There are times when the unreality of a situation is such that you just gape in disbelief. Such is my reaction upon perusing the reaction of the institutional left (and I include Big Media in that description) to Obama’s reversal of his former decision to urinate all over the GOP debate next Wednesday.
To listen to the stuck pigs of Big Media, the issue is not whether there is precedent for a President to lift his leg and piss all over the opposition. No, sir: the issue is whether there is precedent for Congress to refuse a President’s wishes regarding the timing of a joint session. They all simply swallow, with a deliberate and premeditated attitude of extreme naivete, the administration’s protests that it was just a coincidence that the speech was planned at the same time as a GOP debate. Sheer happenstance! And so, Boehner’s entirely reasonable request for a day’s delay is UNPRECEDENTED!!!
The Los Angeles Times:
The situation struck some Capitol veterans as almost unprecedented in modern times.
. . . .
“It is unprecedented to reject the date that a president wants to address a joint session of the Congress,” said a senior Democratic aide familiar with arranging such events in the Capitol. “Yes, consultation always occurs, but the president always gets the date he wants.”
“Can’t think of a precedent offhand, but it is predictable,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor at Princeton University who has written extensively on American politics. “The GOP has a consistent strategy: block, obstruct and make life difficult for the president. Whatever he wants, as Groucho Marx said, they are against it.”
The New York Times:
Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner’s move was unprecedented.
“The Senate Historical Office knows of no instance in which Congress refused the president permission to speak before a joint session of Congress,” Betty K. Koed, associate historian with the Senate, said in an e-mail. “Permission to speak in a joint session is given by resolution of the House and Senate, and arrangements are made through the leadership offices of each chamber.”
Nobody thinks to ask whether there is precedent for a President pre-empting an opposition party’s presidential debate. It’s all about the questions you ask. And the Journolist apparently issued the order that the behavior to focus on was Boehner’s, not Obama’s.
Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher has worked himself into such a silly lather, he is actually calling for Boehner’s resignation. I couldn’t make up something that ridiculous if I tried:
The time to raise an objection to the date was when the White House first contacted Boehner’s office, the following hour-and-a-half, or even in the fifteen minutes between when they received the letter, and when it was made public. Waiting several hours to send a refusal letter was a calculated decision, designed to disrespect and embarrass the President. Let’s grant that his hypothetical heads-up was the worst provocation imaginable. It was made in private, and the Speaker’s public response was an unprecedented insult to the office of the President of the United States.
Incidentally, I told Christopher on Twitter that I was going to be writing a post about how silly his post was — and that I would include his reaction . . . provided he got it to me within 15 minutes. He said something, but missed the deadline. The time to get it to me was within the 15 minutes I allotted him. Sorry, Mr. Angry Journalist Person! Let’s hear more from him now:
This isn’t the first unprecedented Republican insult to the presidency under Barack Obama (but it is, by far, the worst), and it isn’t even the first time John Boehner has tried to make the President “heel” with his datebook. It ought to be the last. Every American who has an appropriate respect for the office of the presidency should demand that John Boehner resign, and every legislator should amplify that demand.
It’s so unprecedented, in fact, that it can only be explained by the fact that Obama is black!
The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin.
So if someone breaks into my home, and I shoot them, I guess that the issue is whether it is UNPRECEDENTED for me to shoot a houseguest. And if that person happens to be black — then obviously I’m a racist.
This is evidently how these leftists think. It’s truly incredible.
What I find funniest about the whole thing is the idea that THE PRESIDENT MUST GET HIS WAY AND EVERYTHING MUST BOW TO HIS WILL AND TO HELL WITH TRIVIA LIKE A DEBATE . . . but the White House is now pledging that the speech won’t interfere with a damn football game. Guess they’re able to schedule around that!
See, because they don’t want to piss off football fans. But they’re perfectly happy to piss off Republicans.
BIPARTISANSHIP!!!
Friday, September 2, 2011
$60,000 Damages for Blogging the Truth About Someone, Intending to Get the Person Fired
Eugene Volokh • August 30, 2011 8:22 pm
I blogged about the Johnny Northside case (Moore v. Hoff) when the verdict came down, but there’s now a moderately detailed trial court opinion refusing to set the verdict aside. Here’s an excerpt from a Minneapolis Star-Tribune article about this latest development:
The jury ruled last March that [John] Hoff’s scathing blog post amounted to actively interfering with [Jerry] Moore’s job at the U, even though Hoff’s statements were true when he linked Moore to high-profile mortgage fraud.
The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress....
Moore, former executive director of the Jordan Area Community Council, was hired in early 2009 at the U’s Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center to study mortgage foreclosures.
When Hoff found out about the hire, he wrote a post accusing Moore of being involved in a “high-profile fraudulent mortgage” that was one of several resulting in a 16-year prison sentence for former real estate agent Larry Maxwell. Moore was not charged in that case.
Hoff took partial credit for Moore’s firing in a later blog post, to which Moore responded with his suit.
As I wrote in March, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.
Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person ... truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003). But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment.
But the trial court’s opinion doesn’t discuss either of these arguments, even though Hoff’s lawyer raised both in his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (I’m told that the arguments were indeed raised at trial, and thus haven’t been waived; and the judge’s opinion doesn’t mention them at all, even to say that they had been waived.) I’m told that an appeal is forthcoming, and I hope the decision is reversed on appeal. In any case, here’s the heart of the trial court opinion:
Plaintiff Jerry L. Moore[ brought suit] for defamation, interference with contractual relationships, and interference with prospective advantage against Defendant John Hoff. A jury trial was held ... [and] the jury ... returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s defamation claim, and in favor of Plaintiff on the remaining two claims. Specifically, the jury found Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s employment contract and interfered with Plaintiffs prospective employment advantage.... Defendant filed a notice of motion and motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial....
When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court must take into account all of the evidence in the case, view that evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict, and not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.... [J]udgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 may only be granted “when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” ...
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that Defendant intentionally interfered with his contractual rights by actively working to get Plaintiff fired from his position at the University of Minnesota by, among other things, contacting individuals at the University of Minnesota, making disparaging remarks about Plaintiff, and encouraging others to do the same. To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation....
[T]he Court heard direct testimony regarding Defendant’s active involvement in getting Plaintiff fired by contacting leaders at the University of Minnesota and threatening to launch a negative public relations campaign if Plaintiff remained in their employment. By way of example, Don Allen testified that he sent an email to the University of Minnesota, at Defendant’s behest, threatening negative publicity and lobbying to get Plaintiff fired. In addition to Mr. Allen’s direct testimony, the jury also heard circumstantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The Court heard testimony that Plaintiff was terminated from his position at the University of Minnesota one day after transmission of the email from Mr. Allen. Furthermore, during this same time period, Defendant acknowledged that it was his goal to get Plaintiff fired and that he was working “behind the scenes” to do so. After the fact, Defendant took personal responsibility for Plaintiff s termination and announced his ongoing, active involvement in the University’s actions. The direct evidence, combined with the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented, supports the jury’s verdict....
During the course of the trial, the jury was asked to consider whether a particular statement [“Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved in a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.”] was true or false for the purposes of assessing Plaintiffs defamation c1aim. The jury determined that the statement was not false. With his current motion, Defendant argues that the jury’s award in favor of Plaintiff on the tortious interference claims were premised solely upon the same statement that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. Defendant does not present any evidence in support of this argument, nor does the Court find it necessary to invade the province of the jury.
It is not the Court’s function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict. Instead, it is the Court’s responsibility to interpret the special verdict form “and harmonize the jury’s responses where possible.” Thus, the Court must sustain the verdict “on any reasonable theory of evidence.” By special verdict, the jury found Defendant’s statement was not false, but that his conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to an intentional interference with Plaintiff’s employment contract and prospective employment advantage....
I blogged about the Johnny Northside case (Moore v. Hoff) when the verdict came down, but there’s now a moderately detailed trial court opinion refusing to set the verdict aside. Here’s an excerpt from a Minneapolis Star-Tribune article about this latest development:
The jury ruled last March that [John] Hoff’s scathing blog post amounted to actively interfering with [Jerry] Moore’s job at the U, even though Hoff’s statements were true when he linked Moore to high-profile mortgage fraud.
The jury awarded Moore $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress....
Moore, former executive director of the Jordan Area Community Council, was hired in early 2009 at the U’s Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center to study mortgage foreclosures.
When Hoff found out about the hire, he wrote a post accusing Moore of being involved in a “high-profile fraudulent mortgage” that was one of several resulting in a 16-year prison sentence for former real estate agent Larry Maxwell. Moore was not charged in that case.
Hoff took partial credit for Moore’s firing in a later blog post, to which Moore responded with his suit.
As I wrote in March, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.
Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person ... truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003). But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment.
But the trial court’s opinion doesn’t discuss either of these arguments, even though Hoff’s lawyer raised both in his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (I’m told that the arguments were indeed raised at trial, and thus haven’t been waived; and the judge’s opinion doesn’t mention them at all, even to say that they had been waived.) I’m told that an appeal is forthcoming, and I hope the decision is reversed on appeal. In any case, here’s the heart of the trial court opinion:
Plaintiff Jerry L. Moore[ brought suit] for defamation, interference with contractual relationships, and interference with prospective advantage against Defendant John Hoff. A jury trial was held ... [and] the jury ... returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s defamation claim, and in favor of Plaintiff on the remaining two claims. Specifically, the jury found Defendant intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s employment contract and interfered with Plaintiffs prospective employment advantage.... Defendant filed a notice of motion and motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial....
When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court must take into account all of the evidence in the case, view that evidence in a light most favorable to the jury verdict, and not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.... [J]udgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 may only be granted “when a jury verdict has no reasonable support in fact or is contrary to law.” ...
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that Defendant intentionally interfered with his contractual rights by actively working to get Plaintiff fired from his position at the University of Minnesota by, among other things, contacting individuals at the University of Minnesota, making disparaging remarks about Plaintiff, and encouraging others to do the same. To establish a claim for tortious interference of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract’s breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages caused by the breach. Similarly, a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage requires a showing that: (l) the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the prospective contractual relation, (2) causing pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, and (3) the interference either induced or otherwise caused a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or prevented the continuance of the prospective relation....
[T]he Court heard direct testimony regarding Defendant’s active involvement in getting Plaintiff fired by contacting leaders at the University of Minnesota and threatening to launch a negative public relations campaign if Plaintiff remained in their employment. By way of example, Don Allen testified that he sent an email to the University of Minnesota, at Defendant’s behest, threatening negative publicity and lobbying to get Plaintiff fired. In addition to Mr. Allen’s direct testimony, the jury also heard circumstantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The Court heard testimony that Plaintiff was terminated from his position at the University of Minnesota one day after transmission of the email from Mr. Allen. Furthermore, during this same time period, Defendant acknowledged that it was his goal to get Plaintiff fired and that he was working “behind the scenes” to do so. After the fact, Defendant took personal responsibility for Plaintiff s termination and announced his ongoing, active involvement in the University’s actions. The direct evidence, combined with the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented, supports the jury’s verdict....
During the course of the trial, the jury was asked to consider whether a particular statement [“Repeated and specific evidence in Hennepin County District Court shows that Jerry Moore was involved in a high-profile fraudulent mortgage at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.”] was true or false for the purposes of assessing Plaintiffs defamation c1aim. The jury determined that the statement was not false. With his current motion, Defendant argues that the jury’s award in favor of Plaintiff on the tortious interference claims were premised solely upon the same statement that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. Defendant does not present any evidence in support of this argument, nor does the Court find it necessary to invade the province of the jury.
It is not the Court’s function to determine on what theory the jury arrived at its verdict. Instead, it is the Court’s responsibility to interpret the special verdict form “and harmonize the jury’s responses where possible.” Thus, the Court must sustain the verdict “on any reasonable theory of evidence.” By special verdict, the jury found Defendant’s statement was not false, but that his conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to an intentional interference with Plaintiff’s employment contract and prospective employment advantage....
Morning Bell: Food Regulators Out of Control
Ericka Andersen - September 1, 2011 at 9:56 am
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
Quick Hits:
President Obama agreed to move his jobs speech to a Joint Session of Congress to next Thursday, instead of Wednesday during the GOP presidential debate.
Jim Tipple, mayor of Wasau, Wisconsin, declared that a labor group planning to exclude Republican lawmakers from their Labor Day parade will be required to fund the $2,000 event.
After the death of al-Qaeda’s number two leader last week, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan praised U.S. action in Pakistan as the reason no active terror plots have been discovered in advance 9/11 this year.
A new CNN/ORD poll reveals 65 percent of respondents disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
Americans recently rated Ronald Reagan as the nation’s greatest President. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) emulates the timeless principles that Reagan represented in his own leadership role.
Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
Quick Hits:
President Obama agreed to move his jobs speech to a Joint Session of Congress to next Thursday, instead of Wednesday during the GOP presidential debate.
Jim Tipple, mayor of Wasau, Wisconsin, declared that a labor group planning to exclude Republican lawmakers from their Labor Day parade will be required to fund the $2,000 event.
After the death of al-Qaeda’s number two leader last week, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan praised U.S. action in Pakistan as the reason no active terror plots have been discovered in advance 9/11 this year.
A new CNN/ORD poll reveals 65 percent of respondents disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
Americans recently rated Ronald Reagan as the nation’s greatest President. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) emulates the timeless principles that Reagan represented in his own leadership role.
Posted in Enterprise and Free Markets
The Ad Campaign
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Friday, September 2nd at 4:45AM EDT
I have in my head an ad campaign I think the GOP should get ready to roll out for the general election, regardless of the nominee.
In Idaho, a man saw a female grizzly bear enter his backyard while his kids were playing in the back yard. He did the only reasonable thing he could. He got a gun and killed the bear. Then he immediately called the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The federal government is now prosecuting him for killing the grizzly instead of letting it kill and eat his kids.
In Virginia, an 11 year old rescued a protected woodpecker species from the jaws of a cat and kept it in a cage to make sure it would survive. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services official showed up on the family’s front door step with a state trooper and ordered the girl’s mother to appear in federal court on charges that could send her to jail for a year. Only an ensuing media backlash got the government to stand down.
Then there is the Gibson guitar case where the government, assuming the facts are as presented, wanted Gibson Guitar to create jobs, not in the United States, but in Madagascar and India.
There are the independent oil and gas companies in Louisiana shut down by Barack Obama taking advantage of the BP oil spill crisis to rid himself of Gulf of Mexico oil drillers.
The list goes on and on. So the ad would be very simple.
Victim of government abuse looks into the camera and tells his/her story.
Candidate then says, “Barack Obama’s government has gone wild. Is it any wonder businesses are worried about investing and citizens cannot find jobs? It’s time to tame Washington.”
