THE GOOD NEWS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BROKE INTO APPLAUSE TWICE DURING HIS SPEECH MONDAY MORNING TO WELCOME HIS IDEAS.
The bad news: THEY CLAPPED JUST TWICE, IN A 35-MINUTE ADDRESS.
Obama himself acknowledged early on that he doesn’t have the best relationship with the Chamber. (“Maybe if we had brought over a fruit cake when we first moved in, we would have got off to a better start,” he joked.)
The first applause line came halfway through Obama’s remarks, as HE SPOKE OF OPENING UP NEW MARKETS AND SELLING MORE AMERICAN GOODS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
“I’ll go anywhere to be a booster for American businesses, American workers and American products,” Obama said, to which the audience broke into applause. Then, in an ad-libbed moment, Obama remarked, “And I don’t charge a commission.”
The only other applause for Obama came at the end, when Obama once again hit the right note in CALLING FOR BRINGING JOBS BACK THE UNITED STATES.
“That’s good for everybody,” he said. “So if I’ve got a message, that message is: ‘Now’s the time to invest in America.’ ” As the audience applauded, Obama repeated, “Now’s the time to invest in America ……
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0211/two_for_the_show_8135b507-60a3-4d2c-8a07-4a7f384328c8.html
Obama is not coming to the center and this demonstrates that while the MSM may be saying that, the Chamber isn’t fooled.
Obama Offers to Cut Federal Budget by .02 Percent
President Obama's budget director Jack Lew in a Sunday opinion piece OUTLINED SOME OFF THE “TOUGH CHOICES” Obama is willing to make to cut spending in his 2012 budget request due out on Feb. 14.
The piece details cuts that affect initiatives dear to the president: programs to help the poor and to clean up the Great Lakes near the president's home state of Illinois.
The cuts are relatively small, however, in the larger scheme of things. In total, THE $775 MILLION IN DETAILED CUTS FALL FAR SHORT OF DEMANDS BY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS and will do little toward tackling the deficit, which is estimated to be $1.5 trillion this year by the Congressional Budget Office.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/142335-lew-previews-cuts-in-obama-2012-budget?
I always like to put this in terms the average person can understand. Let’s say you are spending $4000 per month, but your spouse lost their job and you are only bringing in $2500. You realize you must make significant cuts in spending. So you come up with a difficult cut of 80 cents per month. Not only are you not serious, you are in a lot of trouble.
Obama’s Keynesian failures must never be repeated
President Barack Obama’s $814bn economic expansion has WOEFULLY FAILED TO REACH EACH OF ITS SELF-IMPOSED TARGETS. The president’s stimulus package promised (after adjusting for inflation) that gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2010 would be roughly $15,200bn. YET THE LATEST FIGURES, RELEASED THIS MONTH, FELL SHORT BY SOME $400BN. Instead of being an important milestone for the global recovery, the data are just one further example of the failure of Mr Obama’s Keynesian misadventure.
The fourth quarter target was set in a now-infamous January 2009 report, written by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, then economic advisers to Mr Obama and vice-president Joe Biden. Their analysis also concluded that US UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD NEVER SURPASS 8 PER CENT, AND BY NOW WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF 7 PER CENT. Payroll employment was also projected to be 137.6m. In fact, unemployment has stayed stubbornly above 9 per cent for 20 consecutive months, while employment is currently 6.8m below the target – and that is without even counting those who have given up looking for work…..
…The truth is that real GDP IS JUST 3 PERCENT LARGER THAN IT WAS IN THE QUARTER JUST BEFORE THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED, while the current employment situation is little short of dire….
…Some 47 OUT OF 50 US STATES, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE LOST JOBS SINCE THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d949c6c8-32fc-11e0-9a61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1DNOnwlE5
A failed policy in a fail presidency.
Police sex files on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are leaked online
Swedish police documents on the Julian Assange sex cases have been leaked online.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353989/WikiLeaks-Police-sex-files-Julian-Assange-leaked-online.html#ixzz1DN39j0Zy
More than one hundred pages of interview transcripts, photographs and other evidence relating to sexual assault claims made by two Swedish women appeared on the internet this week.
The documents raise key questions for both sides about the allegations including whether one of the WikiLeaks founder's Swedish lovers was asleep during intercourse. Those answers will determine whether rape was committed under Swedish law.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Can Mubarak survive?
After thirty unbroken years as President of Egypt, it had seemed as if Hosni Mubarak's charmed career was finally coming to an end
BUT YESTERDAY, CAIRO'S FAMOUS TRAFFIC JAMS WERE BACK. BUSINESSES, SHOPS, AND BANKS WERE OPEN ACROSS THE CAPITAL. Barack Obama spoke of the "progress" the Egyptian government was making towards reform. And though still in tens of thousands, the numbers at Tahrir Square were probably down on the previous day.
