From Jeannine Avena at the Associated Press:
The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 8.5 percent in March, the highest since late 1983, as a wide swath of employers eliminated 663,000 jobs. It's fresh evidence of the toll the recession has inflicted on America's workers, and economists say there's no relief in sight.
If part-time and discouraged workers are factored in, the unemployment rate would have been 15.6 percent in March, the highest on records dating to 1994, according to Labor Department data released Friday.
The average work week in March dropped to 33.2 hours, a new record low.
"It's an ugly report and April is going to be equally as bad," predicted Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Last month's tally of job losses was slightly higher than the 654,000 that economists expected. The rise in the unemployment rate matched expectations.
Employers cut 651,000 jobs in February when the jobless rate was 8.1 percent, the same as initially estimated. January's job losses, however, were revised much higher, to 741,000 . . .
Job losses were widespread last month. Construction companies cut 126,000 jobs. Factories axed 161,000. Retailers got rid of nearly 50,000. Professional and business services eliminated 133,000. Leisure and hospitality reduced employment by 40,000. Even the government cut jobs -- 5,000 of them. . . .
Even if the recession ends this year, the economy will remain frail, analysts said. Companies will have little appetite to ramp up hiring until they feel the economy is truly out of the woods and any recovery has staying power.
Given that, many economists predict the unemployment rate will hit 10 percent at the end of this year. The Fed says unemployment will remain elevated into 2011.
Economists say the job market may not get back to normal -- meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate -- until 2013.
"There's going to quite a long haul before you see the jobless rate head down," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Democrats. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Democrats. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 03 April 2009
Should Alaska Senator Resign?
From Erika Bolstad in the Anchorage Daily News:
The head of the Alaska Republican Party today called on Sen. Mark Begich to step down from the U.S. Senate, saying that the state's voters would have re-elected former Sen. Ted Stevens had they known the U.S Department of Justice would abandon its prosecution of him.
The party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, said that the only reason Begich won his race was because "a few thousand Alaskans thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies."
He added that he thought Begich should step down "so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice."
Gov. Sarah Palin concurs with Ruedrich and believes a special election is appropriate, said a spokeswoman for Palin's political action committee, Meg Stapleton. "I absolutely agree," Palin said in a statement.
The head of the Alaska Republican Party today called on Sen. Mark Begich to step down from the U.S. Senate, saying that the state's voters would have re-elected former Sen. Ted Stevens had they known the U.S Department of Justice would abandon its prosecution of him.
The party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, said that the only reason Begich won his race was because "a few thousand Alaskans thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies."
He added that he thought Begich should step down "so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice."
Gov. Sarah Palin concurs with Ruedrich and believes a special election is appropriate, said a spokeswoman for Palin's political action committee, Meg Stapleton. "I absolutely agree," Palin said in a statement.
Minggu, 29 Maret 2009
McConnell Blasts Big Gov't.
From Walter Alarkon at The Hill:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he fears that President Obama's policies will lead to an "explosion of government" that the country didn't expect when they voted for him last fall.
"I mean they were angry with President Bush. They were not happy with the economy," McConnell said. "All of that we understand. Whether they intended to see America kind of turned into a western European country as a result of an explosion of spending and debt and regulation is another matter."
McConnell and other Republicans have repeatedly tried to portray Obama as a figure radically transforming the government. On Sunday, he also blasted the Democrats' budgets, saying that they'll lead to higher taxes.
Much of the criticism has centered on bailouts the government has provided to banks and other financial institutions, insurer AIG and two of the big three automakers. Much of the funds for these bailout came from the $700 billion package approved by the last Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Obama supported that package.
McConnell also criticized Democrats for suggesting new energy taxes could pay for healthcare legislation. That could be included in budget blueprints the House and Senate will take up this week.McConnell said he fears that the country won't be able to afford what Democrats want to do. He said lawmakers should focus on fixing the country's financial and housing systems."What we ought not to be doing is passing the budget that they propose we pass in the Senate and House next week that doubles the national debt the next five years and triples it in the next 10," he said. A massive tax increase, an energy tax of up to $3,100 per person. An effort we believe the nationalized health care, that has nothing to do with the economic dilemma which we confront at the moment."
