Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Please explain...........
where voting for republiCON$ generates a move for more jobs...with examples.
extel's canada...
Here is where our resident nutcase gets most of his "material"...
http://canadafreepress.com/ ("CFP")
Why Canada? Who knows, but here are some of their more "interesting" website claims that extel (and a few others reading this...) are swimming in...
- Editor of CFP McLeod and Hawkins allege that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States may have been a Mafia plot and not the work of al-Qaeda terrorists. [5]
- Conservative writer Kevin Michael Grace has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent ninth grader," (sounds familiar doesn't it...)
- Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias describes her (McLeod) as "eccentric" and the Canada Free Press as a "whacko news site." [7] (they said it, I didn't)
- McLeod published the home address and photograph of Cathy Crowe, co-founder of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, in the CFP along with what Crowe's lawyer deemed defamatory statements. The lawyer alleged that McLeod was encouraging her readers to harass and even physically attack Crowe
- Some ads on the site:
Ads by Google (in CFP site)
Obama Muslim Flag
666 Obama
Another poster questions:
by Ziks511 - 5/12/11 7:36 PM
In Reply to: "We do not have time for this kind of silliness." by Mike_Hanks
I'd love to know where the "Canada" Free Press gets funding
from, because I doubt it's from Canada. From the first sentence you recognize that it is a purely anti-Obama site unable to come to grips with Obama's success at anything, even getting Osama bin Laden....
...The Canada Free Press is a scurrilous biased piece of Wolverine defecation. Why Wolverine?? because the Wolverine is the largest of the Weasel family which includes the Skunk, and all but the badger are pretty pungent smelling, though not in the same league as the skunk. A Wolverine, happening upon a carcase larger than it can eat will kick dirt and defecate and urinate all over the remains so that no other animal will go near it including the wolverine itself. It reminds me of a political party...
Lots more easily found, but you get the idea...
that ignorant meaningless quote... is that, only to the ignorant and meaningless...but in fairness, you do provide endless entertainment. And a window into the depths of depravity that the most whack-a-doodle have sunk.
Bought a chunk this AM... /e
More "E" work from "extel" our resident scholar.../e
Jobs...
Click here for Robert Reich excellent comments
Robert Reich discusses: “This terrible jobs and wage depression, and it is a depression, continues for most Americans. There is a small group that doesn’t want to do anything about it, but rejects any common sense solution. They just say no. The Nabob's of negativism. But Americans are not going to stand for it. We are going to say, to those with power and privilege, no more bullying.”
"Wall Street Occupation" v. TeaParty...
As the seemingly limitlessness of corporate greed continues to strangle every last breath of the people of our nation we have witnessed how the fear and frustration of the 99% can be channeled by our oppressors into perverted entities like the Tea Party movement.
With ruthless efficacy, the machine of the ruling class has conceived, funded, and promoted a false grass roots movement in which righteous anger is misdirected towards government and the people themselves. So convenient a device is the Tea Party for those like the Koch brothers who benefit as we turn against one another rather than recognize the shackles of our bondage or those who enslave us.
Yet a real movement of the people has developed, one that, like the original Boston Tea Party, targets corporate greed and seeks to strengthen rather than weaken our democracy. In this movement people are joined together rather than pit against one another and pursue justice rather than hatred.
Of course, the plutocracy rather than celebrating the exploits of this movement, arrest and imprison its participants. Rather than prime time news coverage this movement receives media blackout. Rather than corporate funding, the people have turned to each other as restaurants donate food and supporters around the world wire donations to fuel generators, and purchase rain coats and clean t-shirts.
Despite all obstacles, this movement is one fundamentally different from today’s Tea Party, and one behind which all people of this nation can rally.
Christie's important speech will announce...
His own reality show, a blend of "Biggest Looser" and Jenny Craig "Before" picture endorsements.
The Japanese have a saying, (and I'm paraphrasing) "If a man cannot effectively manage his own belly, he probably can't effectively manage anything else..."
Your Economy OT - Conspiracy, Politics, Religion, Terrorism, War (YE2OT)
How Science Can Lead the Way
By LISA RANDALL Monday, Oct. 03, 2011 (being published)
Today's politicians seem more comfortable invoking God and religion than they do presenting facts or numbers. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own religious beliefs. But when science and reason get shortchanged, so does America's future. With science, we put together observations with explanatory frameworks whose predictions can be tested and ultimately agreed on. Empirically based logic and the revelatory nature of faith are very different methods for seeking answers, and only logic can be systematically improved and applied. As we head toward the next election, it's important to keep an eye on how our political leaders view science and its advances, because their attitudes frequently mirror their approaches toward rational decisionmaking itself.
When Rick Perry, who defends teaching creationism in school, says evolution is merely "a theory that's out there, it's got some gaps in it," he's demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific theory. And when he chooses to pray for the end of a drought rather than critically evaluate climate science, he is displaying the danger of replacing rational approaches with religion in matters of public policy. Logic tries to resolve paradoxes, whereas much of religious thought thrives on them. Adherents who want to accept both religious influences on the world and scientific explanations for its workings are obliged to confront the chasm between tangible effects and unseen, imperceptible influences that is unbridgeable by logical thought. They have no choice but to admit the inconsistency--or simply overlook the contradiction.
What we are seeing in the current presidential race is not so much a clash between religion and science as a fundamental disregard for rational and scientific thinking. All but two of the Republican front runners won't even consider that man-made global warming might be causing climate change, despite a great deal of evidence that it is. We know CO2 warms the planet through the greenhouse effect, and we know humans have created a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. That man-made climate change is not proved with 100% certainty does not justify its dismissal.
In fact, an important part of science is understanding uncertainty. When scientists say we know something, we mean we have tested our ideas with a degree of accuracy over a range of scales. Scientists also address the limitations of their theories and define and try to extend the range of applicability. When the method is applied properly, the right results emerge over time.
Public policy is more complicated than clean and controlled experiments, but considering the large and serious issues we face--in the economy, in the environment, in our health and well-being--it's our responsibility to push reason as far as we can. Far from being isolating, a rational, scientific way of thinking could be unifying. Evaluating alternative strategies; reading data, when available, either in the U.S. or other countries, about the relative effectiveness of various policies; and understanding uncertainties--all features of the scientific method--can help us find the right way forward.
In 2009 I testified at a congressional hearing about the importance of basic science--something the Obama Administration made a focal point after years of unscientific and sometimes antiscientific policies by the Bush Administration. The hearing was in a room dedicated to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology in the Rayburn House Office Building. As I looked over the heads of the seated Representatives, I saw a plaque that read, WHERE THERE IS NO VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH. It is a noble and accurate sentiment to display, and its origin is Proverbs 29: 18.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094384,00.html#ixzz1ZSilO3rC
Uncompetitive...
Where we as a nation may be uncompetitive is contained in the fantasy belief that this article is logical by too many people. The math and conclusions are just ignorant of real life. The "marginal propensity to consume" would be reached WAY before a 9% compounded growth rate in premium for 20 to 35 years would be allowed to exist.
The math is true the conclusions are ludicrous.
Dick Morris is a moron and a FOX whore...and that's being polite.
all imo of course.
Perry at his best...
Hmm..bad day at the office. /e
Ancestry.com?
Partially enacted Healthcare bill realities...
Caution: Link requires you to actually read it for benefit...no spinning eyeballs sound bites...but for you low information folks, nice pictures.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/
Cain's 999 plan = ANTICHRIST!!!!!!!
Turning the RepubliCON$ race upside down.
999 = 666!
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
If you can read this, you have been left behind.
If you're still asking the "UP" question...
then you are so blind and so jaded that debating you is a waste of brain cells and definitely below my pay grade.
In the mean time, I'd suggest you double bolt your doors. There are a lot of angry, hungry, under educated, under employed and desperate people out there that would not think twice at breaking a few windows to get at your refrigerator in order to feed the kids.
You can decide where you'd like your tax dollars to go...more locks and prisons or civil neighbors who know how and have the opportunities available to earn a decent living ...
Cain wins GOP's latest 'poll vault'
September 26, 2011
Herman Cain topped Florida's straw poll Saturday,… (Associated Press)
WATCHING Republicans stagger through their candidate-selection process is like watching kids at a birthday party play Pin the Tail on the Donkey.
They're blindfolded, so you never know where the pin gets stuck.
How else to explain Saturday's surprise win of pizza king Herman Cain in Florida's straw poll?
It extends a GOP pattern that says: Look, we have no idea what we want, except we want anybody but that socialist Muslim tax-and-spend usurper in the White House. Oh, and we don't care what our candidate knows, says or thinks as long as he or she is patriotic, loud, angry or maybe a little crazy.
I'll take a pepperoni mushroom deep dish please...
Reagan era or even better, Nixon's tax rates would be acceptable... back when the economy was stronger...
Remember the, "It's the Economy, Stupid..." during Bush #1's rerun...look at the tax rate dip then that precipitated that 1st mess before Clinton facilitated the recoverys in the '90s.
Tax Comparison: Obama vs Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower
March 13, 2009 03:33 PM EDT
The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%.
But I was surprised to learn that the tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term was much higher -- 50%.
Under Richard Nixon it was 70%, and under Dwight Eisenhower it was actually 91%.
The bottom line of every Obama speech regarding the economy is you have too little because those guys have too much.
...and aren't paying their fair share.
Maybe you missed this...
House GOP bill would roll back basic air-pollution rules
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on a bill that's mushroomed recently into a plan to block the Obama administration's two main rules to clean up air pollution from power plants and change the way the Clean Air Act has worked for 40 years.
House Republicans who crafted the bill say environmental regulations harm economic competitiveness. In recent days, they've added amendments that would stop new air-pollution regulations that operators of coal-fired electric plants have objected to for years. Environmental and health groups call it an extreme attack on the air pollution law.
The amendments would eliminate two air pollution rules for power plants that are nearly ready to go into effect after years of delays. It also would require the Environmental Protection Agency to base acceptable levels of pollution on economic, as well as health, considerations.
"The complaint is that EPA does all the benefits, many of which are questionable, but has refused to look at the collective cost or (electric) reliability impacts," said Jeff Holmstead, a lobbyist for the electric power industry who was the EPA's air administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
The EPA has said it plans to take the combined effects of the upcoming rules into account as far as it legally can.
The TRAIN Act — for Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation — began as a requirement for a new federal committee to analyze the cumulative effects of environmental regulations before they take effect, but amendments have expanded its reach.
One, by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, would force the EPA to redo the two pending regulations: One would reduce air pollution that crosses state lines in the Eastern half of the country, and the second would limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants for the first time nationwide.
Whitfield said earlier this year that he was "especially concerned about what impact these rules will have on the coal producers in my state and the jobs tied to the industry that plays such a vital role in meeting our energy demands, as well as the impact on electricity consumers."
The interstate pollution rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The EPA estimated it would save up to 34,000 lives a year. The mercury and air toxics rule, which is to be finalized by November, is expected to save 17,000 lives a year.
Air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk for lung diseases, heart attacks and strokes.
Another amendment would change the way the law sets acceptable levels of pollution.
Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA sets standards for major air pollutants based only on what's necessary to protect public health with an "adequate margin of safety." Once the level of unhealthy air is set, the agency takes cost into account in determining what methods industries can use and how long they'll have to reduce the pollution.
The amendment by Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, would require the EPA to consider feasibility and cost when setting the amount of pollution in the air that's acceptable. This change would negate a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow the EPA to take costs into account when it's setting air standards.
John Walke, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog that the change would force the EPA "to set unprotective air quality standards for smog and soot and lead pollution that are at odds with health science, based on cost complaints by polluting industries."
House passage of the TRAIN Act is considered certain.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday that she thought she could block the act in the Senate. But "this is not a slam dunk for us," she added, because the bill could get recycled into budget or deficit-reduction measures.
The White House issued a statement Wednesday that said top staff there would advise President Barack Obama to veto the TRAIN Act if it reached his desk. In a statement, the administration said the bill would block two "landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act" that were long overdue.
Power plants got an exemption on mercury requirements under the Clean Air Act for many years. Some states have such regulations, but there's no nationwide requirement. Mercury in air settles in water. Humans ingest it from eating contaminated fish. It can damage the brain and reduce IQ in fetuses and children.
Whitfield's amendment would require the cross-state pollution rule to be revised to be more palatable for industry and not to go into effect for at least three years after the government finished studying it. The mercury rule also would be revised to make it more favorable for industry. Further, it couldn't be put out for a year after the study ended, and industries would have at least five years before they'd have to comply with it.
Plants need several types of large pollution-control equipment to meet the requirements, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars at each facility, Holmstead said.
Pollution-control supporters say that a U.S. pollution-control equipment industry creates jobs and exports. They also say that EPA data show that health benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/21/124856/house-gop-bill-would-roll-back.html#ixzz1YzDM02mO
Forget EPA...
Here is the NASA sight, you know those wild and crazy guys and gals who brought you "Man on the Moon", Challenger drama, Space Station tales and other scientist fantasies...
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Check the interactive links across the top. Or better yet, click on Key Indicators on the left sidebar to open a whole page of interactive information that even you (maybe) should be able to understand as more than just a coincidence...
And, I understand if you are a prime polluter of the Air, land or water or support those who are, this kind of information can very difficult to hear.
some cost implications:
The interstate pollution rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The EPA estimated it would save up to 34,000 lives a year. The mercury and air toxics rule, which is to be finalized by November, is expected to save 17,000 lives a year.
11 times more people than were killed on 9/11. So, whos side are the republiCON$ on, anyway?
President Obama’s Accomplishments
3 Chics Politico gives mad props to President Obama on his accomplishments since being in office. It’s pretty impressive!
Pictures and live links:
http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/
Hat-tip: Political Carnival
1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
6 Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier’s family
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren’t even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
16. New federal funding for science and research labs
17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
20. New funds for school construction
21 The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
22. US Auto industry rescue plan
23. Housing rescue plan
24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
26. US financial and banking rescue plan
27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with theGeneva Convention standards
29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
35. Successful release of US captain held bySomali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
41. Signed national service legislation; expandednational youth service program
42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
44. Expanding vaccination programs
45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
49.. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices
50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
51. Lower drug costs for seniors
52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
54. Improved housing for military personnel
55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
57 Increasing student loans
58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
60. Established a new cyber security office
61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
66. Improving benefits for veterans
67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
74. Making more loans available to small businesses
75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
86. Held first Seder in White House
87. Attempting to reform the nation’s healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
Oh, and he built a swing set for the girls outside the Oval Office.
Did I mention he passed health care reform ?
There are policies that many of us disagree with or wish he would improve or facilitate more quickly, but come on, this is a pretty sweet list.
Updated: H/T Newmericans
Here is the updated list of what I judge to be Obama’s most significant accomplishments in the less than 2 years since he was elected as President of the United States: As you read through this list, I ask you to weigh the totality of these achievements listed below against those accomplishments of Obama’s presidential predecessors, Democrats and Republicans, and then, after considering this, make your determination of whether you think he has done a good job.
1. Appointing two Supreme Court Justices: When people consider their presidential voting decision, most don’t consider that amongst the most important and enduring presidential responsibilities is the president’s ability to appoint supreme court justices. This is arguably a president’s biggest opportunity to influence his country, because Supreme Court justices sit until they retire or pass away, so the impact of his decision generally will last many decades beyond his years as president. Obama has been fortunate enough to have two Supreme Court Justices retire in his first few years in office and he has managed to secure both of his nominations through wise selection and political skill. He has added two Democrats, replacing two moderate Democrats in the process. If a Republican has won the presidency instead, we would now be looking at an unbalanced Supreme Court with six conservatives and only three liberal judges – a balance that would have been in place for many many decades. In the appointment process, Obama also introduced needed diversity to the bench with two more women on the court, bringing the count to a record three women sitting, while also introducing the nation’s first Hispanic to the Supreme Court with his choice of Sotomayor.
2. Passing Universal Healthcare: Obama accomplished what no prior Democrat could in expanding coverage to 32 million more Americans while simultaneously reducing the deficit by an estimated $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years. It delivers on every provision of the Patient Bill of Rights that Bill Clinton unsuccessfully tried to get passed, including making it illegal to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and capping out of pocket expenses when people get sick (so people don’t go in to bankruptcy after getting ill). It helps shift our medical system’s focus to preventative care by covering the cost of early warning tests so our doctors find diseases before they are too advanced - avoiding larger medical expenses down the road and requires the largest and richest American companies to provides insurance for all their employees. It attempts to lower health care costs by forcing all Americans to have medical insurance and pay their fair share so the system is more efficient – similar to how all Americans need to have car insurance – while providing tax credits to help the poor and small businesses afford this coverage. It increases competition by creating marketplace exchanges to make it easier for small businesses and those without insurance to shop and compare plans. It funds co-ops who can offer competitive insurance plans and provide further competition for insurance companies. It allows insurance companies to offer plans across state borders further increasing the supply of competitive plans. It provides funding, infrastructure, and support to automate, digitize, and unify the country’s outdated medical information system reducing system-wide costs, improving care, and increasing productivity. Perhaps most importantly, it sets up an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify and root out medical system waste, fraud, and abuse and includes many pieces of reform that will reduce the most wasteful medical system practices.
3. Financial industry reform: The most sweeping financial industry reform legislation since the Great Depression, this legislation tries to correct those industry issues that helped create the current recession we are still digging outselves out of. It provides a system to allow the government to break apart large financial institutions that threaten the economy, creates a council of federal regulators to coordinate the detection of risks to the financial system, subjects a wider range of financial companies to government oversight, creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to help protect citizens from unscrupulous practices, and reins in banks’ ability to trade in risky financial instruments such as credit derivatives.
4. Preventing a 2nd Great Depression: While preventing a depression is not sexy and certainly is reactive, history may say that this is still one of his most important accomplishment to date. The vast majority of economists and experts say that the nation had a high chance of slipping in to a Depression had this stimulus not passed along with the innovative actions of the Fed. Obama has worked with Bernanke and the Fed, put a team of some of the best economic minds around him, helped save America’s 3 major car manufacturers from going out of business, passed the largest economic Stimulus Bill in the nation’s history, and executed other legislative changes to keep liquidity flowing in our economy, save jobs that would have otherwise been lost, and fund areas of our economy that are strategic and important for our long term economic competitiveness including health care, education, green energy, science, and infrastructure.
Of course, critics will say that the economy today is still sputtering, holds some risk of sliding back in to a recession, and that a real recovery will take many years. These are all true statements and Obama has not moved us from a possible Depression to a fast growing economy – but this is a completely unrealistic, almost childish, expectation given the severity of the financial crisis, our current debt, and other economic realities that we have to deal with. Could he have done more or done it differently? Certainly. I would have loved to see Obama do more, faster to invest in small businesses, help them get loans, and help them become more competitive with the large corporations that increasingly dominate our economy. But today we are not in a horrible depression and things are stable and this alone is a tremendous accomplishment.
5. Bringing the war in Iraq to an end: Obama has reduced troops from a peak of 170,000 down to 50,000, with the remaining troops focused on training and recruiting Iraqi forces, rather than participating in combat. With this news, Obama delivered on a campaign promise he made while bringing to an end a misguided, expensive, and costly war which served no clear purpose. He also ensured that, in the process of wrapping up efforts in the region, he did so responsibly. Iraq is not in utter chaos as it once was at the peak of the insurgency and it stands a chance of having a reasonable future and being a reasonably stable Democratic state in the Middle East.
6. Passed legislation to curb greenhouse gases and improve the environment: Obama implemented new regulations on power plants, factories, and oil refineries to limit greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming, required energy producing plants to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources, allowed states to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards, increased, for the first time in more than a decade, the fuel economy standards for Model Year 2011 for cars and trucks, funded investment in clean energy technologies through a combination of spending and tax breaks, signed an omnibus public lands bill, which allows for 2 million more acres to be declared wilderness, and issued a Presidential Memorandum to the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances, like dishwashers and refrigerators, which, over the next three decades, will save twice the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America in any given year.
7. Nuclear non-proliferation agreement: Obama met with 47 presidents in a 3 day nuclear summit to lower the nuclear weapons count with a treaty signed between US and Russia, putting the world back on a path to reducing nuclear warheads.