Meanwhile, Mr Mubarak, the great survivor, was using all the guile that has kept him in power for so long to PRODUCE A SERIES OF SWEETENERS – INCLUDING A 15 PER CENT PAY RISE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES – TO WIDEN HIS PUBLIC SUPPORT. He even held the first meeting of his new cabinet: the group he had hastily cobbled together as another means of staving off the end. His regime was doing everything in its power to suggest that things were calm once more. In another symbolically conciliatory move, the regime released Wael Ghonim, a local marketing manager for Google, who is a prominent youth activist involved in the protests and was detained three days after they began.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypts-revolution-can-it-stay-the-distance-2207427.html
You have to remember there are 80 million Egyptians and only a small percentage have demonstrated against the government. In Luxor over the weekend there was one demonstration and it was in favor of the government.
New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, RASMUSSEN'S POLL OF LIKELY VOTERS SHOWS THAT AMERICANS SUPPORT ITS REPEAL BY A MARGIN OF 21 PERCENTAGE POINTS (58 TO 37 PERCENT). Among independents, the margin in support of repeal is even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).
BY A MARGIN OF 40 POINTS (58 TO 18 PERCENT), VOTERS THINK OBAMACARE WOULD INCREASE, RATHER THAN REDUCE, DEFICITS. BY A MARGIN OF 31 POINTS (52 TO 21 PERCENT), THEY THINK IT WOULD REDUCE, NOT IMPROVE, THE QUALITY OF CARE. And by a margin of 36 points (56 to 20 percent), they think it would raise, rather than lower, health costs. Among independents, these margins are even greater: 68 to 13 percent on deficits, 60 to 16 percent on quality, and 63 to 16 percent on costs.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html
Obamacare has been passed and it appears the American public is now seeing what’s in it.
Tribe on the mandate
Since the New Deal, THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT CONGRESS HAS BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. BY THAT STANDARD, THIS LAW’S CONSTITUTIONALITY IS OPEN AND SHUT. DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THE MULTITRILLION-DOLLAR HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS AN INTERSTATE MARKET THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?ref=opinion
Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK, ALL INDIVIDUALS — HEALTHY AND SICK, RISK-PRONE AND RISK-AVERSE — MUST PARTICIPATE TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR ECONOMIC ABILITY. .
…The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. INDIVIDUALS WHO DON’T PURCHASE INSURANCE THEY CAN AFFORD HAVE MADE A CHOICE TO TAKE A FREE RIDE ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM…..
…Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so….
I’m surprised Tribe wrote this. Tribe is a committed leftist, but his argument about regulating interstate commerce shows the weakness of his argument since we are not talking about regulating commerce, but in requiring commerce. And his fall back positions (the power to tax and the free ride argument) are not germane to the issue. The issue is whether the Constitution lets congress order people to partake in the interstate commerce the congress is allowed to regulate. This is a open and shut case, but Tribe is simply wrong on which side is the open and shut part.
And here is Ann Althouse’take on the tribe column.
Oh, come on. TRIBE’S RHETORICAL MOVE HAS BECOME COMICAL AT THIS POINT. It reminds me of an old-fashioned mother exerting moral pressure on a child by telling him how sure she is that he is such a good little boy that he could never do whatever it is she doesn’t want him to do. Put more directly, it’s an assertion of authority: I’m telling you what’s right and if you don’t do it, you’ll be wrong. COULD THE JUSTICES POSSIBLY YIELD TO PRESSURE LIKE THAT? IT’S CRUDE TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD, ISN’T IT? IT’S AN INSULT BOTH THEIR INTELLECT AND THEIR INTEGRITY.
And yet, Larry Tribe does think it, right? That’s what’s behind his rhetoric. I believe. Crudely.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-tribe-would-like-you-to-know.html
Basically she sees Tribe as trying the old Emperor’s New Clothes scam. Only smart people can see the fine fabric there. Another issue not brought up by either of these posts is whether or not Kagan will recluse herself. She should since she was part of the team justifying the Constitutionality of the mandate.
Discrimination within
DISCRIMINATION IS ALWAYS HIGH ON THE AGENDA AT THE SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S CONFERENCE, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved A NEW “OUTGROUP.”
It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking HOW MANY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES POLITICALLY LIBERAL. A SEA OF HANDS APPEARED, AND DR. HAIDT ESTIMATED THAT LIBERALS MADE UP 80 PERCENT OF THE 1,000 PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE BALLROOM. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when HE ASKED FOR CONSERVATIVES, HE COUNTED A GRAND TOTAL OF THREE.