McConnell said that he didn't think any Senate Republicans would vote for the Democrats' budget proposal. He suggested it's more likely to see Democrats vote against the budget plan.
"I think they have serious concerns on their side about this budget which is completely disconnected to and unrelated to the current economic crisis in which we're facing," McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he fears that President Obama's policies will lead to an "explosion of government" that the country didn't expect when they voted for him last fall.
"I mean they were angry with President Bush. They were not happy with the economy," McConnell said. "All of that we understand. Whether they intended to see America kind of turned into a western European country as a result of an explosion of spending and debt and regulation is another matter."
McConnell and other Republicans have repeatedly tried to portray Obama as a figure radically transforming the government. On Sunday, he also blasted the Democrats' budgets, saying that they'll lead to higher taxes.
Much of the criticism has centered on bailouts the government has provided to banks and other financial institutions, insurer AIG and two of the big three automakers. Much of the funds for these bailout came from the $700 billion package approved by the last Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Obama supported that package.
McConnell also criticized Democrats for suggesting new energy taxes could pay for healthcare legislation. That could be included in budget blueprints the House and Senate will take up this week.McConnell said he fears that the country won't be able to afford what Democrats want to do. He said lawmakers should focus on fixing the country's financial and housing systems."What we ought not to be doing is passing the budget that they propose we pass in the Senate and House next week that doubles the national debt the next five years and triples it in the next 10," he said. A massive tax increase, an energy tax of up to $3,100 per person. An effort we believe the nationalized health care, that has nothing to do with the economic dilemma which we confront at the moment."
McConnell said that he didn't think any Senate Republicans would vote for the Democrats' budget proposal. He suggested it's more likely to see Democrats vote against the budget plan.
"I think they have serious concerns on their side about this budget which is completely disconnected to and unrelated to the current economic crisis in which we're facing," McConnell said.
Kamis, 26 Maret 2009
Economist: Doubts About Obama
An editorial from The Economist:At home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is Mr Obama’s failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: too much of the money will arrive too late to be of help in the current crisis. . . .
The failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate’s fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks of people who have chosen or been forced to withdraw; and it was only this week that he announced his candidates for two of the department’s four most senior posts. . . .
Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved. His stimulus bill attracted only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House. This bodes ill for the passage of more difficult projects, such as his big plans for carbon-emissions control and health-care reform. . . .
If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around. . . .
Mr Obama has a long way to travel if he is to serve his country—and the world—as he should. Take the G20 meeting in London, to which he will head at the end of next week. The most important task for this would-be institution is to set itself firmly against protectionism at a time when most of its members are engaged in a game of creeping beggar-thy-neighbour. Yet how can Mr Obama lead the fight when he has just pandered to America’s unions by sparking a minor trade war with Mexico? And how can he set a new course for NATO at its 60th-anniversary summit a few days later if he is appeasing his party with talk of leaving Afghanistan?
Emanual Raked In $$$
From Bob Secter and Andrew Zajac at the Chicago Tribune:
Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.
As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.
Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.
Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.
One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.
As gatekeeper to Obama, Emanuel now plays a critical role in addressing the nation's mortgage woes and fulfilling the administration's pledge to impose responsibility on the financial world.Emanuel's Freddie Mac involvement has been a prominent point on his political résumé, and his healthy payday from the firm has been no secret either. What is less known, however, is how little he apparently did for his money and how he benefited from the kind of cozy ties between Washington and Wall Street that have fueled the nation's current economic mess.
Though just 49, Emanuel is a veteran Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served three terms in the U.S. House after helping elect Mayor Richard Daley and former President Bill Clinton. The Freddie Mac money was a small piece of the $16 million he made in a three-year interlude as an investment banker a decade ago.In business as in politics, Emanuel has cultivated an aggressive, take-charge reputation that made him rich and propelled his rise to the front of the national stage. But buried deep in corporate and government documents on the Freddie Mac scandal is a little-known and very different story involving Emanuel.
He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.
The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.
The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.
