plan:
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Senate GOP Demand Budget from Democrats
It is now more than two years since the Democrats in the U.S. Senate bothered to fulfill their legal obligations and submit a budget for a vote. Monday, all 47 Republican sent a letter demanding action to Majority Leader Reid.
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) threatened on Monday to derail planned budget resolution votes this week — as well as the Memorial Day recess — to protest Democrats’ lack of a budget plan.
The move could complicate consideration of the House-passed budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), although Democrats still will be able to bring that plan up for a vote.
Sessions is protesting the fact that Senate Democrats have failed to produce a budget alternative to the House GOP resolution. All 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday demanding that Democrats produce their own version.
Senator Reid has announced he will call a vote on the Ryan plan Tuesday. Senator Conrad, Chairman of Senate Budget Committee, said he will not provide a budget until the Group of Six finish negotiations and have an agreement on the debt ceiling vote. He is one of the group and has been unable to get the group, along with VP Biden, to finish their work. One of the group, Republican Senator Coburn has taken "a break" from the group out of frustration with the process.
So, once again the minority party in the Senate, the Republicans, are leading with plans and alternatives. The majority party chooses to play politics and not bother with solutions to the matters most important to Americans - our fiscal security and major entitlement reform.
It is time for the GOP to take back the Senate and lead where the Democrats have been unable to do.
Here is the letter from the Senate GOP to Reid:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
It has now been 754 days since the Senate last passed a budget. We have less than six months remaining until the start of the new fiscal year and the Senate has yet to produce a basic budget plan to substantively address our grave fiscal crisis. With our nation officially reaching the $14.3 trillion debt limit last week, we urge you to take the steps necessary to bring a FY2012 budget forward in committee and on the floor for an open, honest, and serious debate.
The voters in the November 2010 mid-term elections spoke loud and clear: the country can no longer afford the status quo or business as usual in Washington. Our fiscal reality is simply too dire. Each day that passes without a federal budget plan is another day in which out-of-control spending jeopardizes America’s economic future, national security, and jobs.
Last year, Congress failed to pass a budget, failed to pass any of the twelve annual appropriations bills, and failed the nation by recklessly funding the government on a series of short-term spending bills. The Senate cannot make the same mistake again. It’s time for colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate real leadership and work together to craft a fiscally responsible budget plan. Reducing government spending is not a simple task—it will require strong leadership by individuals who are willing to make difficult decisions. We stand ready to make those tough choices.
All across America, families must find ways to make their family budget work and small businesses must plan within tight budget constraints. With limited resources, they make hard choices to distinguish between wants and needs. The federal government must operate no differently.
This is the most important budget debate in our lifetime. Future generations will judge us based on the actions we take at this pivotal juncture. As we watch countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal forced into severe austerity measures and risking default because of unsustainable spending decisions, we believe it is necessary to reduce our spending and deficits to ensure we do not suffer the same fate.
Given the importance of this budget, we hope you will help ensure a transparent and honest budget process. The Budget Committee’s Republican members have asked our Chairman to allow the public to review his proposal no less than 72 hours before the first mark-up and permit ample time for amendments; we would request you support the same transparency throughout the process. We owe the American people an honest budget and an open budget process.
We urge you to work with us to produce a FY2012 budget resolution that makes significant cuts to federal spending and puts our nation on a fiscally responsible path to eliminating our debt altogether.
Very truly yours,
[47 Signatures]
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) threatened on Monday to derail planned budget resolution votes this week — as well as the Memorial Day recess — to protest Democrats’ lack of a budget plan.
The move could complicate consideration of the House-passed budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), although Democrats still will be able to bring that plan up for a vote.
Sessions is protesting the fact that Senate Democrats have failed to produce a budget alternative to the House GOP resolution. All 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday demanding that Democrats produce their own version.
Senator Reid has announced he will call a vote on the Ryan plan Tuesday. Senator Conrad, Chairman of Senate Budget Committee, said he will not provide a budget until the Group of Six finish negotiations and have an agreement on the debt ceiling vote. He is one of the group and has been unable to get the group, along with VP Biden, to finish their work. One of the group, Republican Senator Coburn has taken "a break" from the group out of frustration with the process.
So, once again the minority party in the Senate, the Republicans, are leading with plans and alternatives. The majority party chooses to play politics and not bother with solutions to the matters most important to Americans - our fiscal security and major entitlement reform.