Barack Obama might want to run against Congress, but it is not John Boehner’s branch of government fining eleven year olds and hauling men off to jail for saving their children’s lives.
Friday, September 2nd at 4:45AM EDT
I have in my head an ad campaign I think the GOP should get ready to roll out for the general election, regardless of the nominee.
In Idaho, a man saw a female grizzly bear enter his backyard while his kids were playing in the back yard. He did the only reasonable thing he could. He got a gun and killed the bear. Then he immediately called the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The federal government is now prosecuting him for killing the grizzly instead of letting it kill and eat his kids.
In Virginia, an 11 year old rescued a protected woodpecker species from the jaws of a cat and kept it in a cage to make sure it would survive. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services official showed up on the family’s front door step with a state trooper and ordered the girl’s mother to appear in federal court on charges that could send her to jail for a year. Only an ensuing media backlash got the government to stand down.
Then there is the Gibson guitar case where the government, assuming the facts are as presented, wanted Gibson Guitar to create jobs, not in the United States, but in Madagascar and India.
There are the independent oil and gas companies in Louisiana shut down by Barack Obama taking advantage of the BP oil spill crisis to rid himself of Gulf of Mexico oil drillers.
The list goes on and on. So the ad would be very simple.
Victim of government abuse looks into the camera and tells his/her story.
Candidate then says, “Barack Obama’s government has gone wild. Is it any wonder businesses are worried about investing and citizens cannot find jobs? It’s time to tame Washington.”
Barack Obama might want to run against Congress, but it is not John Boehner’s branch of government fining eleven year olds and hauling men off to jail for saving their children’s lives.
President Obama Acting Like King George III
Posted by William B. Allen Sep 1st 2011 at 6:34 am
When the President publicly ordered the leaders of the House and the Senate to appear at the White House the next day, prepared to answer his demands for a debt ceiling resolution, many observers noted the high-handedness of his way of dealing with the coordinate and equal branches of government. He showed no respect for their constitutional independence.
Now, though, matters have taken a turn distinctly for the worse. The President has commanded that they make the floors of the legislative houses available to him at a specific time and date without first clearing it with them. Worse, he did so by way of a public announcement rather than a private discussion. He acted, that is, not as president and commander-in-chief but as a royal authority.
This extraordinary abuse exceeds all prior levels of contempt and disrespect for the coordinate and equal branches of government. To his credit, House Speaker John Boehner responded, politely to be sure, with a firm suggestion that the President would be welcome on a different schedule.
The specific problem here is that the President has no constitutional authority within the houses of Congress. He can not order their performance according to his druthers. Yet, it is clear that Mr. Obama believes he should have such authority, and he is determined to exercise it even if he does not. He acts more like he imagines himself a new George III rather than a Barack II.
This “minor” incident has all the indicia of gravity that would suggest the need for wakefulness to a looming threat of tyranny, such that thoughtful citizens will need to wonder whether they can decently wait the interval of fourteen months for the chance to remove the pretender in an election.
Let’s be clear about the nature of the offense. Mara Leierson, NPR news analyst and Fox News commentator, sought to clear the President with the observation that from time immemorial presidents have always sent letters to the House and Senate requesting joint sessions and that these have always been followed by automatic invitations. That, she holds, has been the protocol. But she is wrong. No president has ever released a letter to the public, indicating such a request, without first having consulted privately with the leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate to confirm the propriety of the proposal. What Mr. Obama did on August 31 is exactly the opposite. He assumed that the mere expression of his wish were sufficient to command the compliance of the Speaker and the Majority Leader. Hence, he issued it publicly, expecting no opposition to his proposal.
Mr. Obama did not learn the lesson that George Washington learned, when in 1789 he presented himself in person before the Senate seeking “advice and consent” on seven important points in relation to negotiating treaties with Indians. Upon recognizing that the Senate were rather disposed to debate than to respond immediately (thus leaving him in feckless limbo), he effectively turned on his heels, red-faced and resolved never to repeat the folly.
What Washington learned thereby was that the branches of government were indeed independent, none subject to the direction of any of the others. The constitutional orders called for their collaboration through the forms of their offices and especially for courtesy and respect in their interactions. He ever after acted in accord with that truth, to the strengthening and betterment of the new republic.
Mr. Obama is the first president in 222 years to demonstrate ignorance of that constitutional propriety. Or, is something other than constitutional ignorance? Is it possible that the current president simply has decided to perform the Constitution into a different political alignment than that bequeathed to the heirs of the founders?
Increasingly, that seems to be the case.
When the President publicly ordered the leaders of the House and the Senate to appear at the White House the next day, prepared to answer his demands for a debt ceiling resolution, many observers noted the high-handedness of his way of dealing with the coordinate and equal branches of government. He showed no respect for their constitutional independence.
Now, though, matters have taken a turn distinctly for the worse. The President has commanded that they make the floors of the legislative houses available to him at a specific time and date without first clearing it with them. Worse, he did so by way of a public announcement rather than a private discussion. He acted, that is, not as president and commander-in-chief but as a royal authority.
This extraordinary abuse exceeds all prior levels of contempt and disrespect for the coordinate and equal branches of government. To his credit, House Speaker John Boehner responded, politely to be sure, with a firm suggestion that the President would be welcome on a different schedule.
The specific problem here is that the President has no constitutional authority within the houses of Congress. He can not order their performance according to his druthers. Yet, it is clear that Mr. Obama believes he should have such authority, and he is determined to exercise it even if he does not. He acts more like he imagines himself a new George III rather than a Barack II.
This “minor” incident has all the indicia of gravity that would suggest the need for wakefulness to a looming threat of tyranny, such that thoughtful citizens will need to wonder whether they can decently wait the interval of fourteen months for the chance to remove the pretender in an election.
Let’s be clear about the nature of the offense. Mara Leierson, NPR news analyst and Fox News commentator, sought to clear the President with the observation that from time immemorial presidents have always sent letters to the House and Senate requesting joint sessions and that these have always been followed by automatic invitations. That, she holds, has been the protocol. But she is wrong. No president has ever released a letter to the public, indicating such a request, without first having consulted privately with the leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate to confirm the propriety of the proposal. What Mr. Obama did on August 31 is exactly the opposite. He assumed that the mere expression of his wish were sufficient to command the compliance of the Speaker and the Majority Leader. Hence, he issued it publicly, expecting no opposition to his proposal.
Mr. Obama did not learn the lesson that George Washington learned, when in 1789 he presented himself in person before the Senate seeking “advice and consent” on seven important points in relation to negotiating treaties with Indians. Upon recognizing that the Senate were rather disposed to debate than to respond immediately (thus leaving him in feckless limbo), he effectively turned on his heels, red-faced and resolved never to repeat the folly.
What Washington learned thereby was that the branches of government were indeed independent, none subject to the direction of any of the others. The constitutional orders called for their collaboration through the forms of their offices and especially for courtesy and respect in their interactions. He ever after acted in accord with that truth, to the strengthening and betterment of the new republic.
Mr. Obama is the first president in 222 years to demonstrate ignorance of that constitutional propriety. Or, is something other than constitutional ignorance? Is it possible that the current president simply has decided to perform the Constitution into a different political alignment than that bequeathed to the heirs of the founders?
Increasingly, that seems to be the case.
Report: Obama Introduces Jobs Plan ‘That Doesn’t Need Congress’
Posted on September 1, 2011 at 6:54pm by Billy Hallowell
Is President Obama forming a pattern of making decisions without Congress’ blessing? First, he opted not to ask for approval for the Libya mission. Now, the president is laying the framework for a jobs and infrastructure program that the executive branch may have the full power to implement.
Interestingly, he‘s making sure Congress knows that he’s not dependent upon them, as the details surrounding the proposals are beginning to leak just a week before he addresses the nation — and both houses of the legislative branch — about job creation.
This new revelation comes as Obama is asking several federal agencies to identify some infrastructure projects that would assist in job creation. Aside from offering work to some of the nations unemployed, these projects would be expedited immediately without the need to involve the legislative branch.
The Atlantic, in a piece titled “Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress, has more:
Under Wednesday’s order, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation will each select up to three high-priority infrastructure projects that can be completed within the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. The effort is labeled as a “common-sense approach“ to spurring job growth ”in the near term.”
Additionally, the president is drafting what some are calling a “Plan B” in the case that Congress doesn’t come up with viable reforms to the 2001 No Child Left Behind regulations. While some may interpret these moves as “big government” in their size, scope and reliance on only one portion of the federal government, others would disagree.
In a political climate that is characterized by intense disagreement and endless banter, the president’s supporters will likely label these moves as necessary steps that must be taken in order to get something done in Washington.
Certainly, some would contend that the former notion — that Obama is seeking to go it alone — is a bit of an overreaction. That being said, some interesting words from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney earlier today seem to indicate that the president is fully aware of the fact that he doesn’t necessarily need Congress to implement his plans.
Earlier today, when Fox News’ Ed Henry asked Carney, “Why doesn’t he [Obama] give a speech from the oval office tonight saying here’s my plan?,” Carney said:
“He wants to speak before Congress because he recognizes that while there are things he can do without Congress, and he will do them, there are actions that need to be taken with Congress that require legislation to grow the economy and create jobs. And he wants to go to Congress, speak directly to members of Congress, and layout his proposals.”
Below, watch this exchange unfold:
While details about Obama’s plan are still sparse, another component that may be in the way is a national infrastructure bank that would entice private investors into road and rail projects. This, according to sources, could be a major part of the jobs package that President Barack Obama hopes will finally bring relief to the unemployed.
The president has pushed the idea of an infrastructure bank in recent speeches and has praised Senate and House bills that create such a government-sponsored lending institution. Whether the bank, which would need time to organize, could have any real impact on the jobs situation in the coming year – and particularly before the November 2012 elections – is in dispute.
Next week, America will have a much clearer vision about what the president is proposing. And Congress, for better or for worse, will be made more fully aware of the role it will play in job creation.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Is President Obama forming a pattern of making decisions without Congress’ blessing? First, he opted not to ask for approval for the Libya mission. Now, the president is laying the framework for a jobs and infrastructure program that the executive branch may have the full power to implement.
Interestingly, he‘s making sure Congress knows that he’s not dependent upon them, as the details surrounding the proposals are beginning to leak just a week before he addresses the nation — and both houses of the legislative branch — about job creation.
This new revelation comes as Obama is asking several federal agencies to identify some infrastructure projects that would assist in job creation. Aside from offering work to some of the nations unemployed, these projects would be expedited immediately without the need to involve the legislative branch.
The Atlantic, in a piece titled “Obama Rolls Out a Jobs Plan That Doesn’t Need Congress, has more:
Under Wednesday’s order, the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation will each select up to three high-priority infrastructure projects that can be completed within the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. The effort is labeled as a “common-sense approach“ to spurring job growth ”in the near term.”
Additionally, the president is drafting what some are calling a “Plan B” in the case that Congress doesn’t come up with viable reforms to the 2001 No Child Left Behind regulations. While some may interpret these moves as “big government” in their size, scope and reliance on only one portion of the federal government, others would disagree.
In a political climate that is characterized by intense disagreement and endless banter, the president’s supporters will likely label these moves as necessary steps that must be taken in order to get something done in Washington.
Certainly, some would contend that the former notion — that Obama is seeking to go it alone — is a bit of an overreaction. That being said, some interesting words from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney earlier today seem to indicate that the president is fully aware of the fact that he doesn’t necessarily need Congress to implement his plans.
Earlier today, when Fox News’ Ed Henry asked Carney, “Why doesn’t he [Obama] give a speech from the oval office tonight saying here’s my plan?,” Carney said:
“He wants to speak before Congress because he recognizes that while there are things he can do without Congress, and he will do them, there are actions that need to be taken with Congress that require legislation to grow the economy and create jobs. And he wants to go to Congress, speak directly to members of Congress, and layout his proposals.”
Below, watch this exchange unfold:
While details about Obama’s plan are still sparse, another component that may be in the way is a national infrastructure bank that would entice private investors into road and rail projects. This, according to sources, could be a major part of the jobs package that President Barack Obama hopes will finally bring relief to the unemployed.
The president has pushed the idea of an infrastructure bank in recent speeches and has praised Senate and House bills that create such a government-sponsored lending institution. Whether the bank, which would need time to organize, could have any real impact on the jobs situation in the coming year – and particularly before the November 2012 elections – is in dispute.
Next week, America will have a much clearer vision about what the president is proposing. And Congress, for better or for worse, will be made more fully aware of the role it will play in job creation.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Obama’s Tax-guzzling Transportation Bill
Written by Michael Tennant
Thursday, 01 September 2011 11:34
Across the fruited plain, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.62, a full dollar higher than it was just one year ago. Of that $3.62, 18.4 cents go directly to the federal government, which then disburses most of it to states for road construction and repair.
One might conclude that reducing or eliminating the federal gas tax would help stimulate the economy by leaving more money in the hands of individual Americans. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, thinks that the way to stimulate economic growth is to continue taking that money out of the private sector and spending it on projects that benefit labor unions and other politically favored entities. Therefore, he is sounding the alarm that if Congress fails to pass a transportation spending bill whose “key component is the federal gas tax,” according to FoxNews.com, the federal government will be deprived of billions of dollars in revenue, and as many as one million jobs could be lost. (Revenue and jobs denied to politically powerless Americans because of the ongoing levy don’t count in Obama’s world.)
The transportation bill must be renewed annually; the current version expires at the end of the fiscal year, September 30. If it is not renewed, Americans will get a break at the pump because the gas tax will expire along with the rest of the bill. To most people this is good news — but not to road contractors and labor unions, who, despite their frequent differences, both benefit from federal largess. Thus, it was not surprising that representatives from both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO joined the President at a Wednesday Rose Garden appearance to clamor for Congress to renew the gas tax. They fear that the gravy train is about to pull away from the station, while Obama gets to claim the support of both business and labor in his quest for drivers’ dollars.
The unfortunate fact is that regardless of the unconstitutionality of federal transportation spending, the transportation bill is in no danger of expiration. “Aside from the president today, no one has suggested the highway bill will be allowed to expire,” said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “Republicans,” he added, “support an extension of the highway bill and appreciate the need for a long-term solution for infrastructure projects.”
Why, then, is Obama raising a ruckus about such an unlikely occurrence?
For one thing, some conservative groups such as the Club for Growth have argued for eliminating the federal gas tax and associated spending, leaving the raising and disbursing of infrastructure revenue up to the states. “Not only would letting states collect the taxes directly reduce the money spent on federal behavioral engineering efforts (bike paths etc.),” observes Chris Stirewalt at FoxNews.com, “but [it] would also allow states to avoid federal laws that require union workers be used on highway projects.” This is, in fact, the only constitutional approach to the matter; but since the House leadership, as noted above, has already signaled its intention to pass a transportation bill, it seems unlikely to carry the day in Congress.
The real sticking point appears to be the new rules for disbursing federal transportation monies instituted by House Republicans. Explains Stirewalt:
Before the 2010 “shellacking” the Highway Trust Fund was a slushy spot. Influential appropriators worked hard to get the first spade full of dirt turned over on decades-long projects in their districts because they knew that they could, in essence, obligate the federal government. Then when bills came due, the Trust Fund would have to get a bailout from general revenues in order to complete already authorized projects.
Under the new Boehner rules, big projects have to be accounted for. Start a $10 billion project, budget $10 billion.
This has changed the way the highway appropriations process works. While fewer projects are being started, the intention is that more will be completed and that costs will be more predictable. Old-line appropriators resisted, to say nothing of complaints from contractors and unions who preferred the less-rigid requirements of the previous process.
Add to that the fact that Republicans are, admirably, attempting to reduce federal highway spending by 30 percent over current levels — $230 billion over six years as compared to Obama’s proposed $556 billion — and to keep it from exceeding gas tax revenues, and it’s no wonder Obama and his union buddies are up in arms. When the President says, as he did on Wednesday, that he wants a “clean” transportation bill, what he means is that he wants a return to the pre-2011 system in which highway funds can be used to pay off political pals in perpetuity, outlays increase every year, and deficit spending simply isn’t a concern — proving once again that all his talk of reining in red ink is nothing but (with apologies to Shakespeare) sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Obama may think his approach to transportation funding is a highway to prosperity, but it’s really just another step down the road to serfdom.
Thursday, 01 September 2011 11:34
Across the fruited plain, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.62, a full dollar higher than it was just one year ago. Of that $3.62, 18.4 cents go directly to the federal government, which then disburses most of it to states for road construction and repair.
One might conclude that reducing or eliminating the federal gas tax would help stimulate the economy by leaving more money in the hands of individual Americans. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, thinks that the way to stimulate economic growth is to continue taking that money out of the private sector and spending it on projects that benefit labor unions and other politically favored entities. Therefore, he is sounding the alarm that if Congress fails to pass a transportation spending bill whose “key component is the federal gas tax,” according to FoxNews.com, the federal government will be deprived of billions of dollars in revenue, and as many as one million jobs could be lost. (Revenue and jobs denied to politically powerless Americans because of the ongoing levy don’t count in Obama’s world.)
The transportation bill must be renewed annually; the current version expires at the end of the fiscal year, September 30. If it is not renewed, Americans will get a break at the pump because the gas tax will expire along with the rest of the bill. To most people this is good news — but not to road contractors and labor unions, who, despite their frequent differences, both benefit from federal largess. Thus, it was not surprising that representatives from both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO joined the President at a Wednesday Rose Garden appearance to clamor for Congress to renew the gas tax. They fear that the gravy train is about to pull away from the station, while Obama gets to claim the support of both business and labor in his quest for drivers’ dollars.
The unfortunate fact is that regardless of the unconstitutionality of federal transportation spending, the transportation bill is in no danger of expiration. “Aside from the president today, no one has suggested the highway bill will be allowed to expire,” said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “Republicans,” he added, “support an extension of the highway bill and appreciate the need for a long-term solution for infrastructure projects.”
Why, then, is Obama raising a ruckus about such an unlikely occurrence?
For one thing, some conservative groups such as the Club for Growth have argued for eliminating the federal gas tax and associated spending, leaving the raising and disbursing of infrastructure revenue up to the states. “Not only would letting states collect the taxes directly reduce the money spent on federal behavioral engineering efforts (bike paths etc.),” observes Chris Stirewalt at FoxNews.com, “but [it] would also allow states to avoid federal laws that require union workers be used on highway projects.” This is, in fact, the only constitutional approach to the matter; but since the House leadership, as noted above, has already signaled its intention to pass a transportation bill, it seems unlikely to carry the day in Congress.
The real sticking point appears to be the new rules for disbursing federal transportation monies instituted by House Republicans. Explains Stirewalt:
Before the 2010 “shellacking” the Highway Trust Fund was a slushy spot. Influential appropriators worked hard to get the first spade full of dirt turned over on decades-long projects in their districts because they knew that they could, in essence, obligate the federal government. Then when bills came due, the Trust Fund would have to get a bailout from general revenues in order to complete already authorized projects.
Under the new Boehner rules, big projects have to be accounted for. Start a $10 billion project, budget $10 billion.
This has changed the way the highway appropriations process works. While fewer projects are being started, the intention is that more will be completed and that costs will be more predictable. Old-line appropriators resisted, to say nothing of complaints from contractors and unions who preferred the less-rigid requirements of the previous process.
Add to that the fact that Republicans are, admirably, attempting to reduce federal highway spending by 30 percent over current levels — $230 billion over six years as compared to Obama’s proposed $556 billion — and to keep it from exceeding gas tax revenues, and it’s no wonder Obama and his union buddies are up in arms. When the President says, as he did on Wednesday, that he wants a “clean” transportation bill, what he means is that he wants a return to the pre-2011 system in which highway funds can be used to pay off political pals in perpetuity, outlays increase every year, and deficit spending simply isn’t a concern — proving once again that all his talk of reining in red ink is nothing but (with apologies to Shakespeare) sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Obama may think his approach to transportation funding is a highway to prosperity, but it’s really just another step down the road to serfdom.
When Corporate Cronies Defect.....
Wall Street cash shifts to Romney from Obama
By Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 1, 2011 4:09pm EDT
(Reuters) - Wall Street money is heavily favoring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the race to unseat President Barack Obama, the latest signal of business unease with Obama's tenure and perhaps a bet on his re-election chances.
Romney, a co-founder of buyout firm Bain Capital, stresses his Wall Street acumen in his bid to win the Republican nomination to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election.
About a quarter of the $18 million Romney raised in the second quarter came from the financial sector, while 4.4 percent of the $48 million Obama's campaign raised came from that group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Employees at the five biggest U.S. banks made the list of Romney's top 20 donors, while just Goldman Sachs made it onto Obama's contributor roll.
With 14 months before voters go to the polls, Obama's handling of the fledgling economic recovery is at all-time lows with unemployment stubbornly stuck above 9 percent.
Wall Street money has been moving away from Obama and Democrats since 2010, in part fueled by Obama's harsh criticism of banks and financial overhaul legislation he signed last year, which banks say is burdensome.
These latest figures confirm that trend.
The data also may suggest who Wall Street thinks has the best chance of becoming elected, said Willis Sparks, who analyzes elections for investors at Eurasia Group.
"Wall Street is in the business of picking winners," he said. "There is some bet hedging going on right now about whether Obama can be re-elected."
Those who work for Goldman Sachs were Romney's biggest backers, giving about $293,000, while those with links to the investment behemoth gave Democrat Obama about $45,000, according to the analysis.
Companies themselves cannot give directly to candidates, but executives and political committees may do so.
In all of 2008, Goldman employees were Obama's second biggest backer, giving him more than $1 million. The same group also was Romney's biggest 2008 donors with about $235,000 in contributions.
Romney had led most Republican polls until Texas Governor Rick Perry jumped into the race last month. Perry is now leading Romney 24 percent to 17 percent, according to an average of polls by realclearpolitics.com.
To be sure, Obama is not wanting for campaign cash. He raised $86 million in the second quarter through his campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Of that, his campaign brought in $48 million.
FEW SMALL BACKERS, PERRY FACTOR
Romney's numbers have dark spots too, said Jim Kessler, an analyst for Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank backed by Wall Street executives and other business interests.
About three-quarters of the funds Romney raised gave the maximum $2,500 donation and cannot give again until the general election, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.
Smaller donors are more passionate, willing to give again and likelier to translate to votes. Obama's fundraising base is much broader with only 18 percent maxing out.
"I don't see the fervency behind Romney," Kessler said. "I have definitely heard some disillusionment with the president on Wall Street, but it is much less than it was a year ago."
Romney is seen as more moderate than Perry and the other major Republican candidates.
A major question mark is Perry, who is also a prolific fundraiser, having won three races as Texas Governor. It remains to be seen as to whether he can raise big money nationally.
Employees of cable giant Comcast Corp were the biggest givers to Obama's campaign. Comcast executive David Cohen is "bundling" funds for Obama.
Bundlers commit to raise big money, often between $50,000 and $500,000, for candidates. While not required by law, Obama released names of these heavy-hitters. None of the major Republican candidates has revealed those names.
(Reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by Bill Trott)
By Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 1, 2011 4:09pm EDT
(Reuters) - Wall Street money is heavily favoring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the race to unseat President Barack Obama, the latest signal of business unease with Obama's tenure and perhaps a bet on his re-election chances.
Romney, a co-founder of buyout firm Bain Capital, stresses his Wall Street acumen in his bid to win the Republican nomination to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election.
About a quarter of the $18 million Romney raised in the second quarter came from the financial sector, while 4.4 percent of the $48 million Obama's campaign raised came from that group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Employees at the five biggest U.S. banks made the list of Romney's top 20 donors, while just Goldman Sachs made it onto Obama's contributor roll.
With 14 months before voters go to the polls, Obama's handling of the fledgling economic recovery is at all-time lows with unemployment stubbornly stuck above 9 percent.
Wall Street money has been moving away from Obama and Democrats since 2010, in part fueled by Obama's harsh criticism of banks and financial overhaul legislation he signed last year, which banks say is burdensome.
These latest figures confirm that trend.
The data also may suggest who Wall Street thinks has the best chance of becoming elected, said Willis Sparks, who analyzes elections for investors at Eurasia Group.
"Wall Street is in the business of picking winners," he said. "There is some bet hedging going on right now about whether Obama can be re-elected."
Those who work for Goldman Sachs were Romney's biggest backers, giving about $293,000, while those with links to the investment behemoth gave Democrat Obama about $45,000, according to the analysis.
Companies themselves cannot give directly to candidates, but executives and political committees may do so.
In all of 2008, Goldman employees were Obama's second biggest backer, giving him more than $1 million. The same group also was Romney's biggest 2008 donors with about $235,000 in contributions.
Romney had led most Republican polls until Texas Governor Rick Perry jumped into the race last month. Perry is now leading Romney 24 percent to 17 percent, according to an average of polls by realclearpolitics.com.
To be sure, Obama is not wanting for campaign cash. He raised $86 million in the second quarter through his campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Of that, his campaign brought in $48 million.
FEW SMALL BACKERS, PERRY FACTOR
Romney's numbers have dark spots too, said Jim Kessler, an analyst for Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank backed by Wall Street executives and other business interests.
About three-quarters of the funds Romney raised gave the maximum $2,500 donation and cannot give again until the general election, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.
Smaller donors are more passionate, willing to give again and likelier to translate to votes. Obama's fundraising base is much broader with only 18 percent maxing out.
"I don't see the fervency behind Romney," Kessler said. "I have definitely heard some disillusionment with the president on Wall Street, but it is much less than it was a year ago."
Romney is seen as more moderate than Perry and the other major Republican candidates.
A major question mark is Perry, who is also a prolific fundraiser, having won three races as Texas Governor. It remains to be seen as to whether he can raise big money nationally.
Employees of cable giant Comcast Corp were the biggest givers to Obama's campaign. Comcast executive David Cohen is "bundling" funds for Obama.
Bundlers commit to raise big money, often between $50,000 and $500,000, for candidates. While not required by law, Obama released names of these heavy-hitters. None of the major Republican candidates has revealed those names.
(Reporting by Kim Dixon; Editing by Bill Trott)
Preview to Obama's Jobs Program to Congress.
By John Galt for Robbing America - Obama to Tell Congress How to Create Jobs: Expect a New Economic Paradigm.
The President is going to address a double session of Congress in a speech dedicated to "Create Jobs" - sound familiar. Besides the fact that these announcements have been done countless times before, in the case that this is different or any better, why is it 3 years late? Or why does it need a pompous setting? Simple, because when you lack content you dress it up with flourish.
However, not withstanding our past experience, we are expecting a historic lunching of new economic theories that will probably change the way the world applies their economic policies forever. Here is our anticipation of what to expect:
* Expect the application of "common sense" obamanomics at its best, no better exemplified than by Jay Carney, influential PhD in Economics, masquerading as WH Press Spokesperson, which patiently explained to a compliant WH press corps how unemployment insurance "creates jobs" simply by the "common sense" deduction that "people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get" from unemployment insurance, and that, the economic genius concluded, "creates jobs". We believe that the WH is actually on to some breakthrough in job creation here.
So we suggest that Obama's team double or triple up on that theory and, voila, we can create millions of jobs by simply firing all workers in the Federal government and then give them an unemployment insurance payment that is double their past salaries. Or better still, give a tax credit for every employee that the private industry fires and then give them three times the size of their salary in unemployment insurance payment. What genius, Obamanomics has discovered that we can create lots of jobs just by paying people not to work.
The above alone could rush in an unprecedented era of economic growth and riches for everyone - well, not for everyone, just for those that are not working, which would be the majority, anyway.
** As if that is not enough, The President is bound to give us an added measure of one of his old favorites by suggesting that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. It follows a perfectly logical path for PhD in economics which tells you that the more it costs a company to hire a worker the more workers it will want to hire. Well, maybe it doesn't sound too logical, but we have to trust these Ivory Tower eggheads, you know, like the "Progressive" Center for American Progress [redundancy mine] which has suggested just that.
*** But perhaps the jewel of Obamanomics will be reserved for last in a proposal to do away with all machinery and computer hardware and software in all work places. That is a perfectly sensible idea that emanates from the geniality, and perhaps the core of most Obamanomics, as explained recently by the President in referring to unemployment. He blamed unemployment on businesses becoming "more efficient with a lot fewer workers", as typified by ATM machines and Airport kiosk that take the place of tellers cashing your checks for recently printed money, or airline workers attending to your tickets and losing your baggage at the same time. We believe that Obamanomics is on to something even bigger here, for by simply forbidding, by executive order or regulation or both, to use any automated machines in auto manufacturing or any hardware manufacturing, in farming and agriculture, construction, etc... we can add millions of new workers to these industries doing everything by hand.
Nothing, of course, exemplifies better the outstanding genius of this theory that when Milton Friedman was traveling in China in the 1960's and "visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built he was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: 'You don't understand. This is a jobs program.' To which Milton replied: 'Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.' "
Obama's Jobs speech should prove just as revolutionary!!!
The President is going to address a double session of Congress in a speech dedicated to "Create Jobs" - sound familiar. Besides the fact that these announcements have been done countless times before, in the case that this is different or any better, why is it 3 years late? Or why does it need a pompous setting? Simple, because when you lack content you dress it up with flourish.
However, not withstanding our past experience, we are expecting a historic lunching of new economic theories that will probably change the way the world applies their economic policies forever. Here is our anticipation of what to expect:
* Expect the application of "common sense" obamanomics at its best, no better exemplified than by Jay Carney, influential PhD in Economics, masquerading as WH Press Spokesperson, which patiently explained to a compliant WH press corps how unemployment insurance "creates jobs" simply by the "common sense" deduction that "people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get" from unemployment insurance, and that, the economic genius concluded, "creates jobs". We believe that the WH is actually on to some breakthrough in job creation here.
So we suggest that Obama's team double or triple up on that theory and, voila, we can create millions of jobs by simply firing all workers in the Federal government and then give them an unemployment insurance payment that is double their past salaries. Or better still, give a tax credit for every employee that the private industry fires and then give them three times the size of their salary in unemployment insurance payment. What genius, Obamanomics has discovered that we can create lots of jobs just by paying people not to work.
The above alone could rush in an unprecedented era of economic growth and riches for everyone - well, not for everyone, just for those that are not working, which would be the majority, anyway.
** As if that is not enough, The President is bound to give us an added measure of one of his old favorites by suggesting that raising the minimum wage would create more jobs. It follows a perfectly logical path for PhD in economics which tells you that the more it costs a company to hire a worker the more workers it will want to hire. Well, maybe it doesn't sound too logical, but we have to trust these Ivory Tower eggheads, you know, like the "Progressive" Center for American Progress [redundancy mine] which has suggested just that.
*** But perhaps the jewel of Obamanomics will be reserved for last in a proposal to do away with all machinery and computer hardware and software in all work places. That is a perfectly sensible idea that emanates from the geniality, and perhaps the core of most Obamanomics, as explained recently by the President in referring to unemployment. He blamed unemployment on businesses becoming "more efficient with a lot fewer workers", as typified by ATM machines and Airport kiosk that take the place of tellers cashing your checks for recently printed money, or airline workers attending to your tickets and losing your baggage at the same time. We believe that Obamanomics is on to something even bigger here, for by simply forbidding, by executive order or regulation or both, to use any automated machines in auto manufacturing or any hardware manufacturing, in farming and agriculture, construction, etc... we can add millions of new workers to these industries doing everything by hand.
Nothing, of course, exemplifies better the outstanding genius of this theory that when Milton Friedman was traveling in China in the 1960's and "visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built he was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: 'You don't understand. This is a jobs program.' To which Milton replied: 'Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.' "
Obama's Jobs speech should prove just as revolutionary!!!
White House: Unemployment Will Average 9 Percent In Election Year
Brian Beutler | September 1, 2011, 2:10PM
President Obama's mid-session budget review confirms what most private and government projections have recently concluded -- that the economy is considerably weaker than earlier forecasts held, and won't fully recover from the Great Recession for years.
Most troubling, both for the country and for Obama politically, is that near-term unemployment is expected to remain significantly higher than expected, averaging 9 percent in fiscal year 2012.
Obama's budget office initially calculated its economic forecast based upon data available through June. Even that data presaged an 8.8 percent average unemployment rate in 2011 and an 8.3 percent average rate next year. But the mid-session review got delayed, and when the Office of Management and Budget revised it to incorporate the data through the end of August, the picture became much gloomier. Unemployment will average 9.1 percent this year, and 9.0 percent next year, OMB concluded, and won't dip below 7 percent until 2015 at the earliest.
The revised figures "reflect the substantial amount of economic turbulence over the past two months," OMB says, triggered by the European debt crisis, the earthquake in Japan, congressional brinkmanship over the debt ceiling among others. They also take into account the fact that GDP growth in the first half of fiscal year 2011 turned out to be significantly lower than originally thought.
Despite these and other setbacks, "we are not forecasting a double-dip recession," Katharine Abraham, a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters Thursday.
The report does not incorporate the impact of Obama's yet-to-be-unveiled jobs plan which, if enacted, would likely alter near-term unemployment and fiscal figures.
Thus, the fiscal figures are improving much faster than the broader economic ones. "The deficit for 2011 is now expected to be $1.316 trillion, down $329 billion from the deficit of $1.645 trillion deficit estimated in February," the report says.
Read the entire review below.
Office of Management and Budget Mid-Session Review
President Obama's mid-session budget review confirms what most private and government projections have recently concluded -- that the economy is considerably weaker than earlier forecasts held, and won't fully recover from the Great Recession for years.
Most troubling, both for the country and for Obama politically, is that near-term unemployment is expected to remain significantly higher than expected, averaging 9 percent in fiscal year 2012.
Obama's budget office initially calculated its economic forecast based upon data available through June. Even that data presaged an 8.8 percent average unemployment rate in 2011 and an 8.3 percent average rate next year. But the mid-session review got delayed, and when the Office of Management and Budget revised it to incorporate the data through the end of August, the picture became much gloomier. Unemployment will average 9.1 percent this year, and 9.0 percent next year, OMB concluded, and won't dip below 7 percent until 2015 at the earliest.
The revised figures "reflect the substantial amount of economic turbulence over the past two months," OMB says, triggered by the European debt crisis, the earthquake in Japan, congressional brinkmanship over the debt ceiling among others. They also take into account the fact that GDP growth in the first half of fiscal year 2011 turned out to be significantly lower than originally thought.
Despite these and other setbacks, "we are not forecasting a double-dip recession," Katharine Abraham, a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters Thursday.
The report does not incorporate the impact of Obama's yet-to-be-unveiled jobs plan which, if enacted, would likely alter near-term unemployment and fiscal figures.
Thus, the fiscal figures are improving much faster than the broader economic ones. "The deficit for 2011 is now expected to be $1.316 trillion, down $329 billion from the deficit of $1.645 trillion deficit estimated in February," the report says.
Read the entire review below.
Office of Management and Budget Mid-Session Review
Democrats Distancing Themselves From Obama
By Alex Roarty and Beth Reinhard
Updated: September 1, 2011 | 7:16 p.m.
September 1, 2011 | 11:12 a.m.
It’s been a tough summer for swing-district Democrats seeking reelection in 2012 with a president at the top of the ticket whose approval ratings are in the weeds.
As these members begin to focus on their reelection bids after Labor Day, they are increasingly calculating how close is too close to an unpopular President Obama.
Take Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who represents a district that nearly went for Republican George W. Bush in 2004. In a recent local TV interview, DeFazio said of Obama that the word “fight” isn’t “in his vocabulary” -- and he then repeated the criticism to constituents at a town hall. Or Rep. Bill Owens, D-N.Y., who won a Republican-friendly district in a special election last year and pointedly declined to endorse the sitting president last week.
The president’s dismal poll ratings, should they continue into next year, could sink Democratic hopes for reclaiming ground in the House and retaining control of the Senate -- especially in battleground states and swing districts.
“If he is where he is now, it’s not going to work for Democrats,” said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., who opted earlier this year not to seek reelection in his competitive district.
Democrats are also keeping their distance in two House special elections taking place later this month -- in both a solidly-Democratic district in New York City and a Republican-leaning one in rural Nevada. The sting of Obama’s low approval ratings is already being felt in Queens and Brooklyn, where Republican candidate Bob Turner has turned the Democratic-leaning district into a battleground by framing the special election as a referendum on the administration and its treatment of Israel. Liberal firebrand Anthony Weiner held onto that district with ease for more than a decade, and even when scandal forced him out of office, few had thought the race to replace him would be close.
In the Nevada race to replace Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., in the House, national Republican groups have aired advertisements connecting Democratic nominee Kate Marshall with Obama. Strategists from both parties expect Republican Mark Amodei to prevail -- in a district where Obama won 49 percent in 2008.
It’s a sea change from the early days of his presidency, when liberal and moderate Democrats alike sought to tie themselves to the president and benefit from his popularity and charisma. Most moderate Democrats supported his stimulus and health care reform legislation that they’re now distancing themselves from. Less than two years ago, Owens tied himself to the president’s agenda in his initial campaign for Congress. That’s now a distant memory.
Obama’s approval has dropped below 40 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll in recent weeks, and surveys show him running even with Republican presidential front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Most analysts believe Obama’s approval needs to be at least above 45 percent to have a good chance of winning reelection next year.
“I represent a district that Obama lost by 11 points in 2008,” said Rep, Jason Altmire, D-Pa., whose conservative district is being targeted by national Republicans. “I would not expect him to do well in this district.”
But Obama’s iffy prospects shouldn’t send Altmire and other vulnerable Democrats fleeing from the president, veteran strategists say. The calculus is a complicated one that should take into account that Obama remains more popular than Republicans in Congress.
Running away from the president could discourage loyal Democrats who still have faith in Obama from turning out at the polls in 2012. What’s more, if the Republican nominee turns out to be a tea-party branded conservative like Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, Obama could plausibly pitch himself as the more reasonable, less ideological candidate to independent voters.
Democratic strategists suggest that downballot Democrats should focus on the president’s agenda, which includes a balanced approach to deficit reduction with both tax increases and spending cuts, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Anyone who says Obama is going to be a drag on the ticket should look [at] the polling numbers for congressional Republicans," said Mary Anne Marsh, a Massachusetts-based Democratic consultant. “Democrats running in 2012 should realize that the better he does, the better they will do.’’
In 2010, a number of Democrats sought to steer clear of the president to no avail. The Democratic nominee for governor in Florida, Alex Sink, ducked Obama during fundraising visits and ended up narrowly losing to Republican Rick Scott amid disappointing Democratic turnout. Former Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., went so far as to announce during his reelection campaign that he voted for John McCain in 2008. The 21-year incumbent fell to a first-term state representative.
“There are a number of people -- who are now former members of Congress -- who tried to distance themselves from the president. It didn’t work,” said Philadelphia-based Democratic consultant J.J. Balaban.
Florida-based Democratic pollster Dave Beattie noted that despite Obama’s waning popularity, some surveys show him in greater favor than the conservative tea party movement. Beattie pointed to four Democratic senators -- Chris Coons in Delaware, Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado, and Harry Reid in Nevada -- who won tough races in 2010 not by distancing themselves from Obama, but by running moderate campaigns that contrasted favorably with their more colorful, edgy Republican rivals.
Democrats running in 2012 should take their cue from those 2010 successes, Beattie said.
“There’s a greater fear of tea-party extremism than a fear of Obama,’’ he said. “I don’t think there will be a lot of Democrats actively running against Obama because those who are left are in swing areas where the president will be competitive.’’
The place where vulnerable Democrats are most likely to break with the president is over spending cuts. While they are on solid ground to criticize Obama for not going far enough to trim the budget, they may go astray if they start personally attacking him.
“Democrats don’t want their races to be about Obama,’’ said Beattie, “but for many of them, he’s still a net positive."
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal's AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don't miss a thing.
Ben Terris contributed
Updated: September 1, 2011 | 7:16 p.m.
September 1, 2011 | 11:12 a.m.
It’s been a tough summer for swing-district Democrats seeking reelection in 2012 with a president at the top of the ticket whose approval ratings are in the weeds.
As these members begin to focus on their reelection bids after Labor Day, they are increasingly calculating how close is too close to an unpopular President Obama.
Take Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who represents a district that nearly went for Republican George W. Bush in 2004. In a recent local TV interview, DeFazio said of Obama that the word “fight” isn’t “in his vocabulary” -- and he then repeated the criticism to constituents at a town hall. Or Rep. Bill Owens, D-N.Y., who won a Republican-friendly district in a special election last year and pointedly declined to endorse the sitting president last week.
The president’s dismal poll ratings, should they continue into next year, could sink Democratic hopes for reclaiming ground in the House and retaining control of the Senate -- especially in battleground states and swing districts.
“If he is where he is now, it’s not going to work for Democrats,” said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., who opted earlier this year not to seek reelection in his competitive district.
Democrats are also keeping their distance in two House special elections taking place later this month -- in both a solidly-Democratic district in New York City and a Republican-leaning one in rural Nevada. The sting of Obama’s low approval ratings is already being felt in Queens and Brooklyn, where Republican candidate Bob Turner has turned the Democratic-leaning district into a battleground by framing the special election as a referendum on the administration and its treatment of Israel. Liberal firebrand Anthony Weiner held onto that district with ease for more than a decade, and even when scandal forced him out of office, few had thought the race to replace him would be close.
In the Nevada race to replace Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., in the House, national Republican groups have aired advertisements connecting Democratic nominee Kate Marshall with Obama. Strategists from both parties expect Republican Mark Amodei to prevail -- in a district where Obama won 49 percent in 2008.
It’s a sea change from the early days of his presidency, when liberal and moderate Democrats alike sought to tie themselves to the president and benefit from his popularity and charisma. Most moderate Democrats supported his stimulus and health care reform legislation that they’re now distancing themselves from. Less than two years ago, Owens tied himself to the president’s agenda in his initial campaign for Congress. That’s now a distant memory.
Obama’s approval has dropped below 40 percent in Gallup’s tracking poll in recent weeks, and surveys show him running even with Republican presidential front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Most analysts believe Obama’s approval needs to be at least above 45 percent to have a good chance of winning reelection next year.
“I represent a district that Obama lost by 11 points in 2008,” said Rep, Jason Altmire, D-Pa., whose conservative district is being targeted by national Republicans. “I would not expect him to do well in this district.”
But Obama’s iffy prospects shouldn’t send Altmire and other vulnerable Democrats fleeing from the president, veteran strategists say. The calculus is a complicated one that should take into account that Obama remains more popular than Republicans in Congress.
Running away from the president could discourage loyal Democrats who still have faith in Obama from turning out at the polls in 2012. What’s more, if the Republican nominee turns out to be a tea-party branded conservative like Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, Obama could plausibly pitch himself as the more reasonable, less ideological candidate to independent voters.
Democratic strategists suggest that downballot Democrats should focus on the president’s agenda, which includes a balanced approach to deficit reduction with both tax increases and spending cuts, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and raising taxes on the wealthy.
"Anyone who says Obama is going to be a drag on the ticket should look [at] the polling numbers for congressional Republicans," said Mary Anne Marsh, a Massachusetts-based Democratic consultant. “Democrats running in 2012 should realize that the better he does, the better they will do.’’
In 2010, a number of Democrats sought to steer clear of the president to no avail. The Democratic nominee for governor in Florida, Alex Sink, ducked Obama during fundraising visits and ended up narrowly losing to Republican Rick Scott amid disappointing Democratic turnout. Former Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., went so far as to announce during his reelection campaign that he voted for John McCain in 2008. The 21-year incumbent fell to a first-term state representative.
“There are a number of people -- who are now former members of Congress -- who tried to distance themselves from the president. It didn’t work,” said Philadelphia-based Democratic consultant J.J. Balaban.
Florida-based Democratic pollster Dave Beattie noted that despite Obama’s waning popularity, some surveys show him in greater favor than the conservative tea party movement. Beattie pointed to four Democratic senators -- Chris Coons in Delaware, Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado, and Harry Reid in Nevada -- who won tough races in 2010 not by distancing themselves from Obama, but by running moderate campaigns that contrasted favorably with their more colorful, edgy Republican rivals.
Democrats running in 2012 should take their cue from those 2010 successes, Beattie said.
“There’s a greater fear of tea-party extremism than a fear of Obama,’’ he said. “I don’t think there will be a lot of Democrats actively running against Obama because those who are left are in swing areas where the president will be competitive.’’
The place where vulnerable Democrats are most likely to break with the president is over spending cuts. While they are on solid ground to criticize Obama for not going far enough to trim the budget, they may go astray if they start personally attacking him.
“Democrats don’t want their races to be about Obama,’’ said Beattie, “but for many of them, he’s still a net positive."
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal's AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don't miss a thing.
Ben Terris contributed
Cable: UN peacekeepers traded food for sex
By LAURA BURKE
updated 9/1/2011 11:07:30 AM ET
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast — United Nations peacekeepers in Ivory Coast enticed underage girls in a poor part of the West African nation to exchange sex for food, according to a United States Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks.
The cable written in January 2010 focuses on the behavior of Beninese peacekeepers stationed in the western town of Toulepleu, an area that has been at the crosshairs of the nation's 10-year-long conflict.
A random poll of 10 underage girls in Toulepleu by aid group Save The Children U.K. in 2009 found that eight performed sexual acts for Benin peacekeepers on a regular basis in order to secure their most basic needs. "Eight of the 10 said they had ongoing sexual relationships with Beninese soldiers in exchange for food or lodging," the diplomat wrote in the cable, citing information shared with the embassy by a protection officer.
On Tuesday, United Nations spokesman Michel Bonnardeaux confirmed that in April, 16 Beninese peacekeepers were repatriated to Benin and are barred from serving in the U.N. following a yearlong investigation.
"We see it as a command and control problem," said Bonnardeaux who spoke by telephone from New York. Of the 16, 10 were commanders and the rest were soldiers.
The commanders, he said, "failed to maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and abuse."
Sexual misconduct by U.N. troops has been reported in a number of countries including Congo, Cambodia and Haiti — as well as in an earlier incident involving Moroccan peacekeepers in Ivory Coast.
In 2007, a 730-strong battalion of peacekeepers from Morocco was asked to suspend its activities in the northern Ivorian city of Bouake after the U.N. received allegations of sexual misconduct involving local girls.
A report published a year later by Save the Children U.K. identified Ivory Coast as one of the places where sexual barter between peacekeepers and girls was occurring. The peacekeepers traded food as well as mobile phones for sex, the report said.
The recently released cable identifies for the first time the Benin peacekeeping contingent.
It also makes clear that the sexual exploitation continued through at least the last month of 2009, quoting a protection officer with Save the Children who spoke to the embassy in January 2010. The officer said that the "sexual exploitation and abuse problem among (United Nations) personnel is more extensive than is recognized."
Parents were encouraging their daughters to sleep with the peacekeepers so they would provide for them, according to the cable.
Bonnardeaux said that 42 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. staff in Ivory Coast have been reported since 2007. Sixteen involved minors. None have been reported yet this year, according to U.N. records.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
updated 9/1/2011 11:07:30 AM ET
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast — United Nations peacekeepers in Ivory Coast enticed underage girls in a poor part of the West African nation to exchange sex for food, according to a United States Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks.
The cable written in January 2010 focuses on the behavior of Beninese peacekeepers stationed in the western town of Toulepleu, an area that has been at the crosshairs of the nation's 10-year-long conflict.
A random poll of 10 underage girls in Toulepleu by aid group Save The Children U.K. in 2009 found that eight performed sexual acts for Benin peacekeepers on a regular basis in order to secure their most basic needs. "Eight of the 10 said they had ongoing sexual relationships with Beninese soldiers in exchange for food or lodging," the diplomat wrote in the cable, citing information shared with the embassy by a protection officer.
On Tuesday, United Nations spokesman Michel Bonnardeaux confirmed that in April, 16 Beninese peacekeepers were repatriated to Benin and are barred from serving in the U.N. following a yearlong investigation.
"We see it as a command and control problem," said Bonnardeaux who spoke by telephone from New York. Of the 16, 10 were commanders and the rest were soldiers.
The commanders, he said, "failed to maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and abuse."
Sexual misconduct by U.N. troops has been reported in a number of countries including Congo, Cambodia and Haiti — as well as in an earlier incident involving Moroccan peacekeepers in Ivory Coast.
In 2007, a 730-strong battalion of peacekeepers from Morocco was asked to suspend its activities in the northern Ivorian city of Bouake after the U.N. received allegations of sexual misconduct involving local girls.
A report published a year later by Save the Children U.K. identified Ivory Coast as one of the places where sexual barter between peacekeepers and girls was occurring. The peacekeepers traded food as well as mobile phones for sex, the report said.
The recently released cable identifies for the first time the Benin peacekeeping contingent.
It also makes clear that the sexual exploitation continued through at least the last month of 2009, quoting a protection officer with Save the Children who spoke to the embassy in January 2010. The officer said that the "sexual exploitation and abuse problem among (United Nations) personnel is more extensive than is recognized."
Parents were encouraging their daughters to sleep with the peacekeepers so they would provide for them, according to the cable.
Bonnardeaux said that 42 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. staff in Ivory Coast have been reported since 2007. Sixteen involved minors. None have been reported yet this year, according to U.N. records.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Post-Racial Echo Chamber of Ignorance
Posted on Thursday, September 1st, 2011 by Kevin Jackson
Welcome to the echo chamber of ignorance of the Left’s post-racial America. Black Liberals thought that electing a black president would make them happier than a Michael Vick pound pup, but instead most are now madder than Whoopi Goldberg’s blind date.
In an America where black achievement can be seen and heard everywhere, Andre Carson and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are crying foul, saying that the Tea Party wants to take America back to the ‘60’s. Don’t believe your lying eyes showcasing black achievement all over America, because black people are being oppressed. By the Tea Party who wants black people “hanging from trees.”
Yes, the three-year old Tea Party movement is responsible for the decades of degradation within the black community, according to Carson and other members of the CBC.
Who knew it was the Tea Party doing all those drive-bys in black neighborhoods, and robbing black folks. Here I thought it was black thugs and gang members.
Who knew it was the evil Tea Party who foreclosed on black homeowners, or that the Tea Party set up all those substandard government schools in black neighborhoods.
Apparently America’s police are loaded with Tea Party members, and the cops are out to get black people. Prior to the Tea Party, there we NO black people in prison. Over the last three years, the Tea Party cops have begun rounding up black people and wrongfully incarcerating them.
Worse yet, while in prison, black people are being forced to listen to Bluegrass music and watch reruns of The Dukes of Hazard…with Daisy Duke edited out!
Sure, the new America is like the ‘60’s, only this time it’s black people intimidating white folks. The New Black Panthers are threatening to kill white babies and suppressing the Republican vote. Civil unrest is all over America with black flash mobs. Black people doing meet-ups to give beat ups.
Black mobs in Green Bay WI?! How many black folks do they have there anyway? 20, not including the players for the Packers? Did ACORN have to bus these black folks in? Whites outnumber blacks in Green Bay about 100 to 1, yet those white people were willing to take a butt kicking while leaving the fair in order to avoid being called racists.
And black flash mobs are happening all over the country, like in Peoria, IL where cops told residents to “stay in your homes,” to avoid the mobs. Seriously? That’s the solution. In America?
Black people in America are being told that they are owed something. Flash mobs are robbing stores, stealing, like a swarm of locusts, and little is happening to stop them.
White people are too afraid to fight back, because they don’t want to risk being called racists. Can you imagine an America where you’d rather take an butt kicking than be called a racist? We’re there. To quote Visa: PRICELESS!
The CBC is the newest flash mob, running around the country fomenting racial hatred. That’s what Democrats do. Andre Carson and others of the CBC are only doing what good Democrats do when their backs are against the wall: Intimidate.
When Obama loses the next election, you are getting a look at what America will look like for some time. Black flash mobs will roam the cities saying that the Republicans ripped them off. Black Liberals will have the built-in excuse that “The Tea Party didn’t want the black president to succeed…and chickens coming home to roost,” both favorite mantras of the great black Left.
Obama’s loss in 2012 will be the political equivalent of the OJ verdict, giving black Liberals an excuse to continue to be victims. “We have our chance, but the white man wouldn’t let the black president succeed.”
Welcome to Black Liberal Democrat Progressive Regressive University where Victimization 101 is a required course.
If America were honest, they would state openly that it is the CBC who should be publicly flogged for their representation of black America. The CBC is touring the oppressed areas that they serve to discuss one thing: Black victimization.
Black Liberal leaders preach how weak black America is. Without government, black people are nothing. When is the last time you’ve heard a black Liberal leader talk empowerment of the black community, and not lace their speech with the “blame whitey” meme?
Only the Right is post-racial in America. The Left is a hateful bunch who loves to use racism to keep people thinking inside the box they’ve been put in. Whether 8 to 80, blind, cripple or crazy, the Left has your box.
The CBC invests heavily in the “idea” of a racist America, because that’s their meal ticket. They love to invoke imagery of lynching and Jim Crow, all legacy Democrat badges of honor. But don’t let black Liberals know they are supporting the Democrats’ heinous past or black Liberals could leave the CBC’s echo chamber of ignorance.
That’s my rant!
© 2011 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere, LLC – All Rights Reserved.
Welcome to the echo chamber of ignorance of the Left’s post-racial America. Black Liberals thought that electing a black president would make them happier than a Michael Vick pound pup, but instead most are now madder than Whoopi Goldberg’s blind date.
In an America where black achievement can be seen and heard everywhere, Andre Carson and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are crying foul, saying that the Tea Party wants to take America back to the ‘60’s. Don’t believe your lying eyes showcasing black achievement all over America, because black people are being oppressed. By the Tea Party who wants black people “hanging from trees.”
Yes, the three-year old Tea Party movement is responsible for the decades of degradation within the black community, according to Carson and other members of the CBC.
Who knew it was the Tea Party doing all those drive-bys in black neighborhoods, and robbing black folks. Here I thought it was black thugs and gang members.
Who knew it was the evil Tea Party who foreclosed on black homeowners, or that the Tea Party set up all those substandard government schools in black neighborhoods.
Apparently America’s police are loaded with Tea Party members, and the cops are out to get black people. Prior to the Tea Party, there we NO black people in prison. Over the last three years, the Tea Party cops have begun rounding up black people and wrongfully incarcerating them.
Worse yet, while in prison, black people are being forced to listen to Bluegrass music and watch reruns of The Dukes of Hazard…with Daisy Duke edited out!
Sure, the new America is like the ‘60’s, only this time it’s black people intimidating white folks. The New Black Panthers are threatening to kill white babies and suppressing the Republican vote. Civil unrest is all over America with black flash mobs. Black people doing meet-ups to give beat ups.
Black mobs in Green Bay WI?! How many black folks do they have there anyway? 20, not including the players for the Packers? Did ACORN have to bus these black folks in? Whites outnumber blacks in Green Bay about 100 to 1, yet those white people were willing to take a butt kicking while leaving the fair in order to avoid being called racists.
And black flash mobs are happening all over the country, like in Peoria, IL where cops told residents to “stay in your homes,” to avoid the mobs. Seriously? That’s the solution. In America?
Black people in America are being told that they are owed something. Flash mobs are robbing stores, stealing, like a swarm of locusts, and little is happening to stop them.
White people are too afraid to fight back, because they don’t want to risk being called racists. Can you imagine an America where you’d rather take an butt kicking than be called a racist? We’re there. To quote Visa: PRICELESS!
The CBC is the newest flash mob, running around the country fomenting racial hatred. That’s what Democrats do. Andre Carson and others of the CBC are only doing what good Democrats do when their backs are against the wall: Intimidate.
When Obama loses the next election, you are getting a look at what America will look like for some time. Black flash mobs will roam the cities saying that the Republicans ripped them off. Black Liberals will have the built-in excuse that “The Tea Party didn’t want the black president to succeed…and chickens coming home to roost,” both favorite mantras of the great black Left.
Obama’s loss in 2012 will be the political equivalent of the OJ verdict, giving black Liberals an excuse to continue to be victims. “We have our chance, but the white man wouldn’t let the black president succeed.”
Welcome to Black Liberal Democrat Progressive Regressive University where Victimization 101 is a required course.
If America were honest, they would state openly that it is the CBC who should be publicly flogged for their representation of black America. The CBC is touring the oppressed areas that they serve to discuss one thing: Black victimization.
Black Liberal leaders preach how weak black America is. Without government, black people are nothing. When is the last time you’ve heard a black Liberal leader talk empowerment of the black community, and not lace their speech with the “blame whitey” meme?
Only the Right is post-racial in America. The Left is a hateful bunch who loves to use racism to keep people thinking inside the box they’ve been put in. Whether 8 to 80, blind, cripple or crazy, the Left has your box.
The CBC invests heavily in the “idea” of a racist America, because that’s their meal ticket. They love to invoke imagery of lynching and Jim Crow, all legacy Democrat badges of honor. But don’t let black Liberals know they are supporting the Democrats’ heinous past or black Liberals could leave the CBC’s echo chamber of ignorance.
That’s my rant!
© 2011 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere, LLC – All Rights Reserved.
Five Gunwalker Questions the Media Won’t Ask, and the Obama Administration Won’t Answer
by Bob Owens
So far, the shuffling of employees–and some might argue, the buying of their silence–has been the only reaction to the Gunwalker scandal, in which various agencies of the federal government conspired to assure the success of straw purchasers and smugglers running guns to a violent Mexican drug cartel.
In the months since the scandal was revealed, the Department of Justice (DOJ) , BATF, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service Criminal Division (IRS-CD), Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State, have conspired to stonewall and House and Senate investigations that have been launched to investigate a scandal that appears to be worse than Iran-Contra and Watergate combined.
The scandal is not complicated, and would be revealed by the answering of five simple questions that the media dare not demand answers to from this Administration.
Who came up with the idea of allowing guns to be purchased by straw purchasers and then “walked” across the border by smugglers?
Who authorized Operation Fast and Furious in the Department of Justice?
Who authorized Operation Fast and Furious in the Department of Homeland Security?
Is Operation Fast and Furious the only operation of its type, or were there similar operations in Texas, Florida, and other states as evidence suggests?
What, precisely, did Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano know about Operation Fast and Furious, and when did they know it?
Answering these five simple questions would go a long way towards revealing if Operation Fast and Furious was merely the most inept and bloody law enforcement operation in modern American history, or if it was–as logic and circumstantial evidence suggests–a criminal conspiracy intent on manufacturing evidence to justify gun control initiatives and further the Administration’s political agenda at the cost of Mexican and American lives.
So far, the shuffling of employees–and some might argue, the buying of their silence–has been the only reaction to the Gunwalker scandal, in which various agencies of the federal government conspired to assure the success of straw purchasers and smugglers running guns to a violent Mexican drug cartel.
In the months since the scandal was revealed, the Department of Justice (DOJ) , BATF, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Internal Revenue Service Criminal Division (IRS-CD), Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State, have conspired to stonewall and House and Senate investigations that have been launched to investigate a scandal that appears to be worse than Iran-Contra and Watergate combined.
The scandal is not complicated, and would be revealed by the answering of five simple questions that the media dare not demand answers to from this Administration.
Who came up with the idea of allowing guns to be purchased by straw purchasers and then “walked” across the border by smugglers?
Who authorized Operation Fast and Furious in the Department of Justice?
Who authorized Operation Fast and Furious in the Department of Homeland Security?
Is Operation Fast and Furious the only operation of its type, or were there similar operations in Texas, Florida, and other states as evidence suggests?
What, precisely, did Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano know about Operation Fast and Furious, and when did they know it?
Answering these five simple questions would go a long way towards revealing if Operation Fast and Furious was merely the most inept and bloody law enforcement operation in modern American history, or if it was–as logic and circumstantial evidence suggests–a criminal conspiracy intent on manufacturing evidence to justify gun control initiatives and further the Administration’s political agenda at the cost of Mexican and American lives.
N.M. Officer Having Sex on Car Hood Won't Be Charged
The agency doesn't believe a crime occurred & the officer won't be cited for lewd behavior YOU TRY IT ONCE!
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — He's in uniform and apparently on duty. But New Mexico State Police said the officer caught on camera having sex with a woman on the hood of a car did not commit a crime.
Security camera photographs of the encounter at the remote county-owned Canyon Ranch near Santa Fe, N.M., surfaced several weeks ago. The images were initially sent to state police by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department and an internal investigation was started.
State police spokesman Tim Johnson said the investigation has been completed and the case is currently in the disciplinary process. He said investigators don't believe any criminal acts occurred but that the officer will be held accountable for his actions.
"The New Mexico State Police is very embarrassed by this incident and will work tirelessly to restore our good name and earn the trust of the citizens back," he said in a statement sent Thursday to The Associated Press.
"This officer made a horrible personal decision that will obviously reflect poorly on the whole organization."
Johnson declined to release the name of the officer, but KQRE-TV reported (http://bit.ly/qOPJ6t ) he is an eight-year veteran of the department who's currently on administrative leave. The Albuquerque television station also reported he was state police officer of the year in the Santa Fe district in 2010.
Johnson declined to provide any details about the officer, including his past accolades or whether he is married.
The department has also refused to release the identity of the woman in the video and details about her relationship with the officer.
While the case is a black eye for the department, Johnson said he wanted the public to remember that hundreds of state police officers go to work "every single day and make sound decisions to protect and serve their communities."
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — He's in uniform and apparently on duty. But New Mexico State Police said the officer caught on camera having sex with a woman on the hood of a car did not commit a crime.
Security camera photographs of the encounter at the remote county-owned Canyon Ranch near Santa Fe, N.M., surfaced several weeks ago. The images were initially sent to state police by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Department and an internal investigation was started.
State police spokesman Tim Johnson said the investigation has been completed and the case is currently in the disciplinary process. He said investigators don't believe any criminal acts occurred but that the officer will be held accountable for his actions.
"The New Mexico State Police is very embarrassed by this incident and will work tirelessly to restore our good name and earn the trust of the citizens back," he said in a statement sent Thursday to The Associated Press.
"This officer made a horrible personal decision that will obviously reflect poorly on the whole organization."
Johnson declined to release the name of the officer, but KQRE-TV reported (http://bit.ly/qOPJ6t ) he is an eight-year veteran of the department who's currently on administrative leave. The Albuquerque television station also reported he was state police officer of the year in the Santa Fe district in 2010.
Johnson declined to provide any details about the officer, including his past accolades or whether he is married.
The department has also refused to release the identity of the woman in the video and details about her relationship with the officer.
While the case is a black eye for the department, Johnson said he wanted the public to remember that hundreds of state police officers go to work "every single day and make sound decisions to protect and serve their communities."
Rebel flags barred from Lexington poles
The city council adopted a measure that would limit flags to those of the nation, state and city.
By Duncan Adams
Participants in a Sons of Confederate Veterans rally held at Hopkins Green in Lexington wave flags to protest proposed changes to a city ordinance that would ban flags, including the Confederate flag, from public lampposts. The proposal passed 4-1.
Virginia State Police monitor Thursday’s rally. Confederate flags are still permitted on private property in Lexington.
A passer-by eyes protests at the Sons of Confederate Veterans rally in Lexington on Thursday.
LEXINGTON — The arguments have been made thousands of times before. The Confederate flag is a symbol of history and Southern heritage. No, the flag is a symbol of hatred and racism.
In essence, the same arguments dominated a public hearing held Thursday night by the Lexington City Council to solicit input about an ordinance amendment that will effectively ban the display of the flags of the Confederacy from public light poles in the city.
City residents spoke first, and the majority, including whites and blacks, expressed support for the ordinance and described the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and oppression that is offensive to many. Once county residents and people from outside the area spoke, there was more opposition to the ordinance amendment and more insistence that the Confederate flag should be honored as a symbol of Southern heritage and the men who fought for the Southern side.
After a hearing of nearly three hours, in which strong emotions were expressed from both sides and there was some rowdiness at times, the city council voted 4-1 to adopt the ordinance amendment.
The new Lexington ordinance's section on flags specifies, "Only the following flags may be flown on the flag standards affixed to light poles in the city and no others:" — the American flag, the Virginia flag and the flag of the city of Lexington.
The ordinance does not prohibit people from carrying the Confederate or other flags or displaying them from private property — a reality cited by many people who supported the ordinance's adoption.
But it does effectively ban the display of flags of the Confederacy and others that have previously flown from city light poles — including flags of Virginia Military Institute and of Washington and Lee University.
Civil War history runs deeply through both schools and Lexington.
W&L's name refers to George Washington and to Confederate Gen.Robert E. Lee. The latter served as a president for the school after the Civil War.
Confederate Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson taught at VMI before the war.
Both men are buried in Lexington.
Stewart MacInnis, a spokesman for the military school, said city workers have in years past flown the school's flag on lampposts for "special days — graduation, games and the like."
He guessed such displays happened about six times a year, "perhaps a few more or less."
"VMI has no opinion on the proposed changes to the flag ordinance," MacInnis said. "We view this as a local issue."
Jeff Hannah, a spokesman for W&L, said the university has not taken an institutional position on the matter. Like MacInnis, Hannah estimated W&L flags fly about a half-dozen times in the city each year.
Lexington officials have wrestled before with controversy about the display of the flags of the Confederacy. The city lost one related legal battle. A federal injunction issued in 1993 prohibits Lexington from denying the rights of individuals to display the flags of the Southern side.
The issue resurfaced in late 2010 at the approach of the holiday weekend each January that happens to pair the Lee-Jackson Day state holiday on Friday with the Martin Luther King Jr. Day federal holiday on Monday.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans had wanted to fly Confederate flags from light poles downtown in the days preceding Lee-Jackson Day, the day itself and the day after, when a Lee-Jackson Day parade would pass by.
Instead, the city council limited the period the flags could fly to the days preceding the state holiday. Brandon Dorsey, commander for Camp 1296 of the Stonewall Brigade of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said then that the city's response demonstrated "a longtime antagonism against" public display of the Confederacy's flags.
"Our goal is to see that the historical flags associated with Lee and Jackson be permissible under the ordinance for their state holiday in the town where they were laid to rest," Dorsey said Wednesday.
He said also that the ordinance ought to include a process through which a locally based civics organization or educational institution could apply to fly their flags for an event in the city.
A pro-Confederate flag rally held before the meeting drew about 300 people.
H.K. Edgerton, a black man described by some as a Confederate history activist and by others as an apologist for slavery, was the event's keynote speaker. Edgerton was once president of a North Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Before speaking, Edgerton called Lexington "the most sacred city in the South" because of its association with Lee and Jackson.
He said he does not believe Confederate flags symbolize hatred or bigotry but represent the two words uttered most often at the rally — history and heritage.
"The whole world was complicit in slavery," he said. "The Confederate belongs to the black man as much as anyone."
For many, the Confederate flag represents slavery, racism and sometimes violent postwar repression of black people. Dorsey dismisses this view and has said members of the Stonewall Brigade are history buffs who are descendants of men who "bled and died for this state, at its request, and ought to be remembered and honored."
By Duncan Adams
A passer-by eyes protests at the Sons of Confederate Veterans rally in Lexington on Thursday.
LEXINGTON — The arguments have been made thousands of times before. The Confederate flag is a symbol of history and Southern heritage. No, the flag is a symbol of hatred and racism.
In essence, the same arguments dominated a public hearing held Thursday night by the Lexington City Council to solicit input about an ordinance amendment that will effectively ban the display of the flags of the Confederacy from public light poles in the city.
City residents spoke first, and the majority, including whites and blacks, expressed support for the ordinance and described the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and oppression that is offensive to many. Once county residents and people from outside the area spoke, there was more opposition to the ordinance amendment and more insistence that the Confederate flag should be honored as a symbol of Southern heritage and the men who fought for the Southern side.
After a hearing of nearly three hours, in which strong emotions were expressed from both sides and there was some rowdiness at times, the city council voted 4-1 to adopt the ordinance amendment.
The new Lexington ordinance's section on flags specifies, "Only the following flags may be flown on the flag standards affixed to light poles in the city and no others:" — the American flag, the Virginia flag and the flag of the city of Lexington.
The ordinance does not prohibit people from carrying the Confederate or other flags or displaying them from private property — a reality cited by many people who supported the ordinance's adoption.
But it does effectively ban the display of flags of the Confederacy and others that have previously flown from city light poles — including flags of Virginia Military Institute and of Washington and Lee University.
Civil War history runs deeply through both schools and Lexington.
W&L's name refers to George Washington and to Confederate Gen.Robert E. Lee. The latter served as a president for the school after the Civil War.
Confederate Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson taught at VMI before the war.
Both men are buried in Lexington.
Stewart MacInnis, a spokesman for the military school, said city workers have in years past flown the school's flag on lampposts for "special days — graduation, games and the like."
He guessed such displays happened about six times a year, "perhaps a few more or less."
"VMI has no opinion on the proposed changes to the flag ordinance," MacInnis said. "We view this as a local issue."
Jeff Hannah, a spokesman for W&L, said the university has not taken an institutional position on the matter. Like MacInnis, Hannah estimated W&L flags fly about a half-dozen times in the city each year.
Lexington officials have wrestled before with controversy about the display of the flags of the Confederacy. The city lost one related legal battle. A federal injunction issued in 1993 prohibits Lexington from denying the rights of individuals to display the flags of the Southern side.
The issue resurfaced in late 2010 at the approach of the holiday weekend each January that happens to pair the Lee-Jackson Day state holiday on Friday with the Martin Luther King Jr. Day federal holiday on Monday.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans had wanted to fly Confederate flags from light poles downtown in the days preceding Lee-Jackson Day, the day itself and the day after, when a Lee-Jackson Day parade would pass by.
Instead, the city council limited the period the flags could fly to the days preceding the state holiday. Brandon Dorsey, commander for Camp 1296 of the Stonewall Brigade of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said then that the city's response demonstrated "a longtime antagonism against" public display of the Confederacy's flags.
"Our goal is to see that the historical flags associated with Lee and Jackson be permissible under the ordinance for their state holiday in the town where they were laid to rest," Dorsey said Wednesday.
He said also that the ordinance ought to include a process through which a locally based civics organization or educational institution could apply to fly their flags for an event in the city.
A pro-Confederate flag rally held before the meeting drew about 300 people.
H.K. Edgerton, a black man described by some as a Confederate history activist and by others as an apologist for slavery, was the event's keynote speaker. Edgerton was once president of a North Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Before speaking, Edgerton called Lexington "the most sacred city in the South" because of its association with Lee and Jackson.
He said he does not believe Confederate flags symbolize hatred or bigotry but represent the two words uttered most often at the rally — history and heritage.
"The whole world was complicit in slavery," he said. "The Confederate belongs to the black man as much as anyone."
For many, the Confederate flag represents slavery, racism and sometimes violent postwar repression of black people. Dorsey dismisses this view and has said members of the Stonewall Brigade are history buffs who are descendants of men who "bled and died for this state, at its request, and ought to be remembered and honored."
FDA Panel Calls for Silicone Breast Implant Registry
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: August 31, 2011
GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- A federal advisory panel has recommended the creation of a nationwide database to follow women who have had silicone-gel breast implants for at least a decade after they had the surgery.
The two companies that manufacture silicone implants -- Allergan and Mentor -- are required to follow women who've had their implants for a number of FDA-mandated studies, but enrollment in those follow-up studies has been disappointing, and in some cases the number of women being followed is so small that FDA cannot definitely rule out a connection between implants and a rare disease, such as anaplastic large-cell lymphoma or connective tissue diseases.
The FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel, which wrapped up a two-day meeting Wednesday afternoon, said that current data collection demands are too onerous. Both companies ask women who've received their implants to fill out a 25-plus page questionnaire every year following surgery. Not surprisingly, not many women do that.
In 2006, the FDA broke a 14-year moratorium on silicone implants by approving two new models, one made by Mentor and one by Allergan. The approval was controversial because critics of silicone implants said there wasn't enough evidence that the implants were safe in the long term.
To study how the implants held up longer-term, the FDA ordered Mentor and Allergan to perform an array of follow-up studies -- some of which won't end until 2016. The studies involve 80,000 implant recipients -- 40,000 for each of the two brands -- who will be followed for a decade.
But so far, Allergan has mustered only about a 60% follow-up rate after two years for its studies -- far short of the goal of 93% -- and only one in four patients who received a Mentor implant were followed up after two years.
Creating a national database that isn't tied to any particular company could help the FDA more easily collect data on how safe and effective breast implants are many years after they're implanted. Having all women who have received breast implants, either for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes, in one place could allow researchers to select samples from the registry to answer questions such as "What percentage of silicone implants leak?" and "How long is the lifespan of a breast implant?"
FDA reviewers recently said that complications such as capsule contracture are common and the implants often needed revision within 10 years.
Meanwhile, the companies will likely still be required to continue collecting follow-up data. William Maisel, MD, chief scientist and deputy director for the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told reporters after the meeting that he thinks the companies can achieve higher follow-up rates.
For example, a major tracking registry exists for cardiovascular implantable devices. It's run by the American College of Cardiology and tracks millions of heart devices from stents to pacemakers. Part of the success of that database is that doctors are required to enroll their patients in the registry or face not getting reimbursed by Medicare, Maisel said.