“THIS IS A STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE LACK OF DIVERSITY,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE A “TRIBAL-MORAL COMMUNITY” UNITED BY “SACRED VALUES” THAT HINDER RESEARCH AND DAMAGE THEIR CREDIBILITY — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&ref=science
Not much of a surprise here. Conservatives will go into business. Liberals go into teaching, reporting and evidently the social sciences.
Discrimination in the enforcement of the law
….THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HAS GRANTED 733 WAIVERS FROM ONE OF THE STATUTE’S KEY REQUIREMENTS. The recipients of the waivers include insurers such as Oxford Health Insurance, labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, and employers such as PepsiCo. This is disturbing for many reasons. At the very least, it suggests the impracticability of the health-care law; HHS GAVE THE WAIVERS BECAUSE IT FEARS THE LAW WILL COST MANY AMERICANS THEIR JOBS AND INSURANCE.
More seriously, IT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE LIVE UNDER A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS. CONGRESS CAN PASS STATUTES THAT APPLY TO SOME BUSINESSES AND NOT OTHERS, BUT ONCE A LAW HAS PASSED — AND THEREFORE IS BINDING — HOW CAN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH RELIEVE SOME AMERICANS OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO OBEY IT?
THE DANGERS OF INEQUITY ARE OBVIOUS. Will only corporations and unions get waivers, or can individuals also get them? For example, if a family physician feels financial pressure under the health-care law to fire one of his employees, will he get a waiver to avoid adding to unemployment?
Indeed, can even a small corporation get a waiver? Small businesses provide most new jobs, but the answer is obvious: Waivers are mostly, if not entirely, for politically significant businesses and unions that get the special attention of HHS or the White House. The rest of us must obey the laws.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259101/are-health-care-waivers-unconstitutional-philip-hamburger
Another Constitutional issue, but I suspect the law also gave the executive branch the right to grant these waivers.
Five regulations businesses hate the most
From more than 100 different new regulations either proposed or finalized by the Obama administration, THESE ARE THE FIVE BUSINESS GROUPS HATE THE MOST, based on the number of separate organizations that wrote Issa to recommend he look into them:http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/the-top-five-obama-regulations-that-american-businesses-hate-most/#ixzz1DNwLvbvM
1. EPA CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS
Though cap and trade was defeated in Congress, the EPA is sprinting to finalize its own regulations that would mandate reduced carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gasses” scientists think are warming the planet….
2. OSHA’S “OCCUPATIONAL NOISE” REGULATION
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a new regulation in October that would have put strict new regulations on the volume of noise experienced by workers on the job.
But the outcry over the cost and feasibility of the new regulations was so great the agency abandoned the regulation on Jan. 19, promising to start over after consulting with key members of Congress including Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent….
3. EPA’S NEW RESTRICTIONS ON OZONE POLLUTION
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson backed off the agency’s plans to more strictly regulate ozone pollution shortly after the midterm election “shellacking,” asking for more research on the issue in December….
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DODD-FRANK FINANCIAL REFORM BILL
Industry groups raised concerns about 20 separate provisions in the Dodd-Frank regulation that the Obama administration is currently implementing.
5. EPA’S NEW TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR RENOVATION PROJECTS
Lead-based paint, used for decades in homes and on buildings, is still found in many older buildings. Since lead is hazardous, especially to children, renovation projects that disturb lead-based paint can lead to the danger of inhaling lead dust
I find these kinds of article interesting. I hope you do too.
The steep price of crossing Nancy Pelosi
Officially, Jane Harman's career in Congress will come to a close in the next few weeks, when the California Democrat steps down in the middle of her ninth term to become the new president of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. In reality, though, IT'S BEEN OVER FOR YEARS NOW -- EVER SINCE HARMAN CROSSED NANCY PELOSI AND PELOSI RESPONDED BY SHUTTING DOWN HARMAN'S POWER CENTER IN THE HOUSE (and her vehicle for national television exposure).
The break had its roots in the Iraq war, and Harman's role as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee when it was launched, and as the occupation turned sour. A "select" panel, Intelligence is unique from other House committees in that it's composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans; members are privy to sensitive documents and top-level security briefings, and the idea is that their work on the committee is above partisan politics
The problem, from Pelosi's standpoint, is that Harman's status as the No. 1 Democrat on Intelligence essentially made her the highest-profile House Democrat in the middle of the last decade. At the time, don't forget, Republicans had been running the House for a decade, and they also controlled the White House and Senate. TO THE NATIONAL MEDIA, PELOSI, WHO WAS ELECTED THE DEMOCRATS' HOUSE LEADER IN 2002, WAS A BIT PLAYER, especially on matters of national security and foreign policy. Her caucus had little clout, and the press mostly tuned her out.
http://www.salon.com/news/nancy_pelosi/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/07/harman_pelosi_congress
Politics can be ugly and it appears it is especially ugly when women play it against one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment