The TPP, which is currently leading in the most recent Wallup poll, has unveiled an aggressive campaign push. Across every state the TPP is making moves to consolidate and expand their emerging political base. Showing signs of a developing national campaign strategy, the TPP looks to compete everywhere. In massive rallies in Conover, Capital State, Wayne, and Pennyroyal the TPP shows signs of strong organization. At a rally in Conover, celebrating the opening of the party's headquarters there, TPP Leader Blake Chaffins took the podium in front of a massive crowd estimated to be 20,000 strong. Chaffins addressed the cheering crowd highlighting his party's belief in common sense solutions to the nation's ills. He made particular efforts to explain his party's commitment to the common man and to be a party for all citizens. "I was highly impressed with his commitment to help the middle class," said Susan Welter, a privately employed accountant. The TPP's early move does not assure a victory but it clearly marks a warning shot to their competitors. The TPP is clearly looking to continue its lead and only build.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama budget: Mammoth deficits but headed lower
AP - By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all — accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.
Denouncing what he called the "dishonest accounting" of recent federal budgets, Obama unveiled his own $3.6 trillion blueprint for next year, a bold proposal that would transfer wealth from rich taxpayers to the middle class and the poor.
Congressional approval without major change is anything but sure. The plan is filled with political land mines including an initiative to combat global warming that would hit consumers with considerably higher utility bills. Other proposals would take on entrenched interests such as big farming, insurance companies and drug makers.
Obama blamed the expected federal deficit explosion on a "deep and destructive" recession and recent efforts to battle it including the Wall Street bailout and the just-passed $787 billion stimulus plan. The $1.75 trillion deficit estimate for this year is $250 billion more than projected just days ago because of proposed new spending for a fresh bailout for banks and other financial institutions.
As the nation digs out of the most serious economic crisis in decades, Obama said, "We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now."
Signaling budget battles to come, Republicans were skeptical Obama was doing without much at all.
"We can't tax and spend our way to prosperity," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it."
Obama plans to move aggressively toward rebalancing the tax system, extending a $400 tax credit for most workers — $800 for couples — while letting expire President George W. Bush's tax cuts for couples making more than $250,000 a year. That would raise the top income tax bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for those taxpayers and raise their capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent as well.
Thursday's 134-page budget submission, a nonbinding recommendation to Congress, says the plan would close the deficit to a a more reasonable — but still eye-popping — $533 billion after five years. That would still be higher than last year's record $455 billion deficit.
And the national debt would more than double by the end of the upcoming decade, raising worries that so much federal borrowing could drive up interest rates and erode the value of the dollar.
Also, to narrow the budget gap, Obama relies on rosier predictions of economic growth — including a 3.2 percent boost in the economy next year — than most private sector economists foresee.
There is already resistance from Democrats who are upset with the budget's plan to curb the ability of wealthier people to reduce their tax bills through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.
That tax hike would raise $318 billion over the upcoming decade toward a down payment on Obama's high-priority universal health care plan. Cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid federal health programs would supply an additional $316 billion, but that still wouldn't provide enough money to guarantee coverage for all, and Obama wants Congress to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional hard-to-raise revenues to pay for the rest.
Then there is the proposed clampdown on the Pentagon budget, which would get a 4 percent boost, to $534 billion next year, but would then get increases of 2 percent or less over the next several years. Domestic programs favored by Democrats would, on average, receive a 7 percent boost over regularly appropriated levels — even as many agencies are already swimming in cash from the just-enacted economic stimulus plan.
Taken together, Obama's plan contains so many difficult-to-digest ideas that it's virtually certain to be significantly redrafted during debates later this year.
"It's going to be a tough row to hoe, but he has large Democratic majorities and a lot of popular support and we're in times of crisis," said Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. "So his prospects of him getting much of what he is seeking, while not good, are higher than ... we've seen in the past."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., predicted Congress would pass much of Obama's plan, though with significant revisions. For instance, he's unimpressed with a proposal to reduce payments to farming operations with sales above $500,000 per year and says the plan to curb tax deductions for the wealthy faces uncertain prospects because of opposition from lawmakers from high tax states and universities whose endowments have shrunk.
A plan to devote up to $250 billion to support as much as $750 billion in increased spending under the government's rescue program for banks and other financial institutions landed with a thud.
Republicans scoffed at the idea that Obama's plan calls for much sacrifice on the spending front, citing the big increases for many agencies. they also pointed to tax increases and hundreds of billions in revenues from a contentious proposal to auction off permits for carbon emissions in a bid to address global warming.
Obama and top aides emphasized that they didn't make the financial mess.
Said the president: "We cannot lose sight of the long-run challenges that our country faces and that threaten our economic health — specifically, the trillions of dollars of debt that we inherited, the rising costs of health care and the growing obligations of Social Security."
"For too long, our budget has not told the whole truth about how precious tax dollars are spent," he said. "Large sums have been left off the books, including the true cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home. It's not how your government should run its budgets either."
Among the many programs that would receive generous boosts are education and cancer research. The size of education Pell Grants would automatically increase every year by inflation plus 1 percent, while Obama promises to double cancer research over several years. He also wants to put the United States on a path to double foreign aid.
Obama's budget contains almost $1 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years on individuals making more than $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000. About $350 billion more would be raised through a variety of other hikes, including raising taxes on hedge-fund managers by taxing their compensation as income rather than at the 15 percent capital gains rate. Obama would also increase taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
Some $526 billion in revenue from carbon pollution permits would be used to extend the "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples beyond 2010 as provided in the just-passed economic stimulus bill.
The budget would make permanent the expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses that was provided for two years in the just-passed economic stimulus bill. It also would renew most of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and would permanently update the alternative minimum tax so that it would hit fewer middle- to upper-income taxpayers.
Obama's $634 billion head start on expanding health care could easily double as lawmakers flesh out details in coming months on how to provide medical coverage to all of the 48 million Americans now uninsured while also trying to slow increases in costs. Health care costs now total $2.4 trillion a year and keep rising even as the economy is shrinking.
Thursday's submission was an overview of a more comprehensive plan that will be submitted in April.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama charted a dramatic new course for the nation Thursday with a bold but contentious budget proposing higher taxes for the wealthy and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all — accompanied by an astonishing $1.75 trillion federal deficit that would be nearly four times the highest in history.
Denouncing what he called the "dishonest accounting" of recent federal budgets, Obama unveiled his own $3.6 trillion blueprint for next year, a bold proposal that would transfer wealth from rich taxpayers to the middle class and the poor.
Congressional approval without major change is anything but sure. The plan is filled with political land mines including an initiative to combat global warming that would hit consumers with considerably higher utility bills. Other proposals would take on entrenched interests such as big farming, insurance companies and drug makers.
Obama blamed the expected federal deficit explosion on a "deep and destructive" recession and recent efforts to battle it including the Wall Street bailout and the just-passed $787 billion stimulus plan. The $1.75 trillion deficit estimate for this year is $250 billion more than projected just days ago because of proposed new spending for a fresh bailout for banks and other financial institutions.
As the nation digs out of the most serious economic crisis in decades, Obama said, "We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now."
Signaling budget battles to come, Republicans were skeptical Obama was doing without much at all.
"We can't tax and spend our way to prosperity," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it."
Obama plans to move aggressively toward rebalancing the tax system, extending a $400 tax credit for most workers — $800 for couples — while letting expire President George W. Bush's tax cuts for couples making more than $250,000 a year. That would raise the top income tax bracket from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for those taxpayers and raise their capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent as well.
Thursday's 134-page budget submission, a nonbinding recommendation to Congress, says the plan would close the deficit to a a more reasonable — but still eye-popping — $533 billion after five years. That would still be higher than last year's record $455 billion deficit.
And the national debt would more than double by the end of the upcoming decade, raising worries that so much federal borrowing could drive up interest rates and erode the value of the dollar.
Also, to narrow the budget gap, Obama relies on rosier predictions of economic growth — including a 3.2 percent boost in the economy next year — than most private sector economists foresee.
There is already resistance from Democrats who are upset with the budget's plan to curb the ability of wealthier people to reduce their tax bills through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.
That tax hike would raise $318 billion over the upcoming decade toward a down payment on Obama's high-priority universal health care plan. Cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid federal health programs would supply an additional $316 billion, but that still wouldn't provide enough money to guarantee coverage for all, and Obama wants Congress to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars in additional hard-to-raise revenues to pay for the rest.
Then there is the proposed clampdown on the Pentagon budget, which would get a 4 percent boost, to $534 billion next year, but would then get increases of 2 percent or less over the next several years. Domestic programs favored by Democrats would, on average, receive a 7 percent boost over regularly appropriated levels — even as many agencies are already swimming in cash from the just-enacted economic stimulus plan.
Taken together, Obama's plan contains so many difficult-to-digest ideas that it's virtually certain to be significantly redrafted during debates later this year.
"It's going to be a tough row to hoe, but he has large Democratic majorities and a lot of popular support and we're in times of crisis," said Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. "So his prospects of him getting much of what he is seeking, while not good, are higher than ... we've seen in the past."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., predicted Congress would pass much of Obama's plan, though with significant revisions. For instance, he's unimpressed with a proposal to reduce payments to farming operations with sales above $500,000 per year and says the plan to curb tax deductions for the wealthy faces uncertain prospects because of opposition from lawmakers from high tax states and universities whose endowments have shrunk.
A plan to devote up to $250 billion to support as much as $750 billion in increased spending under the government's rescue program for banks and other financial institutions landed with a thud.
Republicans scoffed at the idea that Obama's plan calls for much sacrifice on the spending front, citing the big increases for many agencies. they also pointed to tax increases and hundreds of billions in revenues from a contentious proposal to auction off permits for carbon emissions in a bid to address global warming.
Obama and top aides emphasized that they didn't make the financial mess.
Said the president: "We cannot lose sight of the long-run challenges that our country faces and that threaten our economic health — specifically, the trillions of dollars of debt that we inherited, the rising costs of health care and the growing obligations of Social Security."
"For too long, our budget has not told the whole truth about how precious tax dollars are spent," he said. "Large sums have been left off the books, including the true cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home. It's not how your government should run its budgets either."
Among the many programs that would receive generous boosts are education and cancer research. The size of education Pell Grants would automatically increase every year by inflation plus 1 percent, while Obama promises to double cancer research over several years. He also wants to put the United States on a path to double foreign aid.
Obama's budget contains almost $1 trillion in tax hikes over 10 years on individuals making more than $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000. About $350 billion more would be raised through a variety of other hikes, including raising taxes on hedge-fund managers by taxing their compensation as income rather than at the 15 percent capital gains rate. Obama would also increase taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
Some $526 billion in revenue from carbon pollution permits would be used to extend the "Making Work Pay" tax credit of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples beyond 2010 as provided in the just-passed economic stimulus bill.
The budget would make permanent the expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses that was provided for two years in the just-passed economic stimulus bill. It also would renew most of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and would permanently update the alternative minimum tax so that it would hit fewer middle- to upper-income taxpayers.
Obama's $634 billion head start on expanding health care could easily double as lawmakers flesh out details in coming months on how to provide medical coverage to all of the 48 million Americans now uninsured while also trying to slow increases in costs. Health care costs now total $2.4 trillion a year and keep rising even as the economy is shrinking.
Thursday's submission was an overview of a more comprehensive plan that will be submitted in April.
Budget winners and losers
Politico - John Ward Anderson
In a $3.7 trillion budget, there should be something for everyone. And there is, including — as hard as it may be for some to believe — pain.
In shifting the nation's spending priorities, President Barack Obama highlights his plans for the rich to pay more and for the poor to get more. And he also focuses on key campaign pledges to make the country greener and more energy independent, to expand access to affordable health care, and to improve the nation's schools.
The full details will not be known for weeks, but the 134-page snapshot of Obama's 2010 budget that was released Thursday gives a clear indication of who gets the elevator, and who gets the shaft. So herewith, five big losers and five key winners in Obama's spending blueprint.
LOSERS
Rich people, and the even the upper middle class
Making $250,000 a year doesn't exactly make you Donald Trump these days, but to Barack Obama's team, that means your family is wealthy - and they're shifting a greater share of the tax burden onto you.
They're doing it two ways - the one Obama campaigned on through his whole run for president is no surprise, by allowing Bush's income tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2011, meaning the marginal rates jump up again.
The other was something of a surprise. Obama wants to roll back income tax deductions for people in that income bracket as well, steps that would reduce the amount saved in taxes by claiming mortgage interest and the like. He'll funnel that money to his health-care reserve fund.
The numbers: Although this wealth redistribution scheme would hit rich people the hardest, most Americans will end up feeling some pain in one way or another, because the plan foresees a projected deficit of $712 billion in 2019, and by then, the national debt will have increased to about $23.1 trillion.
Rich farmers
Farmers who make more than $500,000 a year would see their farm subsidies phased out. The budget notes dryly that "direct payments are made to even large producers regardless of crop prices, losses, or whether the land is still under production." In other words, farmers getting paid on land that's not growing anything.
But as in other parts of the budget, it's energy efficiency that comes to the rescue - don't grow corn, grow wind farms, Obama says.
"Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat."
The numbers: Reducing the farms subsidies will cost farmers about $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. Cutting federal subsidies to crop insurance companies and farmers will cost those two groups another $5.2 billion in the next decade.
Rich oil companies
Oil prices are down now but most Americans have gotten fed up with quarter upon quarter of record profits at ExxonMobil and the like. So Obama would close loopholes enjoyed by some oil, gas, coal and mining companies, and also raise the royalties and fees they pay to provide "a better return to taxpayers."
In addition, Obama would levy a new excise tax on offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico "to close loopholes that have given oil companies excessive royalty relief." And it would increase the return from oil and gas production on Federal lands through "administrative actions, such as reforming royalties and adjusting rates" - aka higher taxes.
The numbers: Closing loopholes, raising taxes and fees and repealing various deductions for gas, coal and oil companies will add $16.7 billion to federal coffers in 2011, increasing to about $48 billion by 2019.
The Pentagon (but not veterans)
Only in Washington is a 4 percent hike viewed as taking a hit, but so it goes for the Defense Department. Compared to the sort of increases enjoyed in the Bush administration, it's a sign that the salad days are over at the Pentagon. Homeland Security even faces a real cut in five years, as 9/11 fades further into memory. But Obama campaigned hard on the idea of improving health care for veterans and his budget puts his money where his mouth is.
The numbers: Defense budget increases to $533.7 billion. Homeland Security rises slightly to $42.7 billion this year, but dwindles to $40.9 billion by 2014. The VA's $55.9 billion budget would be an 11 percent increase over the current year.
George W. Bush
While Obama's proposed budget will hit Bush hard in the wallet, just like other wealthy Americans, the main blow may be aimed at his reputation.
The 134-page spending plan opens with a 10-page preamble entitled "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities" that lays blame for many of today's problems at the doorstep of the former president.
"It is no coincidence that the policy failures of the past eight years have been accompanied by unprecedented Governmental secrecy and unprecedented access by lobbyists and the well-connected to policymakers in Washington. Consequently, the needs of those in the room trump those of their fellow citizens," the plan says.
But others get blamed in a broad-brush condemnation: "For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the Nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," the budget says. It blasts "a legacy of irresponsibility," adding, "It's our responsibility to change it."
WINNERS
Sick people, but not all of them
Obama wants to put America "on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." That's well short of universal health care right now, but more like a down-payment. And a hefty one, $634 billion over 10 years. The budget is short on details of exactly who would be covered, and when.
He'd send more doctors, nurses and dentists to place in the country that don't have enough of them. And Obama also kicks in an increase for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, as part of a down-the-road commitment to double cancer research funding.
The numbers: HHS would receive $76.8 billion for FY 2010 under the president's proposed plan. The plan proposes over $6 billion for cancer research, and another $330 million to help underserved areas.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Somewhere, Colin Powell is jealous. The Bush White House funneled all the money to the Pentagon, especially after 9/11, but now the diplomats are getting a little budgetary love.
Clinton came into the job promising to fight hard for a bigger State Department slice of the fiscal pie, and in her first outing, she succeeded. It's in keeping with Obama's goal to turn a more friendly face to the world, and try to rebuild some of the global relationships that grew strained under Bush.
Obama's budget calls for putting the U.S. on a path to doubling its foreign assistance funding to "renew its role as a leader in global development and diplomacy." Global health programs, anti-terror and anti-proliferation efforts get a boost.
The plan also lays out a added component to fighting the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan -by increasing "non-military assistance to both countries, providing additional funding for governance, reconstruction, counter-narcotics, and other development activities that will help counter extremists."
The numbers: The federal spending plan increases the State Department's budget by a healthy 9.5 percent, to $51.7 billion in FY 2010.
Environmentalists
The budget includes big new spending for investments in "clean energy" technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Obama sees a nation dotted with wind farms and solar panels - and ties the effort to an effort to grow "green jobs" to pull the nation out of the recession.
He also proposes loan guarantees to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases through a variety of means -- renewable energy projects, transmission projects, and carbon sequestration projects to keep smokestack gasses.
The numbers: The budget proposes $26.3 billion for the Energy Department, on top of $38.7 billion included for energy programs in the recent stimulus package.
People stuck in traffic
The spending plan includes a five-year $5 billion high-speed rail state grant program, on top of $8 billion targeted for rail expansion in the stimulus package. "The President's proposal marks a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving," the budget plan says.
But there's plenty of good old fashioned roads and bridges money, too. And if you must fly, Obama's kicking in about $800 million for long-term efforts to improve the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the air traffic control system.
The numbers: Transportation spending would rise to $72.5 billion in the proposed budget, a slight increase over the current fiscal year, along with $48.1 billion approved in the recent stimulus package.
College students looking for a job
If you want to go to college, get a career, or are learning English as a second language, Obama wants to help you. Low-income students would get help completing college from a new five-year, $2.5 billion Access and Completion Incentive Fund.
The numbers: The budget proposes $46.7 billion for education next year, a small increase over this year, but it comes on the heels of $81.1 billion in additional education spending recently approved by Congress in the $787 billion stimulus package.
In a $3.7 trillion budget, there should be something for everyone. And there is, including — as hard as it may be for some to believe — pain.
In shifting the nation's spending priorities, President Barack Obama highlights his plans for the rich to pay more and for the poor to get more. And he also focuses on key campaign pledges to make the country greener and more energy independent, to expand access to affordable health care, and to improve the nation's schools.