While the idea of a breast implant registry is just in its beginning stages, it could potentially link some reimbursement to registration or else incentivize doctors in some other way to get their patients enrolled and to keep them in the study so longitudinal data could be obtained.
Patients may need an incentive too, to encourage them to go to follow-up doctor's appointments, fill out questionnaires, and participate in focus groups.
"You can have the most well-meaning company, but if patient doesn't want to participate, the study won't work," Maisel said.
The panel, which took no formal votes, also recommended bringing a group of stakeholders -- doctors' groups, patient groups and governmental organizations -- together to discuss how to encourage enrollment in a large registry and what specific data should be collected.
The FDA also recommends that women with implants get a breast MRI three years after receiving the implants and every two years thereafter to screen for ruptures -- even if the woman is having no problems with her implants -- but rates of the screening MRIs also have been low. Not all insurance companies cover MRIs if there's no physically apparent problem, and most women aren't willing to pay for an MRI out-of-pocket.
The panel recommended not requiring future post-approval studies to suggest or mandate that women who seem to be having no issues with their implant undergo an MRI.
However, Maisel said the FDA still thinks MRI is the best way to detect if an implant has ruptured.
"We continue to believe that MRI is the gold standard for diagnoses breast implant rupture, in particular silent rupture," said Maisel, referring to a leak or tear in the implant that is undetected by the woman.
While the FDA would like to better track health outcomes in women who have received silicone breast implants, it doesn't expect longer-term data to reveal that the devices are unsafe.
"Based on the totality of information on silicone gel breast implants, the FDA continues to believe that the currently approved devices are safe and effective for their intended use," Maisel said. "There are significant complication rates associated with silicone gel breast implants, but we believe that the benefits and risks are sufficiently well understood that they should remain on the market."
Most of the five to 10 million women worldwide who have breast implants are satisfied with them, according to data from the FDA.
About 297,000 breast augmentation procedures and 90,000 reconstructions with implants were performed in the U.S. in 2010. About half of those involved silicone implants.
Published: August 31, 2011
GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- A federal advisory panel has recommended the creation of a nationwide database to follow women who have had silicone-gel breast implants for at least a decade after they had the surgery.
The two companies that manufacture silicone implants -- Allergan and Mentor -- are required to follow women who've had their implants for a number of FDA-mandated studies, but enrollment in those follow-up studies has been disappointing, and in some cases the number of women being followed is so small that FDA cannot definitely rule out a connection between implants and a rare disease, such as anaplastic large-cell lymphoma or connective tissue diseases.
The FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel, which wrapped up a two-day meeting Wednesday afternoon, said that current data collection demands are too onerous. Both companies ask women who've received their implants to fill out a 25-plus page questionnaire every year following surgery. Not surprisingly, not many women do that.
In 2006, the FDA broke a 14-year moratorium on silicone implants by approving two new models, one made by Mentor and one by Allergan. The approval was controversial because critics of silicone implants said there wasn't enough evidence that the implants were safe in the long term.
To study how the implants held up longer-term, the FDA ordered Mentor and Allergan to perform an array of follow-up studies -- some of which won't end until 2016. The studies involve 80,000 implant recipients -- 40,000 for each of the two brands -- who will be followed for a decade.
But so far, Allergan has mustered only about a 60% follow-up rate after two years for its studies -- far short of the goal of 93% -- and only one in four patients who received a Mentor implant were followed up after two years.
Creating a national database that isn't tied to any particular company could help the FDA more easily collect data on how safe and effective breast implants are many years after they're implanted. Having all women who have received breast implants, either for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes, in one place could allow researchers to select samples from the registry to answer questions such as "What percentage of silicone implants leak?" and "How long is the lifespan of a breast implant?"
FDA reviewers recently said that complications such as capsule contracture are common and the implants often needed revision within 10 years.
Meanwhile, the companies will likely still be required to continue collecting follow-up data. William Maisel, MD, chief scientist and deputy director for the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told reporters after the meeting that he thinks the companies can achieve higher follow-up rates.
For example, a major tracking registry exists for cardiovascular implantable devices. It's run by the American College of Cardiology and tracks millions of heart devices from stents to pacemakers. Part of the success of that database is that doctors are required to enroll their patients in the registry or face not getting reimbursed by Medicare, Maisel said.
While the idea of a breast implant registry is just in its beginning stages, it could potentially link some reimbursement to registration or else incentivize doctors in some other way to get their patients enrolled and to keep them in the study so longitudinal data could be obtained.
Patients may need an incentive too, to encourage them to go to follow-up doctor's appointments, fill out questionnaires, and participate in focus groups.
"You can have the most well-meaning company, but if patient doesn't want to participate, the study won't work," Maisel said.
The panel, which took no formal votes, also recommended bringing a group of stakeholders -- doctors' groups, patient groups and governmental organizations -- together to discuss how to encourage enrollment in a large registry and what specific data should be collected.
The FDA also recommends that women with implants get a breast MRI three years after receiving the implants and every two years thereafter to screen for ruptures -- even if the woman is having no problems with her implants -- but rates of the screening MRIs also have been low. Not all insurance companies cover MRIs if there's no physically apparent problem, and most women aren't willing to pay for an MRI out-of-pocket.
The panel recommended not requiring future post-approval studies to suggest or mandate that women who seem to be having no issues with their implant undergo an MRI.
However, Maisel said the FDA still thinks MRI is the best way to detect if an implant has ruptured.
"We continue to believe that MRI is the gold standard for diagnoses breast implant rupture, in particular silent rupture," said Maisel, referring to a leak or tear in the implant that is undetected by the woman.
While the FDA would like to better track health outcomes in women who have received silicone breast implants, it doesn't expect longer-term data to reveal that the devices are unsafe.
"Based on the totality of information on silicone gel breast implants, the FDA continues to believe that the currently approved devices are safe and effective for their intended use," Maisel said. "There are significant complication rates associated with silicone gel breast implants, but we believe that the benefits and risks are sufficiently well understood that they should remain on the market."
Most of the five to 10 million women worldwide who have breast implants are satisfied with them, according to data from the FDA.
About 297,000 breast augmentation procedures and 90,000 reconstructions with implants were performed in the U.S. in 2010. About half of those involved silicone implants.
Morning Bell: Food Regulators Out of Control
Ericka Andersen
September 1, 2011 at 9:56 am
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
September 1, 2011 at 9:56 am
First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.
In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.
The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.
The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.
As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:
The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.
It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).
As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”
The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.
Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.
According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.
Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:
A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.
The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.
Turkey expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza flotilla row
Turkey is to expel the Israeli ambassador after details emerged of a UN report into last year's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla.
Officials in Ankara said it was also suspending all remaining military agreements with Israel.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said some of the report's findings, leaked to the New York Times, were unacceptable.
Turkey wants Israel to apologise for the raid but it has refused to do so.
Nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when Israeli forces stormed the flotilla in May 2010.
The BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says relations between Turkey and Israel have been frozen since last year's flotilla incident, but now they are being downgraded to the lowest possible level.
A leaked copy of the United Nations report into the Israeli military raid on the Turkish-led flotilla trying to break its blockade of Gaza says the Israelis did use excessive force.
But the leaked report concludes that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal.
Turkey announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador hours before the report was expected to be published.
In the copy leaked to the New York Times, the report says: "Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security".
Officials in Ankara said it was also suspending all remaining military agreements with Israel.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said some of the report's findings, leaked to the New York Times, were unacceptable.
Turkey wants Israel to apologise for the raid but it has refused to do so.
Nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists were killed when Israeli forces stormed the flotilla in May 2010.
The BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says relations between Turkey and Israel have been frozen since last year's flotilla incident, but now they are being downgraded to the lowest possible level.
A leaked copy of the United Nations report into the Israeli military raid on the Turkish-led flotilla trying to break its blockade of Gaza says the Israelis did use excessive force.
But the leaked report concludes that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal.
Turkey announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador hours before the report was expected to be published.
In the copy leaked to the New York Times, the report says: "Turkey and Israel should resume full diplomatic relations, repairing their relationship in the interests of stability in the Middle East and international peace and security".
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Obama Likely To Propose Massive New National Bank
Washington (AP) – A national infrastructure bank that would entice private investors into road and rail projects could be a major part of the jobs package that President Barack Obama hopes will finally bring relief to the unemployed.
The White House hasn’t divulged the contents of the package that Obama is to unveil in an address to a joint session of Congress next week. But the president has pushed the idea of an infrastructure bank in recent speeches and has praised Senate and House bills that create such a government-sponsored lending institution.
Whether the bank, which would need time to organize, could have any real impact on the jobs situation in the coming year — and particularly before the November 2012 elections — is in dispute.
Obama seems to think it would.
“We’ve got the potential to create an infrastructure bank that could put construction workers to work right now, rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our vital infrastructure all across the country,” he said at a news conference in July.
But Janet Kavinoky, director of infrastructure issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that “even in the next two years I don’t believe the bank is going to be that kind of job creator.”
The best way to spur job growth in the short term is for Congress to pass long-stalled bills to fund aviation and highway programs, she said.
The Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the infrastructure bank. Kavinoky said the United States is one of the few large countries that lack a central source of low-cost financing for construction projects. But she said it’s going to take time to get it running and come up with a pipeline of projects where funds can be invested.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who’s sponsoring an infrastructure bank bill, argued that “we have projects all across America that are ready to go tomorrow.” He said the bank “could have money flowing in the next year easily.”
Michael Likosky, senior fellow at the NYU Institute for Public Knowledge and author of “Obama’s Bank: Financing a Durable New Deal,” says he is working with transportation agencies in California and New York that “are waiting for the federal government to say they are going to support these projects.”
A commitment to a national infrastructure bank could also provide a positive spark to financial markets and encourage investment, he said.
The bank would supplement federal spending on infrastructure by promoting private-sector investment in projects of national or regional significance. The private sector currently provides only about 6 percent of infrastructure spending.
Supporters, which range from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO, say pension funds, private equity funds and sovereign wealth funds have hundreds of billions of dollars ready to be invested in low-risk infrastructure projects.
It’s better than having pension fund money go to Treasury bonds, Likosky said. “It’s really about changing our approach; we’re in tough economic times and we will be for a while. We have to make sure the money we have goes further.”
The Kerry bill would require $10 billion in start-up money from the government to get the first loans going and cover administrative costs. The bank would be government owned, run by a board of directors, independent of any federal agency and self-sustaining after the initial expense. Public-private partnerships, corporations and state and local governments would be eligible for the loans.
The bank’s directors would pick which projects to finance based on an analysis of costs, benefits and revenue streams, such as from tolls or fees, for repaying the loan. Once the terms of the loan, including interest rates and fees to cover risk, are set, the Treasury Department would disburse the loan.
Urban projects would have to be at least $100 million in size, rural ones $25 million. The infrastructure bank’s loan could cover no more than 50 percent of a project’s costs.
“There is going to be a revenue stream for payback and therefore the project is going to stand on its own because it will be a good enough project to attract private-sector funding,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, one of several Republican co-sponsors of the Kerry plan.
Supporters estimate the bank could set up as much as $160 billion in government loans over a decade and anchor as much as $650 billion in projects.
In the House, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has a similar bill that relies on $25 billion in start-up money and makes use of bonds as well as loans to stimulate construction projects. Both Kerry and DeLauro would cover transportation, water and energy projects.
DeLauro would also include communications projects. She says her bill is modeled after the European Investment Bank, which has been financing infrastructure projects for 50 years and last year invested more than $100 billion.
Obama, in his 2012 budget proposal, envisioned spending $30 billion to start an infrastructure bank within the Transportation Department that would provide grants as well as loans to transportation projects.
That idea drew opposition from the House Transportation Committee chairman, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. He said in a recent article in the congressional newspaper Roll Call that it would be better to increase help for existing state infrastructure banks “rather than increasing the size of the bloated federal bureaucracy, as some advocate, by creating a national infrastructure bank.”
Kerry pointed to a 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report that said $2.2 trillion needs to be spent over five years to bring the nation’s roads, bridges and water systems up to an adequate level. He said Congress needs to both pass a new highway bill and agree on alternatives like the bank.
“If we can leverage $650 billion and get money going in the transportation bill, we can begin to nibble away at the problem,” Kerry said.
The White House hasn’t divulged the contents of the package that Obama is to unveil in an address to a joint session of Congress next week. But the president has pushed the idea of an infrastructure bank in recent speeches and has praised Senate and House bills that create such a government-sponsored lending institution.
Whether the bank, which would need time to organize, could have any real impact on the jobs situation in the coming year — and particularly before the November 2012 elections — is in dispute.
Obama seems to think it would.
“We’ve got the potential to create an infrastructure bank that could put construction workers to work right now, rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our vital infrastructure all across the country,” he said at a news conference in July.
But Janet Kavinoky, director of infrastructure issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that “even in the next two years I don’t believe the bank is going to be that kind of job creator.”
The best way to spur job growth in the short term is for Congress to pass long-stalled bills to fund aviation and highway programs, she said.
The Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the infrastructure bank. Kavinoky said the United States is one of the few large countries that lack a central source of low-cost financing for construction projects. But she said it’s going to take time to get it running and come up with a pipeline of projects where funds can be invested.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who’s sponsoring an infrastructure bank bill, argued that “we have projects all across America that are ready to go tomorrow.” He said the bank “could have money flowing in the next year easily.”
Michael Likosky, senior fellow at the NYU Institute for Public Knowledge and author of “Obama’s Bank: Financing a Durable New Deal,” says he is working with transportation agencies in California and New York that “are waiting for the federal government to say they are going to support these projects.”
A commitment to a national infrastructure bank could also provide a positive spark to financial markets and encourage investment, he said.
The bank would supplement federal spending on infrastructure by promoting private-sector investment in projects of national or regional significance. The private sector currently provides only about 6 percent of infrastructure spending.
Supporters, which range from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO, say pension funds, private equity funds and sovereign wealth funds have hundreds of billions of dollars ready to be invested in low-risk infrastructure projects.
It’s better than having pension fund money go to Treasury bonds, Likosky said. “It’s really about changing our approach; we’re in tough economic times and we will be for a while. We have to make sure the money we have goes further.”
The Kerry bill would require $10 billion in start-up money from the government to get the first loans going and cover administrative costs. The bank would be government owned, run by a board of directors, independent of any federal agency and self-sustaining after the initial expense. Public-private partnerships, corporations and state and local governments would be eligible for the loans.
The bank’s directors would pick which projects to finance based on an analysis of costs, benefits and revenue streams, such as from tolls or fees, for repaying the loan. Once the terms of the loan, including interest rates and fees to cover risk, are set, the Treasury Department would disburse the loan.
Urban projects would have to be at least $100 million in size, rural ones $25 million. The infrastructure bank’s loan could cover no more than 50 percent of a project’s costs.
“There is going to be a revenue stream for payback and therefore the project is going to stand on its own because it will be a good enough project to attract private-sector funding,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, one of several Republican co-sponsors of the Kerry plan.