8. Repairing Our Image Abroad: After 8 years of damage to our country’s image, Obama has helped repair badly damaged relationships with foreign powers across the world from Russia to Europe and reached out to the Arab world. This is necessary and critical in order for the most influential countries to work together to fight challenges such as Global Warming and Nuclear expansion. It also helps to fight terrorist recruiting by helping change America’s negative image. It is increasingly important for the US to engage with other countries as fast-growing nations like Brazil, China, and India join the traditional powerhouses and as America adjusts to a world with more diverse and influential players in the political equation.
9. Lifted Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research: Obama provided federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research, helping make it easier for scientists to find cures for our most dangerous diseases.
10. Reversed George W. Bush’s ban on federal funding to foreign organizations that allow abortions.
11. Implemented education reforms: Made higher college more accessible and affordable through significant increases in scholarships and funding, funded early learning programs, and, most importantly, through an innovative program called Race to the Top, spurred reforms in state and local district K-12 education by providing states with incentives to make positive changes to their education systems. Race to the Top prompted 48 states to adopt common standards for K-12. Some notable changes prompted by the program include Illinois lifting a cap on the number of charter schools it allows, Massachusetts making it easier for students in low-performing schools to switch to charters, and West Virginia proposing a merit pay system that includes student achievement in its compensation calculations.
12. Tobacco regulation. On June 22, 2009, Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which, for the first time, gave the U.S. Food & Drug Administration the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco.
Whereas my last assessment, made 8 months ago, on what Obama had done in office was subdued (”has not blown anyone over by his administrative record to date. His most significant accomplishment, while a job well done, was primarily a reaction to the economic environment handed to him while his other accomplishments are relatively tactical.”), my conclusion today is completely different. The list of his accomplishments are staggering for any US president – particularly when you compare him against our more recent US presidents. Try to come up with a list of positive accomplishments by Clinton or both Bush presidents over their entire tenures and you won’t be able to count them on one hand.
Meanwhile, in less than 2 years, Obama has done what most had said was politically impossible and absolutely essential for us to maintain a competitive economy in the future (Universal health care), tackled highly challenging and comprehensive economic reforms (Financial industry reform), and stabilized a very troubling economy.
After all of these achievements, it will be interesting to see what else Obama can get done over the next few years of his first term. Even if he did not achieve anymore legislative accomplishments during the remainder of his tenure, Obama will have had one of the most productive terms of any president in the history of our country.
Update:
Obama signs technology access bill for disabled
Update:
President Obama signs Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Update:
President Obama Signs Tax Cut Bill Into Law
Update:
President Obama Signs DADT Repeal Act
Update:
President Obama Signs 9/11 Health Bill
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/02/obama.9.11.bill/
Washington (CNN) — President Barack Obama signed the 9/11 health bill into law in Hawaii on Sunday, White House spokesman Bill Burton said.
Update:
President Obama signs historic food safety law
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2011/01/president_obama_signs_historic.html
With the flick of a pen, President Obama signs a bill today that paves the way for the first major overhaul of the food safety system in the United States in nearly a century.
The bill, passed by Congress late last year, gives the Food and Drug Administration new authority to recall tainted food and step-up inspections of food processing facilities.
It exempts farms and producers making $500,000 or year or less but will require larger manufacturers to enact food safety plans and includes measures to increase the safety of food imports, which account for one-sixth of the nation’s food supply.
Update:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/04/statement-press-secretary
On Tuesday, January 04, 2011, the President signed into law:
H.R. 81, the “Shark Conservation Act of 2010 and International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act,” which generally prohibits the removal of shark fins at sea and amends certain laws related to international fisheries;
H.R. 628, which establishes a pilot program regarding the adjudication cases where patent or plant variety protection issues are to be decided;
H.R. 1107, which restates and reorganizes the public contract laws of the United States in Title 41, United Sates Code;
H.R. 1746, the “Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Act of 2010,” which authorizes appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program for FYs 2011-2013;
H.R. 2142, the “GPRA Modernization Act of 2010,” which amends the Government Performance and Results Act to establish a Federal government performance plan;
H.R. 2751, the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,” which modernizes the food safety system to better prevent food-borne illness and better respond to outbreaks;
H.R. 4445, the “Indian Pueblo Cultural Center Clarification Act,” which repeals a restriction on the treatment of certain lands held in trust for Indian Pueblos in New Mexico;
H.R. 4602, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Emil Bolas Post Office;
H.R. 4748, the “Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010,” which requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to develop a Northern Boarder Counternarcotics Strategy;
H.R. 4973, the “National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010,” which reauthorizes and amends authorities relating to volunteer programs and community partnerships for national wildlife refuges;
H.R. 5116, the “America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010,” which reauthorizes various programs intended to strengthen research and education in the United States related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;
H.R. 5133, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building;
H.R. 5470, which excludes specified external power supplies from certain energy efficiency standards required by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act;
H.R. 5605, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the George C. Marshall Post Office;
H.R. 5606, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the James M. “Jimmy” Stewart Post Office Building;
H.R. 5655, which designates the Little River Branch facility of the United States Postal Service as the Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. Post Office;
H.R. 5809, the “Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010,” which modifies and reauthorizes through FY 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Program;
H.R. 5877, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Lance Corporal Alexander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post Office Building;
H.R. 5901, which authorizes the U.S. Tax Court to appoint employees under a personnel management system that includes the merit system principles and prohibitions on personnel practices;
H.R. 6392, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Colonel George Juskalian Post Office Building;
H.R. 6400, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office;
H.R. 6412, the “Access to Criminal History Records for State Sentencing Commissions Act of 2010,” which requires the Department of Justice to exchange records and information with State sentencing commissions;
H.R. 6510, which directs the General Services Administration to convey to the Military Museum of Texas the parcel of real property in Houston, Texas, on which the museum is located;
H.R. 6533, the “Local Community Radio Act of 2010,” which modifies current restrictions on low-power FM radio stations;
S. 118, the “Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010,” which amends financing and project operation requirements for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s program to allow for increased housing opportunities for low-income seniors;
S. 841, the “Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010,” regarding pedestrian safety related to motor vehicles;
S. 1481, the “Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010,” which amends financing and project operation requirements for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s program for low income individuals with disabilities;
S. 3036, the “National Alzheimer’s Project Act,” which establishes a National Alzheimer’s Project within the Department of Health and Human Services and an advisory council on Alzheimer’s research, care, and services;
S. 3243, the “Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010,” which requires the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that all applicants for law enforcement positions with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) receive polygraph examinations;
S. 3447, the “Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Improvements Act of 2010,” which amends the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and other educational assistance programs for veterans;
S. 3481, which clarifies the Federal Government’s responsibility to pay reasonable service charges to a State or local government to address stormwater pollution from Federal properties;
S. 3592, which designates a facility of the United States Postal Service as the First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building;
S. 3874, the “Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act,” which modifies the Safe Drinking Water Act definition of “lead free” with regard to pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures;
S. 3903, which authorizes 99-year leases on land held in trust for the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo in the State of New Mexico; and
S. 4036, which amends authorities of the National Credit Union Administration.
Update:
President Obama Signs START Treaty
President Obama signed the START nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia this morning.