The Obama administration rejected a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act to review Freddie Mac board minutes and correspondence during Emanuel's time as a director. The documents, obtained by Falcon for his investigation, were "commercial information" exempt from disclosure, according to a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Emanuel's board term expired in May 2001, and soon after he launched his Democratic congressional bid.
Rabu, 25 Maret 2009
Tax Cut Pledge Fading?
From the Associated Press:
President Barack Obama says he's not ready to comment on a proposal from some Senate Democrats to scrap his middle-class tax cut after 2010. Obama says he hasn't yet seen what changes are coming out of the House and Senate.
But he delivered his bottom-line on the budget at a Tuesday evening news conference. Obama said the budget must move toward health care reform and include an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. He also says he's looking for investment in education and a reduction in the deficit.
Obama said a middle-class tax cut is already in place through the recovery package for at least two years. And he said he never expected Congress to approve his plan without some changes.
President Barack Obama says he's not ready to comment on a proposal from some Senate Democrats to scrap his middle-class tax cut after 2010. Obama says he hasn't yet seen what changes are coming out of the House and Senate.
But he delivered his bottom-line on the budget at a Tuesday evening news conference. Obama said the budget must move toward health care reform and include an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. He also says he's looking for investment in education and a reduction in the deficit.
Obama said a middle-class tax cut is already in place through the recovery package for at least two years. And he said he never expected Congress to approve his plan without some changes.
Selasa, 24 Maret 2009
Chris Dodd's 'Quaint Cottage'
From Brian Faughnan at Red State:If you’ve been thinking of buying a quaint little retreat near Galway, Ireland, you might want to ask Chris Dodd for advice. He’s made off quite well on his (pictured).
Here’s the quick-and-dirty: find a convicted felon and get him to put up two-thirds of the purchase price, then 8 years later - when the value of comparable real estate has quadrupled - buy him out at around the same amount he bought in for.
Voila! Before you know it, you own an Irish ‘cottage’ worth about a million dollars, but whose value you claim on ethics forms is as little as $100,000! The Wall Street Journal reported on the specifics not that long ago.
Senin, 23 Maret 2009
Dems Knew About Bonuses
From John Kass in the Chicago Tribune:
Obama told Jay Leno he was surprised that those greedy AIG executives who helped lead the country into financial ruin were in line to receive $165 million in bonuses paid for by bailout cash authorized by his administration."Stunned, stunned is the word," said Obama.Stunned?
It turns out that his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—who didn't pay all of his federal taxes but was still deemed worthy by Obama of collecting yours—knew all about the AIG bonuses weeks ago.
That was long before Washington Democrats began shrieking in pretend outrage over the bonuses, as if they didn't vote for them, sort of like Chicago aldermen shrieking about corruption from the 5th Floor.
It's like Mayor Richard Daley saying, "Gee, I dunno" when news breaks that his nephews are in another multimillion-dollar government deal. Or that time that Daley gave $100 million in affirmative action contracts to men he knows well, yet was stunned to learn later that they were white guys, not black females.
These days, the Washington Way is looking just like the Chicago Way. Those of us from Illinois can see it, what with City Hall guys pulling White House strings. . . .
All this false congressional outrage and shrieking and fingerpointing should be understood for what it really is: Political buttocks-covering by Democrats who are worried about the 2010 elections, and afraid of losing their greatest symbolic weapon: The Evil Rich Guy.
That's another cartoon, like Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons," who steps on the backs of the humble working man. Now, though, the Democrats aren't fighting Mr. Burns, they're giving him a boost so he can step on our necks with a pair of snazzy AIG loafers. What they're trying to drown out with all their screaming is that the Democrats knew all about the $165 million to the AIG suits. And the Obama White House knew all about it too.
In fact, it was a rather brave New York Democrat, Rep. Joseph Crowley, who asked Geithner about the AIG bonuses in a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee. Not yesterday, or a couple days ago, but on March 3.
"Just last month," Crowley told Geithner, "AIG paid 343 employees of AIG FP—their Financial Products division that created the financial hole that AIG is in, and in turn a multibillion-dollar bill for American taxpayers—$56 million in bonuses and are slated to pay an additional $162 million in bonuses to 393 participants in the coming weeks," Crowley said.
"And there's more," Crowley said. "Further bonus payments totaling approximately $230 million are due to 407 participants at AIG's Financial Products division in March 2010. This makes no sense to my constituency.
"Sadly, it makes perfect sense back here . . . They cut the deal in some back room, and Geithner is being measured as the fall guy. It sounds just like Chicago's City Hall.
I'm stunned, really.
Obama told Jay Leno he was surprised that those greedy AIG executives who helped lead the country into financial ruin were in line to receive $165 million in bonuses paid for by bailout cash authorized by his administration."Stunned, stunned is the word," said Obama.Stunned?
It turns out that his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—who didn't pay all of his federal taxes but was still deemed worthy by Obama of collecting yours—knew all about the AIG bonuses weeks ago.
That was long before Washington Democrats began shrieking in pretend outrage over the bonuses, as if they didn't vote for them, sort of like Chicago aldermen shrieking about corruption from the 5th Floor.
It's like Mayor Richard Daley saying, "Gee, I dunno" when news breaks that his nephews are in another multimillion-dollar government deal. Or that time that Daley gave $100 million in affirmative action contracts to men he knows well, yet was stunned to learn later that they were white guys, not black females.
These days, the Washington Way is looking just like the Chicago Way. Those of us from Illinois can see it, what with City Hall guys pulling White House strings. . . .
All this false congressional outrage and shrieking and fingerpointing should be understood for what it really is: Political buttocks-covering by Democrats who are worried about the 2010 elections, and afraid of losing their greatest symbolic weapon: The Evil Rich Guy.
That's another cartoon, like Mr. Burns on "The Simpsons," who steps on the backs of the humble working man. Now, though, the Democrats aren't fighting Mr. Burns, they're giving him a boost so he can step on our necks with a pair of snazzy AIG loafers. What they're trying to drown out with all their screaming is that the Democrats knew all about the $165 million to the AIG suits. And the Obama White House knew all about it too.
In fact, it was a rather brave New York Democrat, Rep. Joseph Crowley, who asked Geithner about the AIG bonuses in a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee. Not yesterday, or a couple days ago, but on March 3.
"Just last month," Crowley told Geithner, "AIG paid 343 employees of AIG FP—their Financial Products division that created the financial hole that AIG is in, and in turn a multibillion-dollar bill for American taxpayers—$56 million in bonuses and are slated to pay an additional $162 million in bonuses to 393 participants in the coming weeks," Crowley said.
"And there's more," Crowley said. "Further bonus payments totaling approximately $230 million are due to 407 participants at AIG's Financial Products division in March 2010. This makes no sense to my constituency.
"Sadly, it makes perfect sense back here . . . They cut the deal in some back room, and Geithner is being measured as the fall guy. It sounds just like Chicago's City Hall.
I'm stunned, really.
Rabu, 18 Maret 2009
AIG: Dems In Disarray
From Lisa Lerer, Victoria McGrane at Politico and Yahoo News:
Congressional Democrats careened between the circular firing squad and the three-ring circus Tuesday as they struggled with their new reality: playing defense on the economy.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) blamed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for letting bailed-out insurance giant American International Group pay $165 million in bonuses to its employees, saying he wrote a letter to Geithner two weeks ago warning him of just such a possibility.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), tagged by Republican aides for sponsoring an amendment to the stimulus bill that allowed the bonuses, shifted the blame to the Treasury Department and “the bill conferees,” saying he had no idea that the AIG bonuses were coming.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), joined by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), introduced a bill that would impose a 70 percent tax on “excessive” compensation paid to employees of all bailed-out companies. President Barack Obama has said the White House would use all legal means possible to get the bonuses back, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged that there were “some questions” as to whether Congress could do anything at all.
And while Hoyer begged AIG execs to give up the money voluntarily, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just tried to change the subject. Asked about Geithner’s role in failing to stop the bonuses, Reid said: “Let’s talk about what we have accomplished this Congress.”
Nice try.
For the second day in a row, the AIG bonuses were just about the only subject of conversation at the Capitol. At press conferences throughout the day — and as members filed in and out of a St. Patrick’s Day lunch — outrage over bonuses was on everyone’s lips.
And that suited long-suffering Republicans just fine.
“This latest flap involving AIG, I think, is very troubling,” crowed House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “What’s going on in this administration? It seems like an administration in disarray.”
Congressional Democrats careened between the circular firing squad and the three-ring circus Tuesday as they struggled with their new reality: playing defense on the economy.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) blamed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for letting bailed-out insurance giant American International Group pay $165 million in bonuses to its employees, saying he wrote a letter to Geithner two weeks ago warning him of just such a possibility.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), tagged by Republican aides for sponsoring an amendment to the stimulus bill that allowed the bonuses, shifted the blame to the Treasury Department and “the bill conferees,” saying he had no idea that the AIG bonuses were coming.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), joined by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), introduced a bill that would impose a 70 percent tax on “excessive” compensation paid to employees of all bailed-out companies. President Barack Obama has said the White House would use all legal means possible to get the bonuses back, but House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged that there were “some questions” as to whether Congress could do anything at all.
And while Hoyer begged AIG execs to give up the money voluntarily, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just tried to change the subject. Asked about Geithner’s role in failing to stop the bonuses, Reid said: “Let’s talk about what we have accomplished this Congress.”
Nice try.
For the second day in a row, the AIG bonuses were just about the only subject of conversation at the Capitol. At press conferences throughout the day — and as members filed in and out of a St. Patrick’s Day lunch — outrage over bonuses was on everyone’s lips.
And that suited long-suffering Republicans just fine.
“This latest flap involving AIG, I think, is very troubling,” crowed House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). “What’s going on in this administration? It seems like an administration in disarray.”
Rabu, 11 Maret 2009
Dems Wanted 'W' Failure
From Bill Sammon at Fox News:On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville (pictured) was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.
"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.
"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"
Paglia Chastises Obama
From the inimitable Camille Paglia in Salon:
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. . . .
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery.
Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama . . . has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto.
Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base. . . .
Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. . . .
Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. . . .
Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. . . .
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery.
Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama . . . has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto.
Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base. . . .
Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. . . .
Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. . . .
Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington.
Obama Budget In Trouble
President Obama’s $410 billion omnibus spending bill has been approved. But his overall proposed budget could still be in trouble.
Here's the report from Walter Alarkon at The Hill:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it.
Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.
“Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,” Conrad said. . . .
Conrad joined Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in criticizing the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal for not doing enough to counterbalance increases in energy costs that will be felt by consumers and companies, especially those in energy states such as North Dakota.
Conrad said that it would be a “distant hope” to expect the climate change plan to pass unless it includes help for industries that would be hit hard by limits on carbon emission production.
The North Dakota Democrat also knocked the Obama administration’s plan to cut subsidies for farmers with incomes of more than $500,000. He noted that Congress just rewrote its agricultural policies last year in a bill that received 81 votes in the Senate. The administration has said that it could save taxpayers nearly $10 billion over the next decade from stopping direct federal payments to wealthy farmers, but Conrad denied that the farm policies were not fiscally responsible.
“The Farm Bill was paid for. We made a lot of tough choices. We raised money. We made spending reductions,” Conrad said. “Those who suggest that not fiscally responsible — I don’t think they’re very aware of the history of how we got a Farm Bill passed.”
Conrad said that he hopes the administration understands that “accomplish[ing] big things takes compromise around here.”
Here's the report from Walter Alarkon at The Hill:
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it.
Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.
“Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,” Conrad said. . . .
Conrad joined Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in criticizing the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal for not doing enough to counterbalance increases in energy costs that will be felt by consumers and companies, especially those in energy states such as North Dakota.
Conrad said that it would be a “distant hope” to expect the climate change plan to pass unless it includes help for industries that would be hit hard by limits on carbon emission production.
The North Dakota Democrat also knocked the Obama administration’s plan to cut subsidies for farmers with incomes of more than $500,000. He noted that Congress just rewrote its agricultural policies last year in a bill that received 81 votes in the Senate. The administration has said that it could save taxpayers nearly $10 billion over the next decade from stopping direct federal payments to wealthy farmers, but Conrad denied that the farm policies were not fiscally responsible.
“The Farm Bill was paid for. We made a lot of tough choices. We raised money. We made spending reductions,” Conrad said. “Those who suggest that not fiscally responsible — I don’t think they’re very aware of the history of how we got a Farm Bill passed.”
Conrad said that he hopes the administration understands that “accomplish[ing] big things takes compromise around here.”
Selasa, 10 Maret 2009
Selasa, 03 Maret 2009
Obama Retreats On Earmarks
From Andrew Taylor at the Associated Press:
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election.
Arizona Sen. John McCain said it is "insulting to the American people" for Obama's budget director to indicate over the weekend that the president will sign a $410 billion spending bill with what Republicans critics say is nearly $5.5 billion in pet projects known as earmarks.
"So much for the promise of change," McCain said in the first of many assaults he is likely to make against pork-barrel spending this year.
Democrats contend that earmarks in the bill total only $3.8 billion, less than 1 percent of the amount Congress is approving to finance government programs through September. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an anti-earmark watchdog group, counts them differently and found $7.7 billion worth. . . .
"I just went through a campaign ... where both candidates promised change in Washington, promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmarked, pork-barrel spending," McCain said. "So what we doing here? Not only business as usual, (but) an outrageous insult to the American people."
Only a week ago, Obama was pressing Democratic leaders in Congress to pare back the earmarks at a private White House meeting.
The president, however, hit a brick wall with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other Democrats who treasure their right to send taxpayer money to their states and districts for park improvements, university research grants, equipment for police departments and redevelopment projects.
"I'm here to tell everyone that we have an obligation as members of Congress to help direct spending to our states," Reid told reporters last week.
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election.
Arizona Sen. John McCain said it is "insulting to the American people" for Obama's budget director to indicate over the weekend that the president will sign a $410 billion spending bill with what Republicans critics say is nearly $5.5 billion in pet projects known as earmarks.
"So much for the promise of change," McCain said in the first of many assaults he is likely to make against pork-barrel spending this year.
Democrats contend that earmarks in the bill total only $3.8 billion, less than 1 percent of the amount Congress is approving to finance government programs through September. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an anti-earmark watchdog group, counts them differently and found $7.7 billion worth. . . .
"I just went through a campaign ... where both candidates promised change in Washington, promised change from the wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting practice of earmarked, pork-barrel spending," McCain said. "So what we doing here? Not only business as usual, (but) an outrageous insult to the American people."
Only a week ago, Obama was pressing Democratic leaders in Congress to pare back the earmarks at a private White House meeting.
The president, however, hit a brick wall with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other Democrats who treasure their right to send taxpayer money to their states and districts for park improvements, university research grants, equipment for police departments and redevelopment projects.
"I'm here to tell everyone that we have an obligation as members of Congress to help direct spending to our states," Reid told reporters last week.
Sabtu, 28 Februari 2009
Obama's 'War On Growth'
From Larry Kudlow at CNBC:
Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market. Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market. Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Senin, 23 Februari 2009
Jumat, 20 Februari 2009
Winging It?
From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal:Mr. Obama's economic team met with congressional leaders in December to green light a bill costing up to $850 billion. But they described less than $200 billion of what they wanted in the envelope. In return for outsourcing the bill's drafting to Congress, the administration took on two responsibilities: running polls to advise Hill Democrats on how to sharpen their marketing, and putting the president on the road to sell a bill others wrote.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would "save or create" 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there's no way to count "saved" jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama's promise to "create" jobs. It's highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.
Bipartisanship? The administration failed even to respond to GOP offers to endorse an Obama campaign proposal to suspend capital gains taxes for new small businesses.
Inexplicably, the president, in a prime-time press conference, raised expectations for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, which turned out the next day to be no plan at all. The markets craved details; they got none. When markets cratered, spokesmen didn't acknowledge the administration's poor planning, but blamed the markets.
Team Obama was also winging it on enhanced interrogation of terrorists. First it nullified all the Bush administration's legal authorities before considering what rules it should have in place. When the CIA briefed White House officials on the results obtained from these techniques, the administration backtracked and organized a four-month study of what rules were appropriate.