It is time for the GOP to take back the Senate and lead where the Democrats have been unable to do.
Here is the letter from the Senate GOP to Reid:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
It has now been 754 days since the Senate last passed a budget. We have less than six months remaining until the start of the new fiscal year and the Senate has yet to produce a basic budget plan to substantively address our grave fiscal crisis. With our nation officially reaching the $14.3 trillion debt limit last week, we urge you to take the steps necessary to bring a FY2012 budget forward in committee and on the floor for an open, honest, and serious debate.
The voters in the November 2010 mid-term elections spoke loud and clear: the country can no longer afford the status quo or business as usual in Washington. Our fiscal reality is simply too dire. Each day that passes without a federal budget plan is another day in which out-of-control spending jeopardizes America’s economic future, national security, and jobs.
Last year, Congress failed to pass a budget, failed to pass any of the twelve annual appropriations bills, and failed the nation by recklessly funding the government on a series of short-term spending bills. The Senate cannot make the same mistake again. It’s time for colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate real leadership and work together to craft a fiscally responsible budget plan. Reducing government spending is not a simple task—it will require strong leadership by individuals who are willing to make difficult decisions. We stand ready to make those tough choices.
All across America, families must find ways to make their family budget work and small businesses must plan within tight budget constraints. With limited resources, they make hard choices to distinguish between wants and needs. The federal government must operate no differently.
This is the most important budget debate in our lifetime. Future generations will judge us based on the actions we take at this pivotal juncture. As we watch countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal forced into severe austerity measures and risking default because of unsustainable spending decisions, we believe it is necessary to reduce our spending and deficits to ensure we do not suffer the same fate.
Given the importance of this budget, we hope you will help ensure a transparent and honest budget process. The Budget Committee’s Republican members have asked our Chairman to allow the public to review his proposal no less than 72 hours before the first mark-up and permit ample time for amendments; we would request you support the same transparency throughout the process. We owe the American people an honest budget and an open budget process.
We urge you to work with us to produce a FY2012 budget resolution that makes significant cuts to federal spending and puts our nation on a fiscally responsible path to eliminating our debt altogether.
Very truly yours,
[47 Signatures]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Study Finds Reallocation of Resources Lowers Tuition In Higher Ed
A new study was released Monday by the D.C.-based Center for College Affordability and Productivity The bottom line is this: by incorporating even modest changes in the teaching work loads of the least productive professors would bring about substantial cost reductions in tuition and state taxpayer money while not tampering with tenure or the world class research being done at the university. UT-Austin, for example, would remain a solid Tier One research university.
Pew Research polls indicate that the value of a college degree is questioned by a growing percentage of Americans. A majority believe that higher education is no longer affordable and that it doesn't deliver a good value.
In the newly released study, Dr. Richard Vedder, along with Christopher Matgouranis and Jonathan Robe, found:
* 20% of UT Austin faculty are teaching 57% of student credit hours. They also generate 18% of the campus's research funding. This suggests that these faculty are not jeopardizing their status as researchers by assuming such a high level of teaching responsibility.
* Conversely, the least productive 20% of faculty teach only 2% of all student credit hours and generate a disproportionately smaller percentage of external research funding than do other faculty segments.
* Research grant funds go almost entirely (99.8%) to a small minority (20%) of the faculty; only 2% of the faculty conduct 57% of funded research.
*Non-tenured tract faculty teach a majority of undergraduate enrollments and a surprising 31% of graduate enrollments.
* The most active researchers teach nearly the average of all faculty; increasing teaching loads of others would trivially impact outside research support.
Keeping in mind that the findings are preliminary, it is evident that there is great promise for containing soaring higher education costs at UT Austin by reallocation of resources. A re emphasis on the importance of undergraduate teaching can be done without reducing outside research funding or productivity. Dr. Vedder says that tuition could be cut in half at UT Austin to about $4,500 per year.
It is noted that UT Austin urges everyone to not analyze the data results, as they are "preliminary".
All of the analysis is based on faculty productivity data requested by University of Texas System Regents in February for its task force on university excellence and productivity. UT Austin released 821 pages of data on faculty statistics.
Across the nation, tuition rises by about 7% each year.
Dr. Vedder said it is necessary to require professors to act like other professionals in other professions. For instance, it is not too much to ask that they work a regular 9 to 5 day. Requiring faculty to teach more students or courses would significantly reduce university costs. The study shows substantial disparities in the work professors actually perform and the compensation they receive for their services. A small portion of faculty carry the majority of the teaching load, teaching a sizable majority of students and maintain their research nearly at the same level as their peers. As the study points out,a significant proportion of the faculty is far less productive by holding small teaching loads and have little external research dollars generating. If teaching responsibilities were increased for that majority of faculty, the impact of external research funding or productivity would have marginal impact while significantly reducing the cost of tuition.
Dr. Vedder said UT Austin is not unique. "The findings at UT Austin are not unique as tuition and fees skyrocket at public universities across the nation, raising the question of who is really working to control costs for parents and taxpayers during the worst economic recession in 70 years."
When asked how he would evaluate Governor Perry's reform efforts, Dr. Vedder said the Governor is "unusually aggressive" in trying to reduce the cost of tuition and more reformist than other Governors. He said Perry's unique call for $10,000 four year degree programs are commendable and "clearly doable". The key is asking professors to act as other professionals in this economy.
Pew Research polls indicate that the value of a college degree is questioned by a growing percentage of Americans. A majority believe that higher education is no longer affordable and that it doesn't deliver a good value.
In the newly released study, Dr. Richard Vedder, along with Christopher Matgouranis and Jonathan Robe, found:
* 20% of UT Austin faculty are teaching 57% of student credit hours. They also generate 18% of the campus's research funding. This suggests that these faculty are not jeopardizing their status as researchers by assuming such a high level of teaching responsibility.
* Conversely, the least productive 20% of faculty teach only 2% of all student credit hours and generate a disproportionately smaller percentage of external research funding than do other faculty segments.
* Research grant funds go almost entirely (99.8%) to a small minority (20%) of the faculty; only 2% of the faculty conduct 57% of funded research.
*Non-tenured tract faculty teach a majority of undergraduate enrollments and a surprising 31% of graduate enrollments.
* The most active researchers teach nearly the average of all faculty; increasing teaching loads of others would trivially impact outside research support.
Keeping in mind that the findings are preliminary, it is evident that there is great promise for containing soaring higher education costs at UT Austin by reallocation of resources. A re emphasis on the importance of undergraduate teaching can be done without reducing outside research funding or productivity. Dr. Vedder says that tuition could be cut in half at UT Austin to about $4,500 per year.
It is noted that UT Austin urges everyone to not analyze the data results, as they are "preliminary".
All of the analysis is based on faculty productivity data requested by University of Texas System Regents in February for its task force on university excellence and productivity. UT Austin released 821 pages of data on faculty statistics.
Across the nation, tuition rises by about 7% each year.
Dr. Vedder said it is necessary to require professors to act like other professionals in other professions. For instance, it is not too much to ask that they work a regular 9 to 5 day. Requiring faculty to teach more students or courses would significantly reduce university costs. The study shows substantial disparities in the work professors actually perform and the compensation they receive for their services. A small portion of faculty carry the majority of the teaching load, teaching a sizable majority of students and maintain their research nearly at the same level as their peers. As the study points out,a significant proportion of the faculty is far less productive by holding small teaching loads and have little external research dollars generating. If teaching responsibilities were increased for that majority of faculty, the impact of external research funding or productivity would have marginal impact while significantly reducing the cost of tuition.
Dr. Vedder said UT Austin is not unique. "The findings at UT Austin are not unique as tuition and fees skyrocket at public universities across the nation, raising the question of who is really working to control costs for parents and taxpayers during the worst economic recession in 70 years."
When asked how he would evaluate Governor Perry's reform efforts, Dr. Vedder said the Governor is "unusually aggressive" in trying to reduce the cost of tuition and more reformist than other Governors. He said Perry's unique call for $10,000 four year degree programs are commendable and "clearly doable". The key is asking professors to act as other professionals in this economy.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Crownover Amendment is State Wide Smoking Ban
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety” is a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin.
A state wide smoking ban was approved in vote by the Texas House of Representatives last Friday night. This bans smoking in all establishments and businesses in the state. Bars, restaurants, any kind of building fall under this power grab.
Power grab? Yes. The representatives voting in favor of this amendment are taking power away from private businesses and owners across the state. Who are they to tell anyone how to run a business? Who are they to limit choices for customers?