The full details will not be known for weeks, but the 134-page snapshot of Obama's 2010 budget that was released Thursday gives a clear indication of who gets the elevator, and who gets the shaft. So herewith, five big losers and five key winners in Obama's spending blueprint.
LOSERS
Rich people, and the even the upper middle class
Making $250,000 a year doesn't exactly make you Donald Trump these days, but to Barack Obama's team, that means your family is wealthy - and they're shifting a greater share of the tax burden onto you.
They're doing it two ways - the one Obama campaigned on through his whole run for president is no surprise, by allowing Bush's income tax cuts for the wealthy expire in 2011, meaning the marginal rates jump up again.
The other was something of a surprise. Obama wants to roll back income tax deductions for people in that income bracket as well, steps that would reduce the amount saved in taxes by claiming mortgage interest and the like. He'll funnel that money to his health-care reserve fund.
The numbers: Although this wealth redistribution scheme would hit rich people the hardest, most Americans will end up feeling some pain in one way or another, because the plan foresees a projected deficit of $712 billion in 2019, and by then, the national debt will have increased to about $23.1 trillion.
Rich farmers
Farmers who make more than $500,000 a year would see their farm subsidies phased out. The budget notes dryly that "direct payments are made to even large producers regardless of crop prices, losses, or whether the land is still under production." In other words, farmers getting paid on land that's not growing anything.
But as in other parts of the budget, it's energy efficiency that comes to the rescue - don't grow corn, grow wind farms, Obama says.
"Large farmers are well positioned to replace those payments with alternate sources of income from emerging markets for environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, renewable energy production, and providing clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat."
The numbers: Reducing the farms subsidies will cost farmers about $9.7 billion over the next 10 years. Cutting federal subsidies to crop insurance companies and farmers will cost those two groups another $5.2 billion in the next decade.
Rich oil companies
Oil prices are down now but most Americans have gotten fed up with quarter upon quarter of record profits at ExxonMobil and the like. So Obama would close loopholes enjoyed by some oil, gas, coal and mining companies, and also raise the royalties and fees they pay to provide "a better return to taxpayers."
In addition, Obama would levy a new excise tax on offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico "to close loopholes that have given oil companies excessive royalty relief." And it would increase the return from oil and gas production on Federal lands through "administrative actions, such as reforming royalties and adjusting rates" - aka higher taxes.
The numbers: Closing loopholes, raising taxes and fees and repealing various deductions for gas, coal and oil companies will add $16.7 billion to federal coffers in 2011, increasing to about $48 billion by 2019.
The Pentagon (but not veterans)
Only in Washington is a 4 percent hike viewed as taking a hit, but so it goes for the Defense Department. Compared to the sort of increases enjoyed in the Bush administration, it's a sign that the salad days are over at the Pentagon. Homeland Security even faces a real cut in five years, as 9/11 fades further into memory. But Obama campaigned hard on the idea of improving health care for veterans and his budget puts his money where his mouth is.
The numbers: Defense budget increases to $533.7 billion. Homeland Security rises slightly to $42.7 billion this year, but dwindles to $40.9 billion by 2014. The VA's $55.9 billion budget would be an 11 percent increase over the current year.
George W. Bush
While Obama's proposed budget will hit Bush hard in the wallet, just like other wealthy Americans, the main blow may be aimed at his reputation.
The 134-page spending plan opens with a 10-page preamble entitled "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities" that lays blame for many of today's problems at the doorstep of the former president.
"It is no coincidence that the policy failures of the past eight years have been accompanied by unprecedented Governmental secrecy and unprecedented access by lobbyists and the well-connected to policymakers in Washington. Consequently, the needs of those in the room trump those of their fellow citizens," the plan says.
But others get blamed in a broad-brush condemnation: "For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the Nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," the budget says. It blasts "a legacy of irresponsibility," adding, "It's our responsibility to change it."
WINNERS
Sick people, but not all of them
Obama wants to put America "on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." That's well short of universal health care right now, but more like a down-payment. And a hefty one, $634 billion over 10 years. The budget is short on details of exactly who would be covered, and when.
He'd send more doctors, nurses and dentists to place in the country that don't have enough of them. And Obama also kicks in an increase for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, as part of a down-the-road commitment to double cancer research funding.
The numbers: HHS would receive $76.8 billion for FY 2010 under the president's proposed plan. The plan proposes over $6 billion for cancer research, and another $330 million to help underserved areas.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Somewhere, Colin Powell is jealous. The Bush White House funneled all the money to the Pentagon, especially after 9/11, but now the diplomats are getting a little budgetary love.
Clinton came into the job promising to fight hard for a bigger State Department slice of the fiscal pie, and in her first outing, she succeeded. It's in keeping with Obama's goal to turn a more friendly face to the world, and try to rebuild some of the global relationships that grew strained under Bush.
Obama's budget calls for putting the U.S. on a path to doubling its foreign assistance funding to "renew its role as a leader in global development and diplomacy." Global health programs, anti-terror and anti-proliferation efforts get a boost.
The plan also lays out a added component to fighting the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan -by increasing "non-military assistance to both countries, providing additional funding for governance, reconstruction, counter-narcotics, and other development activities that will help counter extremists."
The numbers: The federal spending plan increases the State Department's budget by a healthy 9.5 percent, to $51.7 billion in FY 2010.
Environmentalists
The budget includes big new spending for investments in "clean energy" technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Obama sees a nation dotted with wind farms and solar panels - and ties the effort to an effort to grow "green jobs" to pull the nation out of the recession.
He also proposes loan guarantees to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases through a variety of means -- renewable energy projects, transmission projects, and carbon sequestration projects to keep smokestack gasses.
The numbers: The budget proposes $26.3 billion for the Energy Department, on top of $38.7 billion included for energy programs in the recent stimulus package.
People stuck in traffic
The spending plan includes a five-year $5 billion high-speed rail state grant program, on top of $8 billion targeted for rail expansion in the stimulus package. "The President's proposal marks a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative to flying or driving," the budget plan says.
But there's plenty of good old fashioned roads and bridges money, too. And if you must fly, Obama's kicking in about $800 million for long-term efforts to improve the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the air traffic control system.
The numbers: Transportation spending would rise to $72.5 billion in the proposed budget, a slight increase over the current fiscal year, along with $48.1 billion approved in the recent stimulus package.
College students looking for a job
If you want to go to college, get a career, or are learning English as a second language, Obama wants to help you. Low-income students would get help completing college from a new five-year, $2.5 billion Access and Completion Incentive Fund.
The numbers: The budget proposes $46.7 billion for education next year, a small increase over this year, but it comes on the heels of $81.1 billion in additional education spending recently approved by Congress in the $787 billion stimulus package.
Colleges warn students about Mexico travel
AP - By AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writer
PHOENIX – The U.S. State Department and universities around the country are warning college students headed for Mexico for some spring-break partying of a surge in drug-related murder and mayhem south of the border.
"We're not necessarily telling students not to go, but we're going to certainly alert them," said Tom Dougan, vice president for student affairs at the University of Rhode Island. "There have been Americans kidnapped, and if you go you need to be very aware and very alert to this fact."
More than 100,000 high school- and college-age Americans travel to Mexican resort areas during spring break each year. Much of the drug violence is happening in border towns, and tourists have generally not been targeted, though there have been killings in the big spring-break resorts of Acapulco and Cancun, well away from the border.
The University of Arizona in Tucson is urging its approximately 37,000 students not to go to Mexico. Other universities — in the Southwest and far beyond, including Penn State, Notre Dame, the University of Colorado and the University at Buffalo — said they would call students' attention to the travel warning issued Feb. 20 by the State Department.
The State Department stopped short of warning spring breakers not to go to Mexico, but advised them to avoid areas of prostitution and drug-dealing and take other commonsense precautions.
"Sage advice," said Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "We have had documented violence, attacks, killings, shootouts with the drug cartels involving not only the military but law enforcement personnel. It is indiscriminate violence, and certainly innocent people have been caught up in that collateral damage."
Mexico's drug cartels are waging a bloody fight among themselves for smuggling routes and against government forces, carrying out massacres and dumping beheaded bodies in the streets. More than 6,000 people were killed in drug violence in Mexico last year.
But Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said in an interview with The Associated Press: "There is no major risk for students coming into Mexico in general terms. It is always important to advise the youngsters to behave."
Despite the bloodshed, the number of foreign tourists visiting Mexico surged to 23 million in 2008, up 5.9 percent from the year before, spurred in part by the tumbling value of the peso against the dollar, according to the country's Tourism Department. The department estimates 80 percent of tourists in Mexico come from the United States.
"Cancun has always been one of our most popular destinations and that hasn't changed this year," said Patrick Evans of STA Travel, one of the biggest spring-break travel agencies. "Many of the packages we offer include lodging on the beach and in very nice resorts that take the utmost pride in making sure customers are safe."
Some students said the warnings are unlikely to deter them.
University of Arizona sophomore Daniel Wallace is going to Puerto Penasco, or Rocky Point, for spring break, saying he is not worried about violence there. Besides, the 19-year-old said: "It's relaxing, it's warm, I'm a big fan of the beach and the drinking age is lower. It's a fun place to go."
Amanda Corbett, a sophomore at North Carolina State, said she is going snowboarding in Virginia because she couldn't afford Cancun. But three of her roommates are going there.
"They really wanted to go," the 20-year-old said. "Honestly, they probably think nothing will happen to them. That's the way I would look at it."