Something similar happened with the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year: The administration has no idea what it will do with the violent terrorists detained there. And on ethics, Mr. Obama proclaimed an end to lobbyist influence in government -- even as he was nominating lobbyists for major posts and filling White House ranks with former lobbyists.
Team Obama has been living off its campaign reputation for planning and execution. That reputation is now frayed, and all the bumbling and unforced errors will have an impact. Such things don't go unnoticed on Capitol Hill or in foreign capitals.
The president, a bright and skilled politician, has plenty of time to recover. The danger is that what we have seen is not an aberration, but the early indications of his governing style. Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements. The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place. The days of winging it need to end.
About Karl Rove
Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would "save or create" 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there's no way to count "saved" jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama's promise to "create" jobs. It's highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.
Bipartisanship? The administration failed even to respond to GOP offers to endorse an Obama campaign proposal to suspend capital gains taxes for new small businesses.
Inexplicably, the president, in a prime-time press conference, raised expectations for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, which turned out the next day to be no plan at all. The markets craved details; they got none. When markets cratered, spokesmen didn't acknowledge the administration's poor planning, but blamed the markets.
Team Obama was also winging it on enhanced interrogation of terrorists. First it nullified all the Bush administration's legal authorities before considering what rules it should have in place. When the CIA briefed White House officials on the results obtained from these techniques, the administration backtracked and organized a four-month study of what rules were appropriate.
Something similar happened with the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year: The administration has no idea what it will do with the violent terrorists detained there. And on ethics, Mr. Obama proclaimed an end to lobbyist influence in government -- even as he was nominating lobbyists for major posts and filling White House ranks with former lobbyists.
Team Obama has been living off its campaign reputation for planning and execution. That reputation is now frayed, and all the bumbling and unforced errors will have an impact. Such things don't go unnoticed on Capitol Hill or in foreign capitals.
The president, a bright and skilled politician, has plenty of time to recover. The danger is that what we have seen is not an aberration, but the early indications of his governing style. Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements. The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place. The days of winging it need to end.
Rabu, 18 Februari 2009
Senin, 16 Februari 2009
New Senator In Trouble
It seems the Chicago crowd just can't stay out of hot water.
Now Illinois' new U. S. Senator Roland Burris is in trouble.
Here's the story from Sean Lengell at The Washington Times:
Amid Republican calls for his resignation, Sen. Roland W. Burris of Illinois denied perjuring himself to a state House panel considering the impeachment of then-Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, saying Sunday afternoon that he never misled anyone.
The freshman Democratic senator was peppered with questions in a frenzied and combative Chicago news conference about a quietly filed affidavit that appears to contradict his testimony in January about the Blagojevich associates with whom he had spoken about Barack Obama's Senate seat.
Mr. Burris admitted in the Feb. 4 affidavit to the Illinois state House, which was only made public Saturday, that Mr. Blagojevich's brother, Robert, asked him for campaign fund-raising help before the former governor appointed Mr. Burris to the Senate in December.
The disclosure reflects a major omission from Mr. Burris' testimony in January, when he was specifically asked whether he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or several other associates of the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat. . . .
But the skepticism of Chicago journalists was manifest at Sunday's press conference, where Mr. Burris frequently got emotional and berated the press. The senator, his lawyer and the reporters also often talked over one another.
"If you all report this story correctly, there's no story," Mr. Burris said, also warning that "Republicans are gonna try to make political hay out of this."
He also accused reporters of "using hindsight and second-guessing" when asked why, if his initial testimony was accurate, he bothered to file the affidavit at all. . . .
Mr. Burris' explanation was also not good enough for Republicans, who called over the weekend for Mr. Burris to resign and for a criminal investigation into whether he committed perjury.
"I can't believe anything that comes out of Mr. Burris at this point," Mr. Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, said at a separate news conference Sunday. "I think it would be in the best interest of the state if he resigned, because I don't think the state can stand this any more."
Now Illinois' new U. S. Senator Roland Burris is in trouble.