The smoking ban measure was offered as an amendment by Rep. Myra Crownover (R-Lake Dallas). She filed similar legislation for several sessions. The measure passed with a vote of 73-66. It still must make it through the Senate-House final negotiating process on SB 1811.
Did you see that information after the representative's name? Yes. Crownover is a Republican. As a Republican woman, this irks me the most. Democrats want to socially engineer human behavior, not Republicans. Democrats love to boost 'sin' taxes when they need additional revenue, whether it is adding taxes to tobacco or liquor sales or even adding more taxes to gas at the pump so drivers will cut back on driving their cars. Democrats are in the business of behavior modification, not Republicans.
Crownover added the amendment in a fiscal matters bill, SB 1811 (Amendment 53). She claims it will save the state millions of dollars in Medicaid costs.
Whatever the reasoning, it is wrong.
Reps. Gary Elkins (R-Houston) and Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) spoke eloquently Friday night of the principles of individual freedom in this country. Where did common sense go? Where did personal responsibility go? Where did treating adults as grown-ups go? We need less government finger wagging in our faces, not more.
Adults can make their own decisions, thank you very much.
A state wide smoking ban was approved in vote by the Texas House of Representatives last Friday night. This bans smoking in all establishments and businesses in the state. Bars, restaurants, any kind of building fall under this power grab.
Power grab? Yes. The representatives voting in favor of this amendment are taking power away from private businesses and owners across the state. Who are they to tell anyone how to run a business? Who are they to limit choices for customers?
The smoking ban measure was offered as an amendment by Rep. Myra Crownover (R-Lake Dallas). She filed similar legislation for several sessions. The measure passed with a vote of 73-66. It still must make it through the Senate-House final negotiating process on SB 1811.
Did you see that information after the representative's name? Yes. Crownover is a Republican. As a Republican woman, this irks me the most. Democrats want to socially engineer human behavior, not Republicans. Democrats love to boost 'sin' taxes when they need additional revenue, whether it is adding taxes to tobacco or liquor sales or even adding more taxes to gas at the pump so drivers will cut back on driving their cars. Democrats are in the business of behavior modification, not Republicans.
Crownover added the amendment in a fiscal matters bill, SB 1811 (Amendment 53). She claims it will save the state millions of dollars in Medicaid costs.
Whatever the reasoning, it is wrong.
Reps. Gary Elkins (R-Houston) and Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) spoke eloquently Friday night of the principles of individual freedom in this country. Where did common sense go? Where did personal responsibility go? Where did treating adults as grown-ups go? We need less government finger wagging in our faces, not more.
Adults can make their own decisions, thank you very much.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Salazar Deserves to be Fired, Not Given Pay Raise
Did you know that Interior Secretary Salazar draws a lesser salary than the other cabinet members? It is due to the fact that he was a sitting U.S. Senator when he accepted the position.
Thanks to a constitutional quirk, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar makes less than most of his colleagues in President Obama’s Cabinet, and a Republican senator says he’ll keep it that way, blocking a nearly $20,000 raise for the high-level appointee, until the administration approves more deep-water oil drilling.
Mr. Salazar’s salary is set at $180,1000, which is $19,600 less than most other Cabinet secretaries. The Constitution prohibits legislators from taking positions in the executive branch for which they raised the salaries, and since Mr. Salazar voted on pay levels when he was in the Senate, he would have been barred from taking the Interior job unless the salary was reduced back to its earlier rate.
His Senate term would have expired in January, though which means he’s once again eligible for the higher pay rate.
Though he has not requested a raise in salary personally, his buddy Senator Reid tried to get it done for him last week.
Fortunately, GOP Senators are on it. Led by Louisiana Senator Vitter, Reid got nowhere fast. “Every day, Interior’s policies are costing more Gulf energy workers their jobs. But the Interior secretary needs a raise? That’s ridiculous — it’s offensive,” Mr. Vitter said in a statement to The Washington Times. “I’ll do everything I can to block his raise until Gulf energy workers are at least where they were in terms of work and job security pre-BP. I really want to see new deepwater exploratory permits being issued at pre-BP levels over a 3-month period.”
His Senate term would have expired in January, though which means he’s once again eligible for the higher pay rate.
Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison entered the conversation by delivering the GOP Weekly Address.
In the weekly Republican radio and Internet address, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, complained the administration's policies remain too restrictive. She says the country "needs a long-term policy that provides energy from our own ample natural resources."
She said it's not enough to just talk with gasoline prices around $4 a gallon.
Hutchison says policies need to be in place to "cut the bureaucratic red tape and put Americans to work doing it."
Secretary Salazar has deliberately destroyed offshore oil and gas drilling in our waters. He continues to work to do more damage. He continues to ignore a federal judge's orders to end the moratorium and its restrictions to new exploration and drilling.
Secretary Salazar needs to be fired, not rewarded with a pay raise.
Thanks to a constitutional quirk, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar makes less than most of his colleagues in President Obama’s Cabinet, and a Republican senator says he’ll keep it that way, blocking a nearly $20,000 raise for the high-level appointee, until the administration approves more deep-water oil drilling.
Mr. Salazar’s salary is set at $180,1000, which is $19,600 less than most other Cabinet secretaries. The Constitution prohibits legislators from taking positions in the executive branch for which they raised the salaries, and since Mr. Salazar voted on pay levels when he was in the Senate, he would have been barred from taking the Interior job unless the salary was reduced back to its earlier rate.
His Senate term would have expired in January, though which means he’s once again eligible for the higher pay rate.
Though he has not requested a raise in salary personally, his buddy Senator Reid tried to get it done for him last week.
Fortunately, GOP Senators are on it. Led by Louisiana Senator Vitter, Reid got nowhere fast. “Every day, Interior’s policies are costing more Gulf energy workers their jobs. But the Interior secretary needs a raise? That’s ridiculous — it’s offensive,” Mr. Vitter said in a statement to The Washington Times. “I’ll do everything I can to block his raise until Gulf energy workers are at least where they were in terms of work and job security pre-BP. I really want to see new deepwater exploratory permits being issued at pre-BP levels over a 3-month period.”
His Senate term would have expired in January, though which means he’s once again eligible for the higher pay rate.
Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison entered the conversation by delivering the GOP Weekly Address.
In the weekly Republican radio and Internet address, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, complained the administration's policies remain too restrictive. She says the country "needs a long-term policy that provides energy from our own ample natural resources."
She said it's not enough to just talk with gasoline prices around $4 a gallon.
Hutchison says policies need to be in place to "cut the bureaucratic red tape and put Americans to work doing it."
Secretary Salazar has deliberately destroyed offshore oil and gas drilling in our waters. He continues to work to do more damage. He continues to ignore a federal judge's orders to end the moratorium and its restrictions to new exploration and drilling.
Secretary Salazar needs to be fired, not rewarded with a pay raise.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Netanyahu Responds to Obama's Demands of Israel
Prime Minister Netanyahu made some remarks at his joint photo op with President Obama before the White House reporters and photographers:
"We share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now and in our conversation, and in actual deed, the commitment to Israel's security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process.
This is something that we want to have accomplished. Israel wants peace. I want peace. What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure. And I think that we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakable facts.
I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of 9 miles wide - half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive from them.
So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan.
I discussed this with the president. I think that we understand that Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make.
The second echoes something the president just said, and that is that Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas. Hamas, as the president said, is a terrorist organization, committed to Israel's destruction. It's fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children. It's recently fired an anti-tank rocket at a yellow school bus, killing a 16-year-old boy.
And Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of bin Laden. So Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida.
I think President Abbas has a simple choice. He has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with Hamas, or makes peace with Israel. And I can only express what I said to you just now: that I hope he makes the choice, the right choice, of choosing peace with Israel.
But a third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state but certainly not in the borders of Israel. The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems, Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees.
Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel: accept the grandchildren, really, and the great-grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state. So that's not going to happen. Everybody knows it's not going to happen. And I think it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, it's not going to happen.
The Palestinian refugee problem has to be resolved. It can be resolved. And it will be resolved if the Palestinians choose to do so in Palestinian state. That's a real possibility. But it's not going to be resolved within the Jewish state.
The president and I discussed all of these issues, and I think we may have differences here and there, but I think there is an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors, a peace that is defensible.
Mr. President, you are the leader of a great people, the American people. And I am the leader of a much smaller people.
It's a great people too. It's the ancient nation of Israel. And you know, we've been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions.
But I can say that even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel. And now it falls on my shoulders as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel's security and will not jeopardize its survival.