"If anything is going to deter people," said Danielle Jones, a North Carolina State student who is staying close to home because of a family emergency, "it's the recession."
PHOENIX – The U.S. State Department and universities around the country are warning college students headed for Mexico for some spring-break partying of a surge in drug-related murder and mayhem south of the border.
"We're not necessarily telling students not to go, but we're going to certainly alert them," said Tom Dougan, vice president for student affairs at the University of Rhode Island. "There have been Americans kidnapped, and if you go you need to be very aware and very alert to this fact."
More than 100,000 high school- and college-age Americans travel to Mexican resort areas during spring break each year. Much of the drug violence is happening in border towns, and tourists have generally not been targeted, though there have been killings in the big spring-break resorts of Acapulco and Cancun, well away from the border.
The University of Arizona in Tucson is urging its approximately 37,000 students not to go to Mexico. Other universities — in the Southwest and far beyond, including Penn State, Notre Dame, the University of Colorado and the University at Buffalo — said they would call students' attention to the travel warning issued Feb. 20 by the State Department.
The State Department stopped short of warning spring breakers not to go to Mexico, but advised them to avoid areas of prostitution and drug-dealing and take other commonsense precautions.
"Sage advice," said Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "We have had documented violence, attacks, killings, shootouts with the drug cartels involving not only the military but law enforcement personnel. It is indiscriminate violence, and certainly innocent people have been caught up in that collateral damage."
Mexico's drug cartels are waging a bloody fight among themselves for smuggling routes and against government forces, carrying out massacres and dumping beheaded bodies in the streets. More than 6,000 people were killed in drug violence in Mexico last year.
But Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said in an interview with The Associated Press: "There is no major risk for students coming into Mexico in general terms. It is always important to advise the youngsters to behave."
Despite the bloodshed, the number of foreign tourists visiting Mexico surged to 23 million in 2008, up 5.9 percent from the year before, spurred in part by the tumbling value of the peso against the dollar, according to the country's Tourism Department. The department estimates 80 percent of tourists in Mexico come from the United States.
"Cancun has always been one of our most popular destinations and that hasn't changed this year," said Patrick Evans of STA Travel, one of the biggest spring-break travel agencies. "Many of the packages we offer include lodging on the beach and in very nice resorts that take the utmost pride in making sure customers are safe."
Some students said the warnings are unlikely to deter them.
University of Arizona sophomore Daniel Wallace is going to Puerto Penasco, or Rocky Point, for spring break, saying he is not worried about violence there. Besides, the 19-year-old said: "It's relaxing, it's warm, I'm a big fan of the beach and the drinking age is lower. It's a fun place to go."
Amanda Corbett, a sophomore at North Carolina State, said she is going snowboarding in Virginia because she couldn't afford Cancun. But three of her roommates are going there.
"They really wanted to go," the 20-year-old said. "Honestly, they probably think nothing will happen to them. That's the way I would look at it."
"If anything is going to deter people," said Danielle Jones, a North Carolina State student who is staying close to home because of a family emergency, "it's the recession."
Rocky Mountain News closing after Friday edition
AP - By CATHERINE TSAI, AP Business Writer
DENVER – The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's oldest newspaper and a Denver fixture since 1859, will publish its last edition Friday.
Owner E.W. Scripps Co. said Thursday the newspaper lost $16 million last year and the company was unable to find a buyer.
"Today the Rocky Mountain News, long the leading voice in Denver, becomes a victim of changing times in our industry and huge economic challenges," Scripps CEO Rich Boehne said.
The News is the latest — and largest — newspaper to fail amid a recession that has been especially brutal for the industry. Four owners of 33 U.S. daily newspapers have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past 2 1/2 months. A number of other newspapers are up for sale.
"People are in grief, and they're very, very upset trying to process all the emotions that go with it and trying to recognize that we will be putting out our final edition tomorrow," said News publisher John Temple.
But that edition, he declared, is "going to be spectacular." Friday's newspaper will include a 52-page commemorative section, with a print run of about 350,000 copies. The News had a daily circulation of 210,000 and 457,000 on Saturdays.
"It's very rare that you get to play the music at your own funeral, so you want to make sure you do it well," Temple said.
Managing Editor Deborah Goeken said the special section will highlight some of the Rocky's best work, including Pulitzer Prize-winning stories and photos.
Scripps' Boehne said the News' 230 editorial employees would be paid through April 28. The rival Denver Post said it will hire 10 News staffers, including five columnists, four reporters and the editorial page editor.
One of those reporters, Lynn Bartels, said she would miss sitting beside her News colleagues. "The Rocky is the most amazing family," she said.
Bartels held a box of tissues over her head and called out, "This is for everybody."
Dennis Schroeder, a News photographer for 25 years, said some of his colleagues were angry but others were relieved that a decision was made after weeks of uncertainty.
"It's hard losing the best job in the world," he said.
Employees gathered outside the newsroom to open a 1985 time capsule cut out of a wall. It contained copies of the Rocky and Post, a book of employee signatures, a map of Denver and books from Rocky cartoonist Ed Stein and the late columnist Gene Amole. The capsule read: "To be opened in April 2059 on RMN's 200th anniversary."
Scripps announced on Dec. 4 it would try to sell the newspaper. Only one potential buyer came forward, "and that party was unable to present a viable plan," the company said.
"Good grief — that's a piece of heritage we're losing," said Diane Scott, 56, of suburban Englewood.
Mike Hankinson, 25, of Denver blamed the format. "It's the paper. People go online now," he said.
Scripps has owned the News since 1926. The newspaper will close just two months short of its 150th anniversary.
Since its first edition on April 23, 1859, the News has covered the Civil War, Colorado statehood, the Ludlow Massacre, the Columbine High School shootings and the Oklahoma City bombing trial. It survived a devastating flood in 1864 and competition from as many as five newspapers at a time.
A circulation war with The Post in the 1980s and 1990s proved costly, and in 2000 the rivals announced they would pool their business operations in a joint operating agreement between Scripps and The Post's owner, MediaNews Group Inc. The deal took effect in 2001.
"The Rocky will forever be remembered for its vital role in the city's history and the city's success," said William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher of The Post and CEO of MediaNews. "Although we competed intensely, the talented staff of the Rocky earned our respect with each morning's edition."
Singleton, who is chairman of the board of The Associated Press, has said Denver could support only one newspaper. "I'm not just confident that we'll survive. We will survive," he insisted Thursday.
MediaNews said starting Saturday, Rocky Mountain News subscribers will get The Post for the length of their subscriptions, but they can cancel if they want. Singleton said only about 14,000 subscribers get both newspapers.
The Post will also return to seven-day publication starting Saturday. Under the JOA, The Post published Sunday through Friday and the News published Monday through Saturday.
Scripps said it has been working with MediaNews on "a plan to unwind the partnership" since mid-January, the deadline for offers.
The future of the Denver Newspaper Agency, the entity that handles the two newspapers' business operations, was unclear. The agency is a 50-50 partnership of the News and The Post. It employs about 1,800 people.
Scripps and MediaNews Group also are partners in Prairie Mountain Publishing, which publishes the Camera and Colorado Daily in Boulder, the Broomfield Enterprise and other Colorado newspapers. Scripps said it would transfer its 50 percent interest in Prairie Mountain to MediaNews later this year.
Scripps said it will retain ownership of, and still offer to sell, the Rocky Mountain News name and the newspaper's archives and Web site.
Ed Atorino, a newspaper industry analyst at The Benchmark Co., said that indicates the News could become an online-only venture at some point.
"Online newspapers seem to be doing pretty well," he said. "It's a very low-cost business."
Financial problems are widespread in the newspaper industry as readers have gravitated toward the Internet and advertisers have followed them. The housing slump also has crimped real estate ad sales, and the recession has eliminated much demand for employment and automotive classified ads.
The publisher of the New Haven (Conn.) Register and the owners of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News filed separate bankruptcy cases last weekend. Tribune Co., whose stable includes the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, filed for bankruptcy protection in December. The owners of the Minneapolis Star Tribune filed in January.
Hearst Corp. said this week it will close or sell the San Francisco Chronicle if it can't slash expenses, and the company has laid out plans to close the Seattle Post-Intelligencer if a buyer isn't found before April.
Gannett Co. is looking for a buyer for the Tucson Citizen in Arizona.
The last major American newspaper to close was the Dallas Times Herald in 1991, said Ken Doctor, an industry analyst with OutSell Inc.
DENVER – The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's oldest newspaper and a Denver fixture since 1859, will publish its last edition Friday.
Owner E.W. Scripps Co. said Thursday the newspaper lost $16 million last year and the company was unable to find a buyer.
"Today the Rocky Mountain News, long the leading voice in Denver, becomes a victim of changing times in our industry and huge economic challenges," Scripps CEO Rich Boehne said.
The News is the latest — and largest — newspaper to fail amid a recession that has been especially brutal for the industry. Four owners of 33 U.S. daily newspapers have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past 2 1/2 months. A number of other newspapers are up for sale.
"People are in grief, and they're very, very upset trying to process all the emotions that go with it and trying to recognize that we will be putting out our final edition tomorrow," said News publisher John Temple.
But that edition, he declared, is "going to be spectacular." Friday's newspaper will include a 52-page commemorative section, with a print run of about 350,000 copies. The News had a daily circulation of 210,000 and 457,000 on Saturdays.