Here's the story from Sean Lengell at The Washington Times:
Amid Republican calls for his resignation, Sen. Roland W. Burris of Illinois denied perjuring himself to a state House panel considering the impeachment of then-Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, saying Sunday afternoon that he never misled anyone.
The freshman Democratic senator was peppered with questions in a frenzied and combative Chicago news conference about a quietly filed affidavit that appears to contradict his testimony in January about the Blagojevich associates with whom he had spoken about Barack Obama's Senate seat.
Mr. Burris admitted in the Feb. 4 affidavit to the Illinois state House, which was only made public Saturday, that Mr. Blagojevich's brother, Robert, asked him for campaign fund-raising help before the former governor appointed Mr. Burris to the Senate in December.
The disclosure reflects a major omission from Mr. Burris' testimony in January, when he was specifically asked whether he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or several other associates of the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat. . . .
But the skepticism of Chicago journalists was manifest at Sunday's press conference, where Mr. Burris frequently got emotional and berated the press. The senator, his lawyer and the reporters also often talked over one another.
"If you all report this story correctly, there's no story," Mr. Burris said, also warning that "Republicans are gonna try to make political hay out of this."
He also accused reporters of "using hindsight and second-guessing" when asked why, if his initial testimony was accurate, he bothered to file the affidavit at all. . . .
Mr. Burris' explanation was also not good enough for Republicans, who called over the weekend for Mr. Burris to resign and for a criminal investigation into whether he committed perjury.
"I can't believe anything that comes out of Mr. Burris at this point," Mr. Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, said at a separate news conference Sunday. "I think it would be in the best interest of the state if he resigned, because I don't think the state can stand this any more."
Spending: It's YOUR Money!
From Salena Zito in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Americans just now are getting a peek at all the spending and the lack of "change" they will see this year, says Congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., who chairs the Republican Conference.
Pence says that after the "spending bill" (he refuses to call it a stimulus bill), more government growth will be on the table with the coming 2009 omnibus spending bill, the cap-and-trade bill and then the federal budget.
"There are thousands upon thousands of earmarks in the omnibus spending bill alone," he says.
In his press conference last week, President Obama mentioned not once but twice that he had a hard time taking seriously GOP criticism of the stimulus bill and federal spending, since Republicans grew the deficit to twice its size when they had power.
Still, it would have been swell to have someone put in this bill new investments into the biotech, nanotech, health care and alternative-energy sectors, to drive an "innovation era" -- and a message of "Oh yeah, we want you to be part of it."
Instead, we got a message of "Pass this bill and ignore its girth, or the sky will fall."
Democrats face some very tough choices: Will they confront their own special interests (such as autoworker unions), or will they just spend more money? Remember, fundamentally, Democrats believe public problems require public solutions.
Obama thinks that, for the most part, Republican economic policies have been catastrophically wrong -- and he's not been shy about saying so. He's using his brand and popularity for political and policy leverage.
Americans just now are getting a peek at all the spending and the lack of "change" they will see this year, says Congressman Mike Pence, R-Ind., who chairs the Republican Conference.
Pence says that after the "spending bill" (he refuses to call it a stimulus bill), more government growth will be on the table with the coming 2009 omnibus spending bill, the cap-and-trade bill and then the federal budget.
"There are thousands upon thousands of earmarks in the omnibus spending bill alone," he says.
In his press conference last week, President Obama mentioned not once but twice that he had a hard time taking seriously GOP criticism of the stimulus bill and federal spending, since Republicans grew the deficit to twice its size when they had power.
Still, it would have been swell to have someone put in this bill new investments into the biotech, nanotech, health care and alternative-energy sectors, to drive an "innovation era" -- and a message of "Oh yeah, we want you to be part of it."
Instead, we got a message of "Pass this bill and ignore its girth, or the sky will fall."
Democrats face some very tough choices: Will they confront their own special interests (such as autoworker unions), or will they just spend more money? Remember, fundamentally, Democrats believe public problems require public solutions.
Obama thinks that, for the most part, Republican economic policies have been catastrophically wrong -- and he's not been shy about saying so. He's using his brand and popularity for political and policy leverage.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)