I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don't have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance."
The fact that liberal websites are opining that BiBi has overplayed his hand - had a "tantrum" -in reaction to President Obama using the 1967 borders as a starting point to peace negotiations, tells me that BiBi probably got it right. Obama deserved to be smacked for his petty minded speech on the Arab Spring narrative and for dragging Israel into the mix.
This piece speaks to the tempered response from Netanyahu to Obama while being strong and legit.
It was very nervy of Bibi, and certainly opens him up to the charge of being chutzpahdik with Israel’s greatest ally. But what exactly did he have to lose? He faces a hostile president, but one who governs a country overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. Could things get worse with Obama than they were last year? And could things get better for Netanyahu if Obama finds he is paying a price for being at odds with the American people on one of the few foreign policy issues they care about?
It is well documented that Obama got off to a very rocky start with Israel. Obama was determined to publicly support Palestine and made no bones about it. He pointedly blamed Israel from having its national security at the forefront of its peace negotiations. Now Obama wants to impose his prejudice against the Jews on a renewed desire to enter the peace process after ignoring it for the first two years of his administration. It's re-election time and Obama has to appear interested in a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.
So, what did Obama do? Overreached, as usual. He started with using the 1967 borders as the starting point in negotiations, not as a guideline to negotiate land acquisition. Plus, he put Jerusalem into play after promising in the 2008 campaign to not do so. Another campaign promise unmet. The 2004 agreement with Israel and the U.S. made clear that the 1967 borders were not in play. That was a country to country agreement, not an agreement made with one president. Now, this president wants to toss it aside as though it didn't happen.
And, from Senator Joe Lieberman: Sen. Joseph Lieberman, among the highest-profile Jewish officeholders in American government, blasted President Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East Friday, calling portions of it “profoundly ill-advised.”
“As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.”
Mr. Lieberman’s comments could have political ramifications. The Jewish community tends to vote mostly Democratic, and Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote 78%-22%. But during the campaign, some Jewish voters expressed concern that Mr. Obama would be an insufficiently reliable ally for Israel.
The comments of Mr. Lieberman, the only Orthodox Jew in the Senate, could resonate in the Jewish community. Mr. Lieberman said he hopes Mr. Obama makes clear in coming days that “the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967.”
President Obama goes to AIPAC Sunday to deliver a speech, as does Netanyahu. Netanyahu will also address a joint session of Congress next week.
"We share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now and in our conversation, and in actual deed, the commitment to Israel's security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process.
This is something that we want to have accomplished. Israel wants peace. I want peace. What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure. And I think that we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakable facts.
I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of 9 miles wide - half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive from them.
So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan.
I discussed this with the president. I think that we understand that Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make.
The second echoes something the president just said, and that is that Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas. Hamas, as the president said, is a terrorist organization, committed to Israel's destruction. It's fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children. It's recently fired an anti-tank rocket at a yellow school bus, killing a 16-year-old boy.
And Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of bin Laden. So Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida.
I think President Abbas has a simple choice. He has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with Hamas, or makes peace with Israel. And I can only express what I said to you just now: that I hope he makes the choice, the right choice, of choosing peace with Israel.
But a third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state but certainly not in the borders of Israel. The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems, Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees.
Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel: accept the grandchildren, really, and the great-grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state. So that's not going to happen. Everybody knows it's not going to happen. And I think it's time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly, it's not going to happen.
The Palestinian refugee problem has to be resolved. It can be resolved. And it will be resolved if the Palestinians choose to do so in Palestinian state. That's a real possibility. But it's not going to be resolved within the Jewish state.
The president and I discussed all of these issues, and I think we may have differences here and there, but I think there is an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors, a peace that is defensible.
Mr. President, you are the leader of a great people, the American people. And I am the leader of a much smaller people.
It's a great people too. It's the ancient nation of Israel. And you know, we've been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions.
But I can say that even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel. And now it falls on my shoulders as the prime minister of Israel at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel's security and will not jeopardize its survival.
I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don't have a lot of margin for error and because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance."
The fact that liberal websites are opining that BiBi has overplayed his hand - had a "tantrum" -in reaction to President Obama using the 1967 borders as a starting point to peace negotiations, tells me that BiBi probably got it right. Obama deserved to be smacked for his petty minded speech on the Arab Spring narrative and for dragging Israel into the mix.