"It's very rare that you get to play the music at your own funeral, so you want to make sure you do it well," Temple said.
Managing Editor Deborah Goeken said the special section will highlight some of the Rocky's best work, including Pulitzer Prize-winning stories and photos.
Scripps' Boehne said the News' 230 editorial employees would be paid through April 28. The rival Denver Post said it will hire 10 News staffers, including five columnists, four reporters and the editorial page editor.
One of those reporters, Lynn Bartels, said she would miss sitting beside her News colleagues. "The Rocky is the most amazing family," she said.
Bartels held a box of tissues over her head and called out, "This is for everybody."
Dennis Schroeder, a News photographer for 25 years, said some of his colleagues were angry but others were relieved that a decision was made after weeks of uncertainty.
"It's hard losing the best job in the world," he said.
Employees gathered outside the newsroom to open a 1985 time capsule cut out of a wall. It contained copies of the Rocky and Post, a book of employee signatures, a map of Denver and books from Rocky cartoonist Ed Stein and the late columnist Gene Amole. The capsule read: "To be opened in April 2059 on RMN's 200th anniversary."
Scripps announced on Dec. 4 it would try to sell the newspaper. Only one potential buyer came forward, "and that party was unable to present a viable plan," the company said.
"Good grief — that's a piece of heritage we're losing," said Diane Scott, 56, of suburban Englewood.
Mike Hankinson, 25, of Denver blamed the format. "It's the paper. People go online now," he said.
Scripps has owned the News since 1926. The newspaper will close just two months short of its 150th anniversary.
Since its first edition on April 23, 1859, the News has covered the Civil War, Colorado statehood, the Ludlow Massacre, the Columbine High School shootings and the Oklahoma City bombing trial. It survived a devastating flood in 1864 and competition from as many as five newspapers at a time.
A circulation war with The Post in the 1980s and 1990s proved costly, and in 2000 the rivals announced they would pool their business operations in a joint operating agreement between Scripps and The Post's owner, MediaNews Group Inc. The deal took effect in 2001.
"The Rocky will forever be remembered for its vital role in the city's history and the city's success," said William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher of The Post and CEO of MediaNews. "Although we competed intensely, the talented staff of the Rocky earned our respect with each morning's edition."
Singleton, who is chairman of the board of The Associated Press, has said Denver could support only one newspaper. "I'm not just confident that we'll survive. We will survive," he insisted Thursday.
MediaNews said starting Saturday, Rocky Mountain News subscribers will get The Post for the length of their subscriptions, but they can cancel if they want. Singleton said only about 14,000 subscribers get both newspapers.
The Post will also return to seven-day publication starting Saturday. Under the JOA, The Post published Sunday through Friday and the News published Monday through Saturday.
Scripps said it has been working with MediaNews on "a plan to unwind the partnership" since mid-January, the deadline for offers.
The future of the Denver Newspaper Agency, the entity that handles the two newspapers' business operations, was unclear. The agency is a 50-50 partnership of the News and The Post. It employs about 1,800 people.
Scripps and MediaNews Group also are partners in Prairie Mountain Publishing, which publishes the Camera and Colorado Daily in Boulder, the Broomfield Enterprise and other Colorado newspapers. Scripps said it would transfer its 50 percent interest in Prairie Mountain to MediaNews later this year.
Scripps said it will retain ownership of, and still offer to sell, the Rocky Mountain News name and the newspaper's archives and Web site.
Ed Atorino, a newspaper industry analyst at The Benchmark Co., said that indicates the News could become an online-only venture at some point.
"Online newspapers seem to be doing pretty well," he said. "It's a very low-cost business."
Financial problems are widespread in the newspaper industry as readers have gravitated toward the Internet and advertisers have followed them. The housing slump also has crimped real estate ad sales, and the recession has eliminated much demand for employment and automotive classified ads.
The publisher of the New Haven (Conn.) Register and the owners of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News filed separate bankruptcy cases last weekend. Tribune Co., whose stable includes the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, filed for bankruptcy protection in December. The owners of the Minneapolis Star Tribune filed in January.
Hearst Corp. said this week it will close or sell the San Francisco Chronicle if it can't slash expenses, and the company has laid out plans to close the Seattle Post-Intelligencer if a buyer isn't found before April.
Gannett Co. is looking for a buyer for the Tucson Citizen in Arizona.
The last major American newspaper to close was the Dallas Times Herald in 1991, said Ken Doctor, an industry analyst with OutSell Inc.
FACT CHECK: GOP adrift on small business claim
AP - By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Claims that President Barack Obama's tax plans are an assault on small business skirt the likelihood that most job-producing small businesses wouldn't feel that pinch at all.
Obama is proposing to raise taxes on households earning over $250,000 by increasing the rate on the top two tax brackets and limiting deductions, starting in 2011.
Republicans and other critics, knowing they will get little mileage from defending the rich, instead are casting the plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth.
That's not likely, according to one in-depth analysis, which found that more than 95 percent of small business owners would be off the hook.
Obama does not propose higher business taxes.
But critics reason that owners of many small companies report business income on their personal tax returns instead of filing corporate taxes. That exposes their business's earnings to Obama's higher tax rates on the wealthy.
To be sure, some business owners would get caught in that net.
But for one thing, most small businesses don't create jobs. They tend to be lawyers, accountants and other professionals who earn some of their money from partnerships or otherwise organize themselves as a business entity.
As well, many small businesses with employees don't earn enough to put their owners over the threshold for the higher tax rates.
Indeed, most of them — like Joe the Plumber of presidential campaign fame — would probably get Obama's tax break for the middle class.
Obama also proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses and make a research tax credit permanent. He would expand a provision that allows money-losing companies to get refunds from taxes paid in previous years, when the companies were profitable.
Still, Obama is not cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as his supporters often say. The president himself asserted Thursday that he's giving a "a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of hardworking families."
An independent analysis estimated that 75.5 percent of all U.S. households would get his tax credit for workers. A higher percentage of working families would get it.
THE CLAIMS:
_"In fact, a majority of those penalized by the proposed tax increase in this budget are small businesses." — Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
_"Small businesses and the entrepreneurs who lead them have been the primary drivers of job growth over the past decade. This plan would punish them with higher taxes, resulting in less government revenue, less economic growth, and fewer jobs — not more." — Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
THE FACTS:
The U.S. has roughly 6 million businesses that employ people, and 20 million businesses without employees.
The latter group includes solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes but earn little if any income from the enterprise.
Small businesses are defined as having fewer than 500 workers each.
Sizable companies within that group wouldn't be snagged by Obama's personal tax rates simply because they are too large to report income on the individual return of the owner.
Many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit.
Last year the Tax Policy Center run jointly by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution examined the likely effects of Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000.
The analysis estimated that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income or losses fall in the two tax brackets whose rates would go up under Obama. Many are small businesses on paper, without workers.
Millions of other small-business owners would be clear.
WASHINGTON – Claims that President Barack Obama's tax plans are an assault on small business skirt the likelihood that most job-producing small businesses wouldn't feel that pinch at all.
Obama is proposing to raise taxes on households earning over $250,000 by increasing the rate on the top two tax brackets and limiting deductions, starting in 2011.
Republicans and other critics, knowing they will get little mileage from defending the rich, instead are casting the plan as a tax hit on people who run industrious little companies driving job growth.
That's not likely, according to one in-depth analysis, which found that more than 95 percent of small business owners would be off the hook.
Obama does not propose higher business taxes.
But critics reason that owners of many small companies report business income on their personal tax returns instead of filing corporate taxes. That exposes their business's earnings to Obama's higher tax rates on the wealthy.
To be sure, some business owners would get caught in that net.
But for one thing, most small businesses don't create jobs. They tend to be lawyers, accountants and other professionals who earn some of their money from partnerships or otherwise organize themselves as a business entity.
As well, many small businesses with employees don't earn enough to put their owners over the threshold for the higher tax rates.
Indeed, most of them — like Joe the Plumber of presidential campaign fame — would probably get Obama's tax break for the middle class.
Obama also proposes to eliminate capital gains taxes on small businesses and make a research tax credit permanent. He would expand a provision that allows money-losing companies to get refunds from taxes paid in previous years, when the companies were profitable.
Still, Obama is not cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as his supporters often say. The president himself asserted Thursday that he's giving a "a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of hardworking families."
An independent analysis estimated that 75.5 percent of all U.S. households would get his tax credit for workers. A higher percentage of working families would get it.
THE CLAIMS:
_"In fact, a majority of those penalized by the proposed tax increase in this budget are small businesses." — Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
_"Small businesses and the entrepreneurs who lead them have been the primary drivers of job growth over the past decade. This plan would punish them with higher taxes, resulting in less government revenue, less economic growth, and fewer jobs — not more." — Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
THE FACTS:
The U.S. has roughly 6 million businesses that employ people, and 20 million businesses without employees.
The latter group includes solo operators, professionals in partnerships and those who organize themselves as a business for tax purposes but earn little if any income from the enterprise.
Small businesses are defined as having fewer than 500 workers each.
Sizable companies within that group wouldn't be snagged by Obama's personal tax rates simply because they are too large to report income on the individual return of the owner.
Many truly small operations simply don't make enough to qualify for the tax hit.
Last year the Tax Policy Center run jointly by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution examined the likely effects of Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000.
The analysis estimated that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income or losses fall in the two tax brackets whose rates would go up under Obama. Many are small businesses on paper, without workers.