Despite the great attention the president has devoted to this treaty — and the vast coverage of the treaty negotiations by the media — the White House refused to allow reporters or TV cameras in the room. Still photographers were the only representatives of the free press permitted to record the historic moment.
Update:
May 1st, 2011 11:30pm:
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead
WFAA
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden is dead and the United States has his body, a person familiar with the developments says. CNN and other news organizations are reporting the same information.
President Barack Obama was expected to make that announcement from the White House late Sunday night.
The person spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak ahead of the president.
CNN reports that bin Laden’s body was recovered from a mansion outside Islamabad, Pakistan.
Update:
President Barack Obama signs the certification stating the statutory requirements for repeal of DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) have been met, in the Oval Office, July 22, 2011. Pictured, from left, are: Brian Bond, Deputy Director of Public Liaison; Kathleen Hartnett, Associate Counsel to the President; Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta; Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen; and Vice President Joe Biden. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) July 22, 2011.
Today, President Obama signed a certification ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for good beginning September 20, 2011. The President signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law last December.
ETC.
Rich People And Corporations: The GOP’s Trillion-Dollar “Failed Stimulus”
Published: Sunday 25 September 2011
The simplest and best thing the country could do is adopt and increase the President’s direct job creation proposals, the ones that put people to work doing things that need doing.
"Class warfare!" Whenever you heard those words, it's a pretty sure bet whoever's saying them is the one who's really conducting class warfare.
And that you're the target.
The Fast and the Spurious
The Republican responses to President Obama's moderate plan for jobs creation have been fast and furious - and really, really repetitive. "Class warfare" is getting thrown around a lot, but other rhetorical warhorses are getting even more of a workout.
"This is another failed stimulus that will not stimulate the economy," said Texas Republican Rep. Francisco Canseco. (Well, a failed stimulus, wouldn't, would it?)
"The President needs to move beyond the failed stimulus programs of yesteryear," said Republic Rep. Mike Conway. ""I had hoped the President would have taken this opportunity tonight, before a Joint Session of Congress, to move past his failed stimulus policies," said Rep. Randy Neugebauer.
That's the new Republican mantra. In fact, a Google search on the phrase "failed stimulus" yields nearly half a million hits. And yet more than half of the President's $447 billion proposal comes in the form of tax cuts. We can debate whether these tax cuts are the most efficient use of dollar. There are better, more direct ways of get the economy moving and put Americans back to work, and the rest of the President's proposal includes some of them.
But tax cuts are more than half of the President's plan.
Party LinesQuestion: When did tax cuts become a form of "stimulus"? Answer: When a Democrat proposed them. And no matter how much the President tries to position himself as above party lines, the Republicans will never let him forget that he is a Democrat. That's why they keep calling his tax cuts a "stimulus," which is now a four-letter word in Washington.
But if the President's tax cuts are a "stimulus" plan, then so are other tax cuts designed to create jobs. The GOP says it opposes the President's proposal to raise taxes on millionaires. It would rather expand these tax giveaways because, they say, the wealthy are "job creators." Same goes for the ultra-large corporations who, they say, are "job creators," too.
When you give money to create jobs, whether directly through spending or indirectly through tax breaks, that's a "stimulus." And the Republicans' rhetoric makes it clear that their tax breaks are, too.
Mr. Boehner's America
"Job creators."
If John Boehner's said it once, he must have said it a million times. If so, that would be about once for every $3,500 spent on lobbying last year in Washington. And the $350 billion spent on lobbying in 2010 was actually down from the year before.
(You don't think corporation-friendly, rich-people-coddling notions like these grow on trees, do ya?)
The Speaker says that "private sector job creators are at the heart of our economy and they always have been. That's the America that I was raised in."
John Boehner was born in 1949, when the top tax bracket was over 82%. It went up the following year, and the top bracket stayed over 90% until he was fifteen years old. That's the real "America he was raised in," and it was a time of much greater growth and job creation than we're seeing today.
Today the top bracket is 35%, and can be as low as 15% for hedge fund billionaires and other members of the ultra-wealthy class. Mr. Boehner's fighting to keep it that way - and to lower these rates even more. That's not fighting for "the America he was raised in." That's fighting for "the America that funds his races."
Rich America.
The Job-Creator Scorecard
But let's take the Republicans at their word: Let's assume they support these tax cuts because they believe that they help "job creators" do what job creators are supposed to do - create jobs. That means each and every Republican tax cut for rich people and big corporations should be measured by its ability to create jobs and boost wages for the rest of us.
How's that workin' out for ya?
After a decade of giveaways to the "job creators," official unemployment is still over 9% and the real number is much worse. Wide swaths of the population are living in permanent recession or outright depression. Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash which they refuse to spend, because people are too cash-strapped or too fearful to spend and get the economy moving again.
And everybody keeps saying we can't do more about jobs because of the government's deficits. Where did they come from?
Deficits: Reagan's Real Legacy
The Republican tax giveaways began under Ronald Reagan. So did our exploding deficits. That's no coincidence. How badly did Reagan drive our government spending into a ditch?
For more than forty years before Reagan took office, the tax rates for the highest earners never fell below 70%, It was frequently in the 90%-94% range. Then Reagan slashed those rates.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, the "runaway" government debt he campaigned against was $930 billion. When he left in 1988 that debt was $2.6 trillion. For all their rhetoric, Republicans didn't care about deficits much back then.
They don't care about them now, either. Deficit talk is just another mechanism for preserving these tax breaks for the wealthy by making people believe we "can no longer afford" the basic services that were the foundation of our most prosperous century. Sure we can.
If we hadn't entered a thirty-year binge of tax breaks for the wealthy, we'd be in great financial shape right now. We'd have surpluses as far as the eye can see.
GOP Tax Breaks: The Stimulus That Failed
We can afford our great national programs just fine, thank you very much. What we can't afford is to keep coddling rich people. Unless, that is, they really are "job creators." Are they?
Michael Linden at the Center for American Progress looked at the data and found that "growth was actually fastest in years with relatively high top marginal tax rates. Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that."
In other words, we've never created jobs by lowering taxes for rich people. That's a "failed stimulus" plan if ever there was one. What we have created with these tax cuts is deficits - the rationale that's being used for all these cuts.
If you want to reduce the deficits, raise taxes on the wealthy. We could use that money to create some jobs, too.
Trillions More Wanted For Failed GOP Stimulus
How much more money do Republicans want to squander on their failed stimulus ideas?
They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which will cost an estimated $4 trillion. Since more than half of those cuts benefited the top 5% of earners in 2010, that means they're proposing roughly $2 trillion more of the same failed Republican stimulus.