Supporters estimate the bank could set up as much as $160 billion in government loans over a decade and anchor as much as $650 billion in projects.
In the House, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has a similar bill that relies on $25 billion in start-up money and makes use of bonds as well as loans to stimulate construction projects. Both Kerry and DeLauro would cover transportation, water and energy projects.
DeLauro would also include communications projects. She says her bill is modeled after the European Investment Bank, which has been financing infrastructure projects for 50 years and last year invested more than $100 billion.
Obama, in his 2012 budget proposal, envisioned spending $30 billion to start an infrastructure bank within the Transportation Department that would provide grants as well as loans to transportation projects.
That idea drew opposition from the House Transportation Committee chairman, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. He said in a recent article in the congressional newspaper Roll Call that it would be better to increase help for existing state infrastructure banks “rather than increasing the size of the bloated federal bureaucracy, as some advocate, by creating a national infrastructure bank.”
Kerry pointed to a 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report that said $2.2 trillion needs to be spent over five years to bring the nation’s roads, bridges and water systems up to an adequate level. He said Congress needs to both pass a new highway bill and agree on alternatives like the bank.
“If we can leverage $650 billion and get money going in the transportation bill, we can begin to nibble away at the problem,” Kerry said.
The Big Lie About Israel
by IPT News • Aug 31, 2011 at 4:01 pm
One of the biggest slanders targeting Israel is the claim that that it is an "apartheid" state, Dennis Prager writes at NationalReview.com. Yet, the Durban III "anti-racism" conference, which takes place in New York on Sept. 22, is virtually certain to advance the canard.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who calls the Holocaust "a lie," is scheduled to speak at Durban III, which Prager terms a "U.N.-sponsored Hate Israel Festival." Like its predecessors, Durban I and Durban II, it will likely be a forum for attacks depicting Israel as a racist state that practices "apartheid."
The charge simply is false. From 1948 through 1994, apartheid was official policy in South Africa, Prager writes. Under that system, blacks were treated as inferiors - barred from voting and holding political office; relegated to inferior neighborhoods and schools; and prevented from using the same public accommodations as whites.
None of this applies to Israeli Arabs, who have the right to vote and enjoy representation in the Knesset. They own property and businesses and work in professions alongside Israeli Jews. The Israeli judge who sentenced former President Moshe Katsav, a Jew, to seven years in prison for rape earlier this year was George Kara, an Arab.
But reality doesn't slow Israel-haters from spreading the lie.
Muslim Public Affairs Council founder Maher Hathout has described Israel as "an apartheid state against every fiber of the modern world." At the University of California-Berkeley, the Muslim Students Association joined Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) to sponsor "Apartheid Week" events, in which students brandishing fake assault rifles accosted fellow students while yelling, "Are you Jewish?"
In October, Alkalima, (a Muslim student magazine that described itself as being "published by the Muslim Student Union of University of California, Irvine") hosted "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide," along with SJP. MSU has hosted anti-Israel events including, "Israeli Apartheid Week: A Call to Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel."
Some critics suggest that Israeli counterterrorism measures such as the West Bank security barrier constitute "apartheid." To Prager, that's no more credible than terming the security fence built along the Mexican border to prevent illegal entry into the United States an example of "apartheid."
"Both barriers have been built to keep unwanted people from entering the country," he writes. "Israel built its security wall in order to keep terrorists from entering Israel and murdering its citizens."
One of the biggest slanders targeting Israel is the claim that that it is an "apartheid" state, Dennis Prager writes at NationalReview.com. Yet, the Durban III "anti-racism" conference, which takes place in New York on Sept. 22, is virtually certain to advance the canard.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who calls the Holocaust "a lie," is scheduled to speak at Durban III, which Prager terms a "U.N.-sponsored Hate Israel Festival." Like its predecessors, Durban I and Durban II, it will likely be a forum for attacks depicting Israel as a racist state that practices "apartheid."
The charge simply is false. From 1948 through 1994, apartheid was official policy in South Africa, Prager writes. Under that system, blacks were treated as inferiors - barred from voting and holding political office; relegated to inferior neighborhoods and schools; and prevented from using the same public accommodations as whites.
None of this applies to Israeli Arabs, who have the right to vote and enjoy representation in the Knesset. They own property and businesses and work in professions alongside Israeli Jews. The Israeli judge who sentenced former President Moshe Katsav, a Jew, to seven years in prison for rape earlier this year was George Kara, an Arab.
But reality doesn't slow Israel-haters from spreading the lie.
Muslim Public Affairs Council founder Maher Hathout has described Israel as "an apartheid state against every fiber of the modern world." At the University of California-Berkeley, the Muslim Students Association joined Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) to sponsor "Apartheid Week" events, in which students brandishing fake assault rifles accosted fellow students while yelling, "Are you Jewish?"
In October, Alkalima, (a Muslim student magazine that described itself as being "published by the Muslim Student Union of University of California, Irvine") hosted "Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner's Guide," along with SJP. MSU has hosted anti-Israel events including, "Israeli Apartheid Week: A Call to Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Israel."
Some critics suggest that Israeli counterterrorism measures such as the West Bank security barrier constitute "apartheid." To Prager, that's no more credible than terming the security fence built along the Mexican border to prevent illegal entry into the United States an example of "apartheid."
"Both barriers have been built to keep unwanted people from entering the country," he writes. "Israel built its security wall in order to keep terrorists from entering Israel and murdering its citizens."
‘The Most Far-Reaching Environmental Regulatory Scheme in American History’?
8:08 AM, Sep 1, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
An op-ed in one of President Obama’s hometown papers, the Chicago Sun-Times, highlights the 4,257 new regulations that his administration currently has in the works (219 of which will cost at least $100 million apiece, annually). The op-ed draws particular attention to one specific regulatory effort: the Environmental Protection Agency’s backdoor attempt to impose cap and trade.
Having failed to get cap and trade through an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, the Obama administration has now moved on to Plan B. As Time magazine has noted, “On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of modern stationary sources of greenhouse gases.” Time reports that while EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is claiming to be proceeding in a “measured and careful” manner, “eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases.” Time concludes that the EPA is simply “taking its time as it embarks on what could be the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history.”
In the Sun-Times op-ed, Congressman Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) writes, “Just one rule has Chicago White Metal Casting, a Bensenville [Ill.] manufacturer employing 240, fighting to survive in an already tough economy. They’ll soon face a restriction regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources. After the congressional defeat of cap and trade, the EPA began implementing the job-destroying scheme through regulations.”
The EPA claims that it is merely implementing the Clean Air Act (which was passed 41 years ago). But long-time Democratic congressman John Dingell (D., Mich.), an author of that act, says that such EPA regulation would be a “glorious mess,” adding that “it seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment…to a long and complex process of regulatory action.” Dingell adds, “This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of [us] who wrote that legislation....So we are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”
Fellow Democratic representative Colin Peterson (D., Minn.) echoes Dingell’s assessment, saying that such regulation by the EPA would result “in one of the largest and most bureaucratic night-mares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen.”
Even Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget largely seems to concur, writing: “Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
Several states have already sued the EPA, claiming that its efforts exceed its lawful authority. Time writes that, under Governor Rick Perry, Texas has been “going further, simply refusing to comply with the new rules entirely.” The EPA responded by attempting to take direct control of Texas’s air-pollution enforcement. The matter is currently in federal court.
In an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday, Charles Krauthammer talked about the Obama administration’s regulatory ambitions. “The problem I have is the procedure,” Krauthammer said. “Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.”
In his Sun-Times op-ed, Rep. Roskam also writes about an upcoming regulation that seems to be related to first lady Michelle Obama’s childhood obesity initiative:
“In an entirely different sector, Illinois-based food producer Sara Lee could soon face lower sales and higher costs and provide fewer jobs if the administration goes through with a particularly overreaching food regulation that would dramatically restrict their ability to advertise many food products — in the name of fighting childhood obesity.
“…the proposed guideline would eliminate Sara Lee-owned Ballpark Hot Dogs’ sponsorship of baseball’s Detroit Tigers, restrict athletes from appearing on General Mills’ Wheaties cereal and restrict Sara Lee from advertising a lean turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread during the Super Bowl, all because people under 18 represent large audiences for these advertisements.”
As noted, liberty and prosperity are greatly intertwined: “In [the] flourishing of creativity, we see the evidence of liberty. We see the result of people being free to start, run, and patronize establishments of their own choosing, exercising their rights to do so just as the American Founders intended and fought to allow.” Obama is fighting a very different fight, which he is determined to advance through legislation where possible (Obamacare) and regulatory action where necessary. But the simple truth is, neither liberty nor prosperity is compatible with the hyperactive regulatory state that his administration is steadily working to impose.
An op-ed in one of President Obama’s hometown papers, the Chicago Sun-Times, highlights the 4,257 new regulations that his administration currently has in the works (219 of which will cost at least $100 million apiece, annually). The op-ed draws particular attention to one specific regulatory effort: the Environmental Protection Agency’s backdoor attempt to impose cap and trade.
Having failed to get cap and trade through an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, the Obama administration has now moved on to Plan B. As Time magazine has noted, “On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of modern stationary sources of greenhouse gases.” Time reports that while EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is claiming to be proceeding in a “measured and careful” manner, “eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases.” Time concludes that the EPA is simply “taking its time as it embarks on what could be the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history.”
In the Sun-Times op-ed, Congressman Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) writes, “Just one rule has Chicago White Metal Casting, a Bensenville [Ill.] manufacturer employing 240, fighting to survive in an already tough economy. They’ll soon face a restriction regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources. After the congressional defeat of cap and trade, the EPA began implementing the job-destroying scheme through regulations.”
The EPA claims that it is merely implementing the Clean Air Act (which was passed 41 years ago). But long-time Democratic congressman John Dingell (D., Mich.), an author of that act, says that such EPA regulation would be a “glorious mess,” adding that “it seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment…to a long and complex process of regulatory action.” Dingell adds, “This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of [us] who wrote that legislation....So we are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”
Fellow Democratic representative Colin Peterson (D., Minn.) echoes Dingell’s assessment, saying that such regulation by the EPA would result “in one of the largest and most bureaucratic night-mares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen.”
Even Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget largely seems to concur, writing: “Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
Several states have already sued the EPA, claiming that its efforts exceed its lawful authority. Time writes that, under Governor Rick Perry, Texas has been “going further, simply refusing to comply with the new rules entirely.” The EPA responded by attempting to take direct control of Texas’s air-pollution enforcement. The matter is currently in federal court.
In an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday, Charles Krauthammer talked about the Obama administration’s regulatory ambitions. “The problem I have is the procedure,” Krauthammer said. “Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.”
In his Sun-Times op-ed, Rep. Roskam also writes about an upcoming regulation that seems to be related to first lady Michelle Obama’s childhood obesity initiative:
“In an entirely different sector, Illinois-based food producer Sara Lee could soon face lower sales and higher costs and provide fewer jobs if the administration goes through with a particularly overreaching food regulation that would dramatically restrict their ability to advertise many food products — in the name of fighting childhood obesity.
“…the proposed guideline would eliminate Sara Lee-owned Ballpark Hot Dogs’ sponsorship of baseball’s Detroit Tigers, restrict athletes from appearing on General Mills’ Wheaties cereal and restrict Sara Lee from advertising a lean turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread during the Super Bowl, all because people under 18 represent large audiences for these advertisements.”
As noted, liberty and prosperity are greatly intertwined: “In [the] flourishing of creativity, we see the evidence of liberty. We see the result of people being free to start, run, and patronize establishments of their own choosing, exercising their rights to do so just as the American Founders intended and fought to allow.” Obama is fighting a very different fight, which he is determined to advance through legislation where possible (Obamacare) and regulatory action where necessary. But the simple truth is, neither liberty nor prosperity is compatible with the hyperactive regulatory state that his administration is steadily working to impose.
Open Borders Movement Flexes Muscle Again
Under intense pressure from the increasingly powerful open borders movement, a major U.S. city is abruptly ending a federal law enforcement partnership responsible for dramatically reducing its record-high crime rate.
Known as Operation Community Shield, the program targets violent street gangs by sending special Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to assist local police in areas infested with gang activity. In this case, the northern California city of San Jose enrolled in the program a few months ago because a steep rise in gang violence pushed the homicide rate to the highest level in decades.
The partnership has been extremely successful in California’s third-largest city and there has been a dramatic drop in gang killings, according to a local news report that cites police data. The local-federal alliance has helped crack down on gang violence and led to the arrest of hundreds of dangerous gang members in a matter of weeks. In fact, in the first 5 ½ months of the year San Jose had 14 gang homicides but zero in the two months of Operation Community Shield. The city is the safest it has been in years.
Why in the world would the San Jose Police Department end such a triumphant program? Because the open borders movement, which opposed it from the start, fears that “law-abiding” illegal immigrants could end up getting deported. From the start police faced sharp criticism from pro immigrant “community groups” that claimed residents feared calling them to report crimes because ICE might deport them.
A local group that advocates for immigrant rights was the key force behind ending the city’s alliance with ICE. Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) quickly assembled a campaign to kill Operation Community Shield, reminding the police chief that he vowed never to enforce immigration laws. The group publicly demanded that ICE gang unit officers “pack their bags and leave San Jose.”
Through a spokesman, San Jose’s police chief, Chris Moore, denied he’s “crumbling to the community pressure” and insisted the federal partnership ended because crime is under control in his city.
Known as Operation Community Shield, the program targets violent street gangs by sending special Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to assist local police in areas infested with gang activity. In this case, the northern California city of San Jose enrolled in the program a few months ago because a steep rise in gang violence pushed the homicide rate to the highest level in decades.
The partnership has been extremely successful in California’s third-largest city and there has been a dramatic drop in gang killings, according to a local news report that cites police data. The local-federal alliance has helped crack down on gang violence and led to the arrest of hundreds of dangerous gang members in a matter of weeks. In fact, in the first 5 ½ months of the year San Jose had 14 gang homicides but zero in the two months of Operation Community Shield. The city is the safest it has been in years.
Why in the world would the San Jose Police Department end such a triumphant program? Because the open borders movement, which opposed it from the start, fears that “law-abiding” illegal immigrants could end up getting deported. From the start police faced sharp criticism from pro immigrant “community groups” that claimed residents feared calling them to report crimes because ICE might deport them.
A local group that advocates for immigrant rights was the key force behind ending the city’s alliance with ICE. Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) quickly assembled a campaign to kill Operation Community Shield, reminding the police chief that he vowed never to enforce immigration laws. The group publicly demanded that ICE gang unit officers “pack their bags and leave San Jose.”
Through a spokesman, San Jose’s police chief, Chris Moore, denied he’s “crumbling to the community pressure” and insisted the federal partnership ended because crime is under control in his city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)