Millions of other small-business owners would be clear.
Obama health plan opens tough negotiation
AP - By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's prescription for the nation's ailing health care system comes with Medicare cuts and tax hikes — usually poison pills that doom any overhaul effort in Congress.
But the budget Obama proposed Thursday is not a finished blueprint for overhauling health care. Rather it's the opening bid in a tough negotiation. Anybody who's been in a bargaining session knows you never end up with your opening bid.
Obama is asking Congress: If you're going to cover an estimated 48 million uninsured Americans in the world's costliest medical system, how do you pay for it?
Obama's plan would set aside $634 billion over 10 years in a major effort to cover all Americans — a goal that could cost more than $1 trillion. Half the money would come from tax increases on upper-income earners; the other half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance plans serving Medicare seniors would take the biggest hit, but hospitals, drug companies and home health agencies also face cuts.
Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats are sure to disagree with Obama's specifics, but they may quietly applaud his determination to pay for health care reform, instead of adding to the deficit.
"This is a serious effort to get the process moving," said Mark McClellan, a doctor and health economist who ran Medicare for former President George W. Bush. "The specific financing proposals are going to have a very tough time."
Obama's approach is a conscious departure from the path former President Bill Clinton took in the 1990s. Clinton's 1,300-page health care bill tried to answer every question and ultimately went nowhere. Obama is asking Congress to fill in the blanks.
"He's outlining these cuts as examples of places where savings can be accrued," said Christine Ferguson, a health policy professor at George Washington University. "You put those on the table, and if people want to have this discussion, they have to propose alternatives."
Whether that dialogue succeeds depends not just on Obama, but on Congress and interest groups representing insurers and doctors, hospitals and drug companies, consumers and small business.
Clinton's top priority was to get everybody covered quickly. Obama has framed the problem differently, focusing on how to slow rising costs, so that everybody can eventually be covered.
"What the president is doing is bold, but it's not overreaching," said economist Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute research center. "The administration is coming to grips with the reality that this will cost a lot of money, and it's committed to paying for it."
The tricky part is in the details.
For example, more than half of Obama's spending cuts would come from Medicare managed care plans. The private plans cost the government 14 percent more on average than care for seniors in traditional Medicare. That translates into lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors, who in a bad economy have been flocking to the plans, increasing enrollment to about 10 million.
"People are flooding into the program," said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, an information company serving government and the health care industry. "I don't think cuts of this magnitude ultimately are going to be palatable to Congress."
Obama would replace the current payments with a competitive bidding system estimated to save $177 billion over 10 years. That sent insurance company shares skidding Thursday on Wall Street. But some market analysts said there may be a silver lining: While competitive bidding could decrease profit margins, it might generate higher revenues for insurers if seniors keep signing up.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry trade group, wasn't ready to leave the bargaining table.
While warning that Obama's cuts would "jeopardize the health security" of seniors, the group's president, Karen Ignagni, said insurers "are committed to doing our share" to expand coverage.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's prescription for the nation's ailing health care system comes with Medicare cuts and tax hikes — usually poison pills that doom any overhaul effort in Congress.
But the budget Obama proposed Thursday is not a finished blueprint for overhauling health care. Rather it's the opening bid in a tough negotiation. Anybody who's been in a bargaining session knows you never end up with your opening bid.
Obama is asking Congress: If you're going to cover an estimated 48 million uninsured Americans in the world's costliest medical system, how do you pay for it?
Obama's plan would set aside $634 billion over 10 years in a major effort to cover all Americans — a goal that could cost more than $1 trillion. Half the money would come from tax increases on upper-income earners; the other half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance plans serving Medicare seniors would take the biggest hit, but hospitals, drug companies and home health agencies also face cuts.
Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats are sure to disagree with Obama's specifics, but they may quietly applaud his determination to pay for health care reform, instead of adding to the deficit.
"This is a serious effort to get the process moving," said Mark McClellan, a doctor and health economist who ran Medicare for former President George W. Bush. "The specific financing proposals are going to have a very tough time."
Obama's approach is a conscious departure from the path former President Bill Clinton took in the 1990s. Clinton's 1,300-page health care bill tried to answer every question and ultimately went nowhere. Obama is asking Congress to fill in the blanks.
"He's outlining these cuts as examples of places where savings can be accrued," said Christine Ferguson, a health policy professor at George Washington University. "You put those on the table, and if people want to have this discussion, they have to propose alternatives."
Whether that dialogue succeeds depends not just on Obama, but on Congress and interest groups representing insurers and doctors, hospitals and drug companies, consumers and small business.
Clinton's top priority was to get everybody covered quickly. Obama has framed the problem differently, focusing on how to slow rising costs, so that everybody can eventually be covered.
"What the president is doing is bold, but it's not overreaching," said economist Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute research center. "The administration is coming to grips with the reality that this will cost a lot of money, and it's committed to paying for it."
The tricky part is in the details.
For example, more than half of Obama's spending cuts would come from Medicare managed care plans. The private plans cost the government 14 percent more on average than care for seniors in traditional Medicare. That translates into lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors, who in a bad economy have been flocking to the plans, increasing enrollment to about 10 million.
"People are flooding into the program," said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, an information company serving government and the health care industry. "I don't think cuts of this magnitude ultimately are going to be palatable to Congress."
Obama would replace the current payments with a competitive bidding system estimated to save $177 billion over 10 years. That sent insurance company shares skidding Thursday on Wall Street. But some market analysts said there may be a silver lining: While competitive bidding could decrease profit margins, it might generate higher revenues for insurers if seniors keep signing up.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry trade group, wasn't ready to leave the bargaining table.
While warning that Obama's cuts would "jeopardize the health security" of seniors, the group's president, Karen Ignagni, said insurers "are committed to doing our share" to expand coverage.
Officials: Obama plans Iraq pullout by Aug 2010
AP - By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told lawmakers on Thursday he plans to withdraw most American troops from Iraq by August 2010 but leave tens of thousands behind to advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests, congressional officials said.
Obama is expected to announce the new strategy on Friday during a trip to the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
In a closed-door meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders, Obama and his top advisers estimated that 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain in Iraq after the bulk of troops are withdrawn.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war and pledged to do so in 16 months. The withdrawal timetable he is expected to approve stretches over 19 months from his inauguration in January. That means some 100,000 troops would leave over the coming 18 months.
Rep. John McHugh, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Obama promised him to reconsider the new strategy if violence rises. McHugh said he was worried the situation in Iraq remained fragile, especially as it approaches elections in December.
"Our commanders must have the flexibility they need in order to respond to these challenges, and President Obama assured me that there is a 'Plan B,'" McHugh, R-N.Y., said in a statement.
According to one congressional official, lawmakers were told that Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Baghdad, believed the plan presented moderate risk but supported the 50,000 figure.
Some Democrats are skeptical but because they say it would leave too many troops behind.
"I have been one for a long time that's called for significant cutbacks in Iraq, and I am happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters before the briefing. "But when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated."
In addition to Reid, congressional leaders attending the meeting included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had also been expected to attend as well.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the U.N.'s Security Council on Thursday that the U.S. would move "responsibly and safely" to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
She said the process of redeploying American combat troops will be carried out in consultation with the Iraqi government "and with its support."
An existing U.S-Iraq agreement, negotiated under President George W. Bush, calls for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Baghdad and other cities by the end of June, with all American forces out of the country by the end of 2011.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told lawmakers on Thursday he plans to withdraw most American troops from Iraq by August 2010 but leave tens of thousands behind to advise Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests, congressional officials said.
Obama is expected to announce the new strategy on Friday during a trip to the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
In a closed-door meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders, Obama and his top advisers estimated that 35,000 to 50,000 troops would remain in Iraq after the bulk of troops are withdrawn.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war and pledged to do so in 16 months. The withdrawal timetable he is expected to approve stretches over 19 months from his inauguration in January. That means some 100,000 troops would leave over the coming 18 months.
Rep. John McHugh, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said Obama promised him to reconsider the new strategy if violence rises. McHugh said he was worried the situation in Iraq remained fragile, especially as it approaches elections in December.
"Our commanders must have the flexibility they need in order to respond to these challenges, and President Obama assured me that there is a 'Plan B,'" McHugh, R-N.Y., said in a statement.
According to one congressional official, lawmakers were told that Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Baghdad, believed the plan presented moderate risk but supported the 50,000 figure.
Some Democrats are skeptical but because they say it would leave too many troops behind.
"I have been one for a long time that's called for significant cutbacks in Iraq, and I am happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters before the briefing. "But when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated."
In addition to Reid, congressional leaders attending the meeting included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had also been expected to attend as well.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told the U.N.'s Security Council on Thursday that the U.S. would move "responsibly and safely" to reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
She said the process of redeploying American combat troops will be carried out in consultation with the Iraqi government "and with its support."
An existing U.S-Iraq agreement, negotiated under President George W. Bush, calls for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Baghdad and other cities by the end of June, with all American forces out of the country by the end of 2011.
Wallup Poll 2/27/09
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 15%
RKP - 10%
MDP - 6%
MP - 6%
FP - 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion 57%
TPP - 15%
RKP - 10%
MDP - 6%
MP - 6%
FP - 6%
Don't Know/No Opinion 57%
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wallup Poll 2/26/09
If the election were held today, which party would you support?