They're against limiting deductions and exemptions for income above250,000 per year. That's another $410 billion of the same failed Republican stimulus.
They're against closing loopholes and special interest deductions. That's another $300 billion of the same failed Republican stimulus.
Romney wants to cut corporate taxes by a third. That's another $900 billion (yep, nearly a trillion!) of the same failed Republican stimulus.
Romney also wants to eliminate the estate tax, which only the richest of the richest heirs pay these days. That's another $175 billion of the same failed Republican stimulus.
Although, to look on the bright side, it does give Paris Hilton some more partying money.
Fixing Their Failures
The simplest and best thing the country could do is adopt and increase the President's direct job creation proposals, the ones that put people to work doing things that need doing. We can pay for these jobs by ending these failed stimulus programs for the rich and the big corporations.
The President's tax cuts are an inefficient way to create jobs, and the fact that they target Social Security's source of funding is a potential disaster. But there's no bigger "failed stimulus" in history than the Republican Party's thirty-year-long, multi-trillion-dollar giveaway to the rich and to corporations that hoard their cash and ship jobs overseas. They've driven deficits sky-high and failed to create jobs.
So let's make the President's partially-good program even better by increasing direct jobs spending and de-emphasizing the cuts. And when they attack those tax hikes for the wealthy and the idea of closing loopholes for corporations, just tell them we don't want to get stuck with another "failed Republican stimulus."
House GOP bill would roll back basic air-pollution rules
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Friday on a bill that's mushroomed recently into a plan to block the Obama administration's two main rules to clean up air pollution from power plants and change the way the Clean Air Act has worked for 40 years.
House Republicans who crafted the bill say environmental regulations harm economic competitiveness. In recent days, they've added amendments that would stop new air-pollution regulations that operators of coal-fired electric plants have objected to for years. Environmental and health groups call it an extreme attack on the air pollution law.
The amendments would eliminate two air pollution rules for power plants that are nearly ready to go into effect after years of delays. It also would require the Environmental Protection Agency to base acceptable levels of pollution on economic, as well as health, considerations.
"The complaint is that EPA does all the benefits, many of which are questionable, but has refused to look at the collective cost or (electric) reliability impacts," said Jeff Holmstead, a lobbyist for the electric power industry who was the EPA's air administrator during the George W. Bush administration.
The EPA has said it plans to take the combined effects of the upcoming rules into account as far as it legally can.
The TRAIN Act — for Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation — began as a requirement for a new federal committee to analyze the cumulative effects of environmental regulations before they take effect, but amendments have expanded its reach.
One, by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, would force the EPA to redo the two pending regulations: One would reduce air pollution that crosses state lines in the Eastern half of the country, and the second would limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants for the first time nationwide.
Whitfield said earlier this year that he was "especially concerned about what impact these rules will have on the coal producers in my state and the jobs tied to the industry that plays such a vital role in meeting our energy demands, as well as the impact on electricity consumers."
The interstate pollution rule is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The EPA estimated it would save up to 34,000 lives a year. The mercury and air toxics rule, which is to be finalized by November, is expected to save 17,000 lives a year.
Air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk for lung diseases, heart attacks and strokes.
Another amendment would change the way the law sets acceptable levels of pollution.
Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA sets standards for major air pollutants based only on what's necessary to protect public health with an "adequate margin of safety." Once the level of unhealthy air is set, the agency takes cost into account in determining what methods industries can use and how long they'll have to reduce the pollution.
The amendment by Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, would require the EPA to consider feasibility and cost when setting the amount of pollution in the air that's acceptable. This change would negate a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the Clean Air Act doesn't allow the EPA to take costs into account when it's setting air standards.
John Walke, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog that the change would force the EPA "to set unprotective air quality standards for smog and soot and lead pollution that are at odds with health science, based on cost complaints by polluting industries."
House passage of the TRAIN Act is considered certain.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday that she thought she could block the act in the Senate. But "this is not a slam dunk for us," she added, because the bill could get recycled into budget or deficit-reduction measures.
The White House issued a statement Wednesday that said top staff there would advise President Barack Obama to veto the TRAIN Act if it reached his desk. In a statement, the administration said the bill would block two "landmark public health regulations under the Clean Air Act" that were long overdue.
Power plants got an exemption on mercury requirements under the Clean Air Act for many years. Some states have such regulations, but there's no nationwide requirement. Mercury in air settles in water. Humans ingest it from eating contaminated fish. It can damage the brain and reduce IQ in fetuses and children.
Whitfield's amendment would require the cross-state pollution rule to be revised to be more palatable for industry and not to go into effect for at least three years after the government finished studying it. The mercury rule also would be revised to make it more favorable for industry. Further, it couldn't be put out for a year after the study ended, and industries would have at least five years before they'd have to comply with it.
Plants need several types of large pollution-control equipment to meet the requirements, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars at each facility, Holmstead said.
Pollution-control supporters say that a U.S. pollution-control equipment industry creates jobs and exports. They also say that EPA data show that health benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/21/124856/house-gop-bill-would-roll-back.html#ixzz1YzDM02mO
Military aggressively investing in clean technology
By Dana Hull | McClatchy-Tribune News Service
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The Department of Defense - eager to reduce its dependence on oil in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq and keen to become energy-efficient at home - is aggressively investing in clean technology, from advanced biofuels to electric vehicles, solar-powered batteries and blankets for soldiers in the field and bases that generate their own electricity.
"From Barracks to Battlefield: Clean Energy Innovation and America's Armed Forces," a report released Wednesday by Pew Charitable Trusts, examines the Department of Defense's leadership role in deploying nascent clean energy technology and driving its commercial development, giving an overview of what each branch of the armed services is doing.
The military's support of clean energy innovation is tied to the desire to save American lives, the report says. Today's soldier requires 22 gallons of fuel per day on average, an increase of 175 percent since the Vietnam War. In Afghanistan alone, 20 million to 50 million gallons of fuel is delivered each month. Eighty percent of the convoys into Iraq and Afghanistan are for fuel, and in 2010 there were 1,100 attacks on fuel convoys.
Each branch of the military is moving forward on aggressive energy goals. But Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has made energy security and independence a cornerstone of his tenure.
"There are great strategic reasons for moving away from fossil fuels. It's costly," Mabus said at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas last month. "Every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar, it costs the United States Navy $31 million in extra fuel costs. But it's costly in more ways than just money. For every 50 convoys of gasoline we bring in, we lose a Marine. We lose a Marine, killed or wounded. That is too high a price to pay for fuel."
The Department of Defense is the largest institutional energy user in the United States, and the sheer size of its footprint and purchasing power can help bring new technologies to scale. The Department of Defense manages more than 500,000 buildings and structures at 500 major bases and installations around the world totaling 2.2 billion square feet. That's three times the square footage operated by Wal-Mart.