This piece speaks to the tempered response from Netanyahu to Obama while being strong and legit.
It was very nervy of Bibi, and certainly opens him up to the charge of being chutzpahdik with Israel’s greatest ally. But what exactly did he have to lose? He faces a hostile president, but one who governs a country overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. Could things get worse with Obama than they were last year? And could things get better for Netanyahu if Obama finds he is paying a price for being at odds with the American people on one of the few foreign policy issues they care about?
It is well documented that Obama got off to a very rocky start with Israel. Obama was determined to publicly support Palestine and made no bones about it. He pointedly blamed Israel from having its national security at the forefront of its peace negotiations. Now Obama wants to impose his prejudice against the Jews on a renewed desire to enter the peace process after ignoring it for the first two years of his administration. It's re-election time and Obama has to appear interested in a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.
So, what did Obama do? Overreached, as usual. He started with using the 1967 borders as the starting point in negotiations, not as a guideline to negotiate land acquisition. Plus, he put Jerusalem into play after promising in the 2008 campaign to not do so. Another campaign promise unmet. The 2004 agreement with Israel and the U.S. made clear that the 1967 borders were not in play. That was a country to country agreement, not an agreement made with one president. Now, this president wants to toss it aside as though it didn't happen.
And, from Senator Joe Lieberman: Sen. Joseph Lieberman, among the highest-profile Jewish officeholders in American government, blasted President Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East Friday, calling portions of it “profoundly ill-advised.”
“As in the case of the President’s counterproductive demand for a settlement freeze two years ago, unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so. They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking.”
Mr. Lieberman’s comments could have political ramifications. The Jewish community tends to vote mostly Democratic, and Mr. Obama won the Jewish vote 78%-22%. But during the campaign, some Jewish voters expressed concern that Mr. Obama would be an insufficiently reliable ally for Israel.
The comments of Mr. Lieberman, the only Orthodox Jew in the Senate, could resonate in the Jewish community. Mr. Lieberman said he hopes Mr. Obama makes clear in coming days that “the 1967 borders themselves are no longer an acceptable endpoint for negotiations because they do not allow Israel to defend itself, and that any peace agreement must reflect new realities on the ground, including the major new Israeli communities that have grown up since 1967.”
President Obama goes to AIPAC Sunday to deliver a speech, as does Netanyahu. Netanyahu will also address a joint session of Congress next week.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Texas, We Have A Budget
Texas, we have a budget.
This statement is from Texas Public Policy Foundation:
Statement by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy:
“This state budget deal is a victory for all Texans – and especially for the Texans who worked hard over the past several months to remind our legislators that they wanted a fiscally conservative state budget. The announced budget deal is a win for Texas on three specific points:
· It does not use a single penny of the rainy day fund for the next biennium.
· It does not raise taxes.
· It does represent the first all-funds reduction to a biennial state budget in the past half-century.
“What happened in the Texas Legislature this session is more than just a victory for Texans. It's a victory for America. Texas already leads the way in job creation, economic vitality, and economic liberty. Now Texas is leading the way in the most important cause facing our country: the need to live within our means.
“Today, in Austin, Texas, the men and women of our legislature showed it can be done. That's a tremendous accomplishment for Texas – and it's a shining beacon of hope for America.”
This is indeed a victory for fiscal conservatives in Texas. Texas will continue to be a shining city on the hill for the rest of the country.
This statement is from Texas Public Policy Foundation:
Statement by The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, Director of TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy:
“This state budget deal is a victory for all Texans – and especially for the Texans who worked hard over the past several months to remind our legislators that they wanted a fiscally conservative state budget. The announced budget deal is a win for Texas on three specific points:
· It does not use a single penny of the rainy day fund for the next biennium.
· It does not raise taxes.
· It does represent the first all-funds reduction to a biennial state budget in the past half-century.
“What happened in the Texas Legislature this session is more than just a victory for Texans. It's a victory for America. Texas already leads the way in job creation, economic vitality, and economic liberty. Now Texas is leading the way in the most important cause facing our country: the need to live within our means.
“Today, in Austin, Texas, the men and women of our legislature showed it can be done. That's a tremendous accomplishment for Texas – and it's a shining beacon of hope for America.”
This is indeed a victory for fiscal conservatives in Texas. Texas will continue to be a shining city on the hill for the rest of the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)