TPP - 14%
RKP - 9%
MDP - 5%
MP - 5%
FP - 4%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 63%
TPP - 14%
RKP - 9%
MDP - 5%
MP - 5%
FP - 4%
Don't Know/No Opinion - 63%
Saturday, February 21, 2009
An Approaching Climate Disaster
The Nordonia News -
The climate changes occurring thoughout the world have been predicted and debated over the past decade. Yet, as more and more evidence emerges as to reality of climate change that implications are becoming scarier. This poses a serious issue to the emerging campaign for control of the General Assembly. The implications (detailed in the AP story below) are sobering.
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – Sat Feb 21, 6:57 pm ET
CAPE TOWN, South Africa – If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.
His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.
"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.
Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen — environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations — scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.
Their midnight flight was scrubbed on Friday and Saturday because of high winds on the southernmost continent, 3,000 miles from here. While waiting at their Cape Town hotel for the gusts to ease down south, chief sponsor Erik Solheim, Norway's environment minister, improvised with group exchanges over coffee and wine about the future of the planet.
"International diplomacy is all about personal relations," Solheim said. "The more people know each other, the less likely there will be misunderstandings."
Understandings will be vital in this "year of climate," as the world's nations and their negotiators count down toward a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December, target date for concluding a grand new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol — the 1997 agreement, expiring in 2012, to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations.
Solheim drew together key players for the planned brief visit to Norway's Troll Research Station in East Antarctica.
Trying on polar outfits for size on Friday were China's chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, veteran U.S. climate envoy Dan Reifsnyder, and environment ministers Hilary Benn of Britain and Carlos Minc Baumfeld of Brazil.
Later, at dinner, the heavyweights heard from smaller or poorer nations about the trials they face as warming disrupts climate, turns some regions drier, threatens food production in poor African nations.
Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years — a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.
In the face of such threats, "the rich countries have to give us a helping hand," the African minister said.
But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.
If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy.
Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.
But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be "disastrous."
It would "transform where people can live," Stern said. "People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases" — 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, "because there's no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place."
Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war — the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more "sustainable" in the future.
"The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe," he said.
After he spoke, Norwegian organizers announced that the forecast looked good for Stern and the rest to fly south on Sunday to further ponder the future while meeting with scientists in the forbidding vastness of Antarctica.
Response is Quick
The Capital Courier -
Labor Protests
Response was quick and direct to Prime Minister Mobley's deficit fighting plan. It is clear that there will be strong opposition to her plans. Whether this opposition is strong enough to derail the plan is unclear, yet opposition clearly exists.
In the streets of Franklin City, a massive 100,000-strong worker rally was held. The protest, mirroring those occurring in Ireland, was a clear show of force for organized labor. The protest was organized by the Franklin Workers Alliance, the nation's second largest union, which represents many public sector employees. According to press releases, the union's goal was to provide a warning shot to the prime minister that organized labor was not going to willingly let its members see their incomes cut.
"We understand the government's financial crisis and the growing economic crisis facing our nation. Yet, it is blatantly unfair to ask the men and women who serve this country to give up their financial stability. How does cutting the wages of some 300,000 workers help the economy? This may cut the deficit but will only worsen the deteriorating economic problems of our country. We will not stand by and watch our members' ability to support their families cut for the sake of the deficit."
The union's political goals are clear. Not only was this protest a warning to the current prime minister but is also a signal to the new political parties that organized labor is a force to be dealt with in the upcoming election. It has also become clear that other labor organizations, including the National Workers Union (the nation's largest union), may join the political battle.
Story: Similar protests in Ireland
Division concerning withdraw plans
On Friday, the prime minister announced her plans to begin a withdraw plan from Iraq. The goals are clearly in line with the prime minister's political philosophy and her desire to correct the growing deficit problem. Yet, it is clear that opinions within the military are divided. It is certainly true that some military officials would like to see a continuation of current operations, which are in support of the U.S. military. However, it is also clear that there is growing concern within the military community over the strain the current mission is having on their institution. Any withdraw plan will have to reconcile the divergent military opinions.
Story: U.S. also considering withdraw from Iraq
Labor Protests
Response was quick and direct to Prime Minister Mobley's deficit fighting plan. It is clear that there will be strong opposition to her plans. Whether this opposition is strong enough to derail the plan is unclear, yet opposition clearly exists.
In the streets of Franklin City, a massive 100,000-strong worker rally was held. The protest, mirroring those occurring in Ireland, was a clear show of force for organized labor. The protest was organized by the Franklin Workers Alliance, the nation's second largest union, which represents many public sector employees. According to press releases, the union's goal was to provide a warning shot to the prime minister that organized labor was not going to willingly let its members see their incomes cut.
"We understand the government's financial crisis and the growing economic crisis facing our nation. Yet, it is blatantly unfair to ask the men and women who serve this country to give up their financial stability. How does cutting the wages of some 300,000 workers help the economy? This may cut the deficit but will only worsen the deteriorating economic problems of our country. We will not stand by and watch our members' ability to support their families cut for the sake of the deficit."
The union's political goals are clear. Not only was this protest a warning to the current prime minister but is also a signal to the new political parties that organized labor is a force to be dealt with in the upcoming election. It has also become clear that other labor organizations, including the National Workers Union (the nation's largest union), may join the political battle.
Story: Similar protests in Ireland
Division concerning withdraw plans
On Friday, the prime minister announced her plans to begin a withdraw plan from Iraq. The goals are clearly in line with the prime minister's political philosophy and her desire to correct the growing deficit problem. Yet, it is clear that opinions within the military are divided. It is certainly true that some military officials would like to see a continuation of current operations, which are in support of the U.S. military. However, it is also clear that there is growing concern within the military community over the strain the current mission is having on their institution. Any withdraw plan will have to reconcile the divergent military opinions.
Story: U.S. also considering withdraw from Iraq
To withdraw or not to withdraw...that is a the question.
The Franklin Times -
Speaking before the outgoing General Assembly, Prime Minister Mobley laid out an ambitious legislative agenda in her final weeks as Prime Minister. Frustrated by political infighting within the coalition and a seemingly unbreakable conservative opposition to her proposals, the prime minister seems set for one final legislative battle.
Mobley's number one concern has been the economic crisis gripping the country and her address did little to move off this issue. Having failed to negotiate a compromise stimulus bill that could win approval within her broad coalition, she has turned her focus to the ballooning deficit. As tax revenues have plummeted the nation's long tradition of balanced budgets has ended.
In her address, the prime minister made it clear that a stimulus package will have to wait for the next government, but she would make one last attempt to provide sound financial footing for that next government. Highlighting her philosophical beliefs, the prime minister made it clear that budgetary cuts would not be made in the realms of healthcare, education, or public assistance programs. "To deny the programs that assist the most vulnerable in our society of their worthy financial support, would be to violate the very values of this nation - that a neighbor in need must not be ignored."
Instead of cuts in these areas, the prime minister called for cuts in the current military operations in Iraq and cuts in the pay of public sector employees. "We must draw to a close our nation's military role in Iraq. The foolish interventionist policies instituted by our last king and my predecessor have cost this nation lives and billions in needed revenue. It is time to reestablish our nation's responsible foreign and military policies." She would go on to explain that a draw down of military forces in Iraq will save billions but would, by itself, not be enough. "We must also ask our public servants to sacrifice. Following the proposed models of our European neighbors, I am proposing cutting public wages by seven percent."
It remains unclear whether this deficit fighting plan will be able to garner any legislative support in the outgoing General Assembly. It is also unclear how the current parties will respond to the plan.
Speaking before the outgoing General Assembly, Prime Minister Mobley laid out an ambitious legislative agenda in her final weeks as Prime Minister. Frustrated by political infighting within the coalition and a seemingly unbreakable conservative opposition to her proposals, the prime minister seems set for one final legislative battle.
Mobley's number one concern has been the economic crisis gripping the country and her address did little to move off this issue. Having failed to negotiate a compromise stimulus bill that could win approval within her broad coalition, she has turned her focus to the ballooning deficit. As tax revenues have plummeted the nation's long tradition of balanced budgets has ended.
In her address, the prime minister made it clear that a stimulus package will have to wait for the next government, but she would make one last attempt to provide sound financial footing for that next government. Highlighting her philosophical beliefs, the prime minister made it clear that budgetary cuts would not be made in the realms of healthcare, education, or public assistance programs. "To deny the programs that assist the most vulnerable in our society of their worthy financial support, would be to violate the very values of this nation - that a neighbor in need must not be ignored."
Instead of cuts in these areas, the prime minister called for cuts in the current military operations in Iraq and cuts in the pay of public sector employees. "We must draw to a close our nation's military role in Iraq. The foolish interventionist policies instituted by our last king and my predecessor have cost this nation lives and billions in needed revenue. It is time to reestablish our nation's responsible foreign and military policies." She would go on to explain that a draw down of military forces in Iraq will save billions but would, by itself, not be enough. "We must also ask our public servants to sacrifice. Following the proposed models of our European neighbors, I am proposing cutting public wages by seven percent."
It remains unclear whether this deficit fighting plan will be able to garner any legislative support in the outgoing General Assembly. It is also unclear how the current parties will respond to the plan.
The Afganistan Conflict Widens?
New York Times -Obama Expands Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: February 20, 2009
WASHINGTON — With two missile strikes over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan, attacking a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government.