"As one of the largest energy consumers in the world, the Department of Defense has the ability to help shape America's energy future," said Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Clean Energy Program. "DoD's efforts to harness clean energy will save lives, save money and enhance the nation's energy and economic future. Their work is also helping to spur the growth of the clean energy economy."
And while the military is under pressure from Congress to reduce its operational costs, the Pew report notes that its budget for energy security initiatives has increased from $400 million to $1.2 billion in the past four years.
Several Silicon Valley clean-tech companies have already discovered that the military is an ideal early adopter.
Skyline Solar of Mountain View, Calif., is installing its solar arrays on two domestic Army bases. South San Francisco's Solazyme has developed algae-based biofuels that the Navy is testing in Seahawk helicopters. And Foster City, Calif.-based Solar City is installing solar panels on military housing across the country.
"We're talking to many biofuel companies in Silicon Valley," said Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment, "and we're very interested in the smart grid and microgrids for our bases."
Dana Hull writes for the San Jose Mercury News.
©2011 the San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.)
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/21/124805/military-aggressively-investing.html#ixzz1YzAZwwEP
We’re still waiting.
After more than nine months in the majority, Speaker Boehner and his Tea Party Congress still have not passed a single bill to create jobs and grow our economy. Instead, they’re fighting tooth and nail to make sure millionaires and billionaires never have to pay their fair share.
It is easy to understand why the top 2% of the country votes republiCON.
And, it is totally amazing why the 98% below them who vote "R" continue to be duped into doing so...against their own best interest and the best interests of the USofA.
Note To GOP Candidates: Obama’s No Socialist
Published: Saturday 24 September 2011
Asked whether Barack Obama was a socialist—as Texas Governor Rick Perry, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have all agreed is most certain—former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney tried to talk his way around the most predictable question of Thursday night’s Fox News/Google debate.
But he more or less “went there.”
“What President Obama is, is a big-spending liberal,” Romney replied. “He takes his political inspiration from Europe and from the socialist-democrats in Europe. Guess what? Europe isn’t working in Europe. It’s not going to work here.”
A few minutes later, Gingrich went all in, decrying “Obama’s socialist policies.”
So there you have it. Obama’s a socialist, right? Wrong.
The president rejects the title, explicitly.
When he began talking deficit reduction last summer—with a proposal for a little bit of tax fairness combined with a suggestion that he was open to negotiations with regard to the future of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—Obama went out of his way to explain that his was not “some wild-eyed socialist position.”
Agreed. Obama is no socialist.
Indeed, he has made the point again and again that he rejects the socialist and social-democratic solutions that have worked in countries such as Germany, Sweden, Britain and Canada. He has rejected “socialized medicine” in favor of a healthcare reform plan that requires uninsured Americans to buy policies from for-profit insurance companies. He has refused to get tough on Wall Street and the big banks, allowing “too big to fail” private institutions to threaten the US economy. He has chosen not to respond to the unemployment crisis with the sort of jobs programs that Franklin Delano Roosevelt implemented during the New Deal era, and that Hubert Humphrey made central to his advocacy as a senator and presidential candidate in the 1960s and 1970s.
So Obama is right. He is no socialist.
But his determination to distance himself from socialist ideas and socialist thinkers also distances him from past Democratic presidents and party leaders—as well as past Republican presidents and party leaders.
Socialism is not a foreign concept. Socialist ideas have been a part of the American discourse and American policymaking for the better part of two centuries. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 by, among others, followers of the French utopian socialist Charles Fourier and radical land reformers who proudly promoted the ideal of redistribution of the common wealth. Horace Greeley employed Karl Marx as the European correspondent for the great newspaper of the Republican movement, the New York Tribune. And Abraham Lincoln employed Marx’s editor and friend Charles Dana as a presidential assistant.
Seventy-five years later, Franklin Roosevelt consulted with the Socialist Party presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, before assuming the presidency and launching the New Deal. First lady Eleanor Roosevelt announced that, had her husband not been a candidate in 1932, she would have voted for Thomas on the Socialist ticket.
During the cold war, cities as diverse as Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Bridgeport, Connecticut, elected socialist mayors.
As president, John F. Kennedy read and praised the writings of Michael Harrington, a Socialist Party member who would go on to lead the Democratic Socialists of America. Lyndon Johnson’s administration brought Harrington into the fold as a consultant on the development of “war on poverty” programs and invited veteran socialist union leader A. Philip Randolph (the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom) to present his “Freedom Budget” for ending poverty at the White House.
Randolph made that presentation along with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who in that same year, 1966, would explain to his staff: “You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry…. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism…. There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”
It is certainly true that Barack Obama is not an advocate for any “wild-eyed socialist position.” Nor is he an advocate for any sober and sound socialist position.
Obama’s explicit and frequent rejection of the word “socialist” parallels his rejection of the ideals and ideas associated with that word.
But distancing himself from socialist and social democratic ideals does not make Obama or his policies any more “American”—or any more in sync with the approaches of the country’s great presidents.
Quite the opposite.
Great American presidents, from at least the time of Lincoln, have respected and engaged with socialists and social-democratic ideas. They have not always embraced those ideas. And even when they have borrowed from the socialist toolkit, the act of doing so did not make them socialists—any more than Jimmy Carter’s openness to drug law reform made him a libertarian or Obama’s intriguing with those who would begin the gutting of Medicare makes him a Barry Goldwater Republican.
When Obama goes out of his way to declare that his is no “wild-eyed socialist position,” the president tells us what everyone except Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney knows. Obama also buys into the right-wing rhetoric that tells us America needs a narrower and more listless debate.
Obama and the conservatives he echoes are wrong. Now, more than ever, America needs more ideas, more debate, and a wider range of options.
Rejecting whole ideologies—conservatism or liberalism, libertarianism or socialism—is unhealthy, especially in so dynamic a country as the United States. And doing so reinforces the notion that the false choices peddled by corrupt politicians and convoluted thinkers are all that we have available to us.
extelecom, you are the poster child for the right's Lunacy...
The most recent example of you delusional behavior...
You blame Obama for everything under the sun even 37 years of government problems:
"In one case, the son of a beneficiary continued receiving payments for 37 years after his father's death in 1971. The payments - totaling more than $515,000 - were only discovered when the son died in 2008...Both the Obama administration and Congress have made it a higher priority to crack down on improper government payments. "
What part of Obama had nothing to do with this problem don't you get...
You are pathetic.
The "my way or the highway" RepubliCON$ /e
America: In reality is a "Social Democracy". /e
Your American Government lesson for today:
"The President proposes and the Congress disposes...". It is the job of the Congress to enact or pass bills that are either proposed by the President or by members of the House or Senate. The POTUS then signs the bill into law...as the last step in the process.
The President does not create law as a solo act. The POTUS requires cooperation and compromise from both houses of Congress. If either house of Congress is bent on destruction of the legislative process and obstruction of the POTUS it can achieve it by just doing nothing...as the House has shown it will do with the currently elected members.
The previous POTUS...the fake Texas guy...bypassed this process nearly 1,000 times through "Signing Statements" and was accused of creating a "Unilateral Presidency" bypassing law for his own benefit.
Regrettably, this is the standard of "leadership" you have come to see as normal...and look at the mess we are in today on all fronts because of your "W's" behavior.
There are laws and process for a reason.
Signing Statements and the Rollback of American Law
The Unilateral Presidency
by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO
In a refreshing investigative series in the Boston Globe from 2006, journalist Charlie Savage dropped a bombshell on the Bush administration. Reporting on Bush’s use of "signing statements," Savage highlighted the president’s long-standing contempt for Legislative authority. Since then, the story has generally been overlooked although it recently resurfaced when Bush issued another statement that he would disregard Congress’s prohibition of permanent military bases in Iraq. The President’s issuance of this signing statement is just one of hundreds of challenges he’s made to national laws.
A signing statement, simply put, is an official announcement from the Executive–an attempt to alter the intent of a law by allowing the President to interpret its execution in any way he sees fit. While signing statements hold no official legal standing, the president acts as if they grant him the power to disregard segments of bills with which he disagrees. Since taking office, the Bush administration has issued over 150 signing statements, containing over 500 constitutional challenges, and questioning more than 1,100 provisions of national laws. This is a significant increase from years past. Former presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton issued over 300 such statements combined, while only 75 signing statements were issued in total from the early 1800s through the Carter Presidency.
Interpretive signing statements have received support from some legal scholars and officials associated with the administration, such as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and John Yoo of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council. The American Bar Association, the ACLU, and other legal scholars, however, have challenged the signing statements as unconstitutional and a violation of the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers. In response to Bush’s circumvention of the military bases ban, Harvard Law Professor David Barron questioned the administration for "continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president’s unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad."
Some Democrats in Congress have also challenged the President’s assumption that he can unilaterally interpret laws outside their original intent. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explains: "I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to executeHis job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law – every part of it–and I expect him to do just that."
Sadly, there’s been little sustained effort on the part of the Legislative and Judicial branches to prohibit these attacks on the legal system. The few bills that have been presented in Congress seeking to prohibit signing statements have gone nowhere, ignored by the majority of Democrats and Republicans. The Supreme Court has also failed to rule on the constitutionality of the signing statements, contributing to the legal ambiguity surrounding the President’s controversial actions.
A few examples of the President’s signing statements provide a better picture of his contempt for the law:
1. Regarding a bill requiring the Justice Department to provide reports to Congress on how the FBI has utilized the Patriot Act to spy on citizens and confiscate property, Bush issued a statement declaring his power to withhold such information if he feels it would hurt national security in some way.
2. Concerning a law protecting whistleblowers at the Dept. of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission from punishment, the President determined that it’s within his power to determine whether potential whistleblowers are even allowed to provide information to Congress.
3. In response to a 2004 law preventing the U.S. from deploying troops in Colombia against FARC and FLN guerillas, Bush announced that only he, as the commander in chief, has the power to decide whether troops will be used. Bush deemed the law as nothing more than "advisory in nature."
4. Although a law was passed requiring that scientific information "prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted uncensored and without delay" to Congress, the President issued a statement claiming it is within his power to withhold information if he feels it could damage U.S. national security, relations with foreign countries, or generally interfere with the operations of the Executive.
5. Perhaps most controversially, the President issued a signing statement countering Congress’s prohibition on torture (included within the 2005 McCain amendment), claiming that it was within his constitutional power to ignore the ban in order to "combat terrorism."
You’ve probably noticed a pattern with many of these statements: they don’t simply establish Presidential power to "interpret" or "execute" the law; quite the contrary, they represent a fundamental abrogation of the major provisions of the bills themselves. Of what use is a bill prohibiting torture, if the ban can be bypassed by any president who does not feel bound to honor it? What is the point of prohibiting the deployment of troops to Colombia, if the president simply ignores this requirement? Rather than voting against a ban on torture, the President has taken the back-door approach, signing the bill, then quietly issuing a statement that he will not be bound by the law.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the media response to Bush’s signing statements has been lacking. On the one hand, there are the wonderful investigative reports of Savage in the Boston Globe, which shed much light on the long-neglected story of presidential contempt for the law. On the other hand, researchers have found that the Globe’s reporting has been largely ignored in other major outlets. The watchdog group Media Matters for America concluded that: "Except for a short March 24 United Press International article, some scattered editorials and opinion columns, and brief mentions in an April 1 San Francisco Chronicle article and an April 23 Washington Post article, Savage’s reporting on Bush’s ‘signing statements’ and the Democratic response were ignored by major newspapers and wire services. And aside from Keith Olbermann, who reported on the Globe article on the March 24 edition of MSNBC’s Countdown, the cable and broadcast news networks ignored the ‘signing statements’ as well."
My own analysis also indicates mixed results in the case of the Paper of Record. On the editorial side of the New York Times, the paper actually came out quite opposed to the signing statements. In a 2008 editorial on the President’s circumvention of the military bases ban, the paper attacked the administration for its "passive-aggressive" attempts "to undermine the power of Congressdeclaring that he [has] no intention of obeying laws he [has] signed." In his 2007 Op-Ed, Adam Cohen censured Bush for his de-facto veto of the torture ban–for using an "extralegal trickto bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward’s escape from the moral and legal responsibility" of prohibiting such behavior.
Sadly, sustained critical attention hasn’t appeared in the paper’s reporting. While the administration has been issuing signing statements since it took office in early 2001, a review of the paper’s coverage demonstrates that the topic didn’t even make an appearance in the paper until a full five years later, in January 2006. Overall, the paper has run only 7 stories featuring the signing statements, in the just over seven years of the Bush administration’s tenure. Furthermore, six of those stories were clustered in the _ year period between January and July of 2007–when Republican Senator Arlen Specter was attacking the President for the statements, and when the Senate was grilling Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for his support for the statements. Only one report from mid 2006 through early 2008 featured the issue of the statements, despite the continuing conflict between Congress and the President over his distaste for national laws.
Whenever I reach the Presidency section in my American government class each semester, many of my students become enraged when they find out about the Bush administration and the signing statements debacle. They’re bewildered that a political leader could be allowed to blatantly disregard the law without being held politically accountable. Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to be aware of the travesty of the signing statements–at least if my students’ responses are any indication. While Bush’s contempt for the law may very well be an impeachable offense, it certainly hasn’t been treated this way in a timid Congress, too afraid to challenge the President in a time of infinite war.
ANTHONY DiMAGGIO has taught Middle East Politics and American Government at Illinois State University. His book, Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Understanding the News in the "War on Terror," is due out in April. He can be reached at: adimag2@uic.edu