The missile strikes on training camps run by Baitullah Mehsud represent a broadening of the American campaign inside Pakistan, which has been largely carried out by drone aircraft. Under President Bush, the United States frequently attacked militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban involved in cross-border attacks into Afghanistan, but had stopped short of raids aimed at Mr. Mehsud and his followers, who have played less of a direct role in attacks on American troops.
The strikes are another sign that President Obama is continuing, and in some cases extending, Bush administration policy in using American spy agencies against terrorism suspects in Pakistan, as he had promised to do during his presidential campaign. At the same time, Mr. Obama has begun to scale back some of the Bush policies on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, which he has criticized as counterproductive.
Mr. Mehsud was identified early last year by both American and Pakistani officials as the man who had orchestrated the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister and the wife of Pakistan’s current president, Asif Ali Zardari. Mr. Bush included Mr. Mehsud’s name in a classified list of militant leaders whom the C.I.A. and American commandos were authorized to capture or kill.
It is unclear why the Obama administration decided to carry out the attacks, which American and Pakistani officials said occurred last Saturday and again on Monday, hitting camps run by Mr. Mehsud’s network. The Saturday strike was aimed specifically at Mr. Mehsud, but he was not killed, according to Pakistani and American officials.
The Monday strike, officials say, was aimed at a camp run by Hakeem Ullah Mehsud, a top aide to the militant. By striking at the Mehsud network, the United States may be seeking to demonstrate to Mr. Zardari that the new administration is willing to go after the insurgents of greatest concern to the Pakistani leader.
But American officials may also be prompted by growing concern that the militant attacks are increasingly putting the civilian government of Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons, at risk.
For months, Pakistani military and intelligence officials have complained about Washington’s refusal to strike at Baitullah Mehsud, even while C.I.A. drones struck at Qaeda figures and leaders of the network run by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a militant leader believed responsible for a campaign of violence against American troops in Afghanistan.
According to one senior Pakistani official, Pakistan’s intelligence service on two occasions in recent months gave the United States detailed intelligence about Mr. Mehsud’s whereabouts, but said the United States had not acted on the information. Bush administration officials had charged that it was the Pakistanis who were reluctant to take on Mr. Mehsud and his network.
The strikes came after a visit to Islamabad last week by Richard C. Holbrooke, the American envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In a telephone interview on Friday, Mr. Holbrooke declined to talk about the attacks on Mr. Mehsud. The White House also declined to speak about Mr. Mehsud or the decisions that led up to the new strikes. A C.I.A. spokesman also declined to comment.
Senior Pakistani officials are scheduled to arrive in Washington next week at a time of rising tension over a declared truce between the Pakistani government and militants in the Swat region.
While the administration has not publicly criticized the Pakistanis, several American officials said in interviews in recent days that they believe appeasing the militants would only weaken Pakistan’s civilian government. Mr. Holbrooke said in the interview that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others would make clear in private, and in detail, why they were so concerned about what was happening in Swat, the need to send more Pakistani forces to the west, and why the deteriorating situation in the tribal areas added to instability in Afghanistan and threats to American forces.
Past efforts to cut deals with the insurgents failed, and many administration officials believe that they ultimately weakened the Pakistani government.
But Obama administration officials face the same intractable problems that the Bush administration did in trying to prod Pakistan toward a different course. Pakistan still deploys the overwhelming majority of its troops along the Indian border, not the border with Afghanistan, and its intelligence agencies maintain shadowy links to the Taliban even as they take American funds to fight them.
Under standard policy for covert operations, the C.I.A. strikes inside Pakistan have not been publicly acknowledged either by the Obama administration or the Bush administration. Using Predators and the more heavily armed Reaper drones, the C.I.A. has carried out more than 30 strikes since last September, according to American and Pakistani officials.
The attacks have killed a number of senior Qaeda figures, including Abu Jihad al-Masri and Usama al-Kini, who is believed to have helped plan the 1998 American Embassy bombings in East Africa and last year’s bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad.
American Special Operations troops based in Afghanistan have also carried out a number of operations into Pakistan’s tribal areas since early September, when a commando raid that killed a number of militants was publicly condemned by Pakistani officials. According to a senior American military official, the commando missions since September have been primarily to gather intelligence.
The meetings hosted by the Obama administration next week will include senior officials from both Pakistan and Afghanistan; Mrs. Clinton is to hold a rare joint meeting on Thursday with foreign ministers from the two countries. Also, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani Army chief, will meet with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Lt. Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of Pakistan’s military spy service, will accompany General Kayani.
Stimulus Plan Passes in the United States
The Franklin Times -
The United States Congress passed and President Obama signed a massive stimulus bill this week. The bill is designed to provide an economic boost for the sagging U.S. economy. The U.S. economy, sinking deeper into recession, is now facing one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. The economic figures are staggering: unemployment is rising, production levels are falling, corporate profits are rapidly sinking, as are home prices. In addition, the Dow Jones has reached a six year low and a number of financial institutions are at risk of going under.
With the Franklin economy closely tied to the faltering economies of the U.S. and Canada, it becomes clear that the political parties must offer some economic solutions. The recent Wallup Poll revealed that the economy has emerged as the number one issue in this election. But at the same time the poll revealed that many voters know little about their electoral choices. Hopefully, as the campaign progresses this problem will be rectified.
Stimulus Details: 2009 Stimulus Bill
How should trade and NAFTA be altered
Obama economic trip to Canada
The United States Congress passed and President Obama signed a massive stimulus bill this week. The bill is designed to provide an economic boost for the sagging U.S. economy. The U.S. economy, sinking deeper into recession, is now facing one of the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. The economic figures are staggering: unemployment is rising, production levels are falling, corporate profits are rapidly sinking, as are home prices. In addition, the Dow Jones has reached a six year low and a number of financial institutions are at risk of going under.
With the Franklin economy closely tied to the faltering economies of the U.S. and Canada, it becomes clear that the political parties must offer some economic solutions. The recent Wallup Poll revealed that the economy has emerged as the number one issue in this election. But at the same time the poll revealed that many voters know little about their electoral choices. Hopefully, as the campaign progresses this problem will be rectified.
Stimulus Details: 2009 Stimulus Bill
How should trade and NAFTA be altered
Obama economic trip to Canada
Wallup Poll 2/21/09
FNS (Franklin News Service) - The first Wallup Poll was released this morning
If the election were held today, who would you support?
TPP 10%
RKP 5%
MDP 1%
FP 1%
MP 1%
Don't know/Don't know enough 82%
What do you consider the top issue in the 2009 election?
Economy 50%
Iraq/War on Terror 15%
Education 10%
Healthcare 10%
Other 15%
Should the Franklin States remove its military forces from Iraq?
Yes 43%
No 37%
Don't Know/No Opinion 20%
Should the Franklin States send military forces to Afghanistan?
Yes 38%
No 42%
Don't Know/No Opinion 20%
Should the General Assembly pass a stimulus plan to help the economy?
Yes 53%
No 30%
Don't Know/No Opinion 17%
If the election were held today, who would you support?
TPP 10%
RKP 5%
MDP 1%
FP 1%
MP 1%
Don't know/Don't know enough 82%
What do you consider the top issue in the 2009 election?
Economy 50%
Iraq/War on Terror 15%
Education 10%
Healthcare 10%
Other 15%
Should the Franklin States remove its military forces from Iraq?
Yes 43%
No 37%
Don't Know/No Opinion 20%
Should the Franklin States send military forces to Afghanistan?
Yes 38%
No 42%
Don't Know/No Opinion 20%
Should the General Assembly pass a stimulus plan to help the economy?
Yes 53%
No 30%
Don't Know/No Opinion 17%
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
What's in a Name?
The Nordonia News -
Editorial Board
The old question goes, "what's in a name?" The answer, at least for this election cycle, is nothing. The NEC this afternoon announced the approval of five parties to compete in the upcoming General Assembly elections. Yet, little was revealed about the parties themselves. The five parties have seemingly adopted cryptic names leaving little clue as to where they stand on the major issues facing our nation. The names do not even reveal the ideological views of the parties. We have been given a Fanatical Party, yet know nothing of their "fanatical" beliefs. We were given a MAD Party, yet have no clue as to the root of their anger. There is a strangely named MCFARLAND Party. What is the message here? Team Papi? Color me confused. And finally, we have a ReganKnights Party. Does borrowing the name of an American president really speak of national pride? This board waits with baited breath.
Party Names by Country
Editorial Board
The old question goes, "what's in a name?" The answer, at least for this election cycle, is nothing. The NEC this afternoon announced the approval of five parties to compete in the upcoming General Assembly elections. Yet, little was revealed about the parties themselves. The five parties have seemingly adopted cryptic names leaving little clue as to where they stand on the major issues facing our nation. The names do not even reveal the ideological views of the parties. We have been given a Fanatical Party, yet know nothing of their "fanatical" beliefs. We were given a MAD Party, yet have no clue as to the root of their anger. There is a strangely named MCFARLAND Party. What is the message here? Team Papi? Color me confused. And finally, we have a ReganKnights Party. Does borrowing the name of an American president really speak of national pride? This board waits with baited breath.
Party Names by Country
NEC Announcment
The Capital Courier -In an afternoon press conference, NEC Chairman J. McFarland announced that his agency had processed and approved the application of five political parties for the 2009 General Assembly election cycle. Chairman McFarland detailed that the five approved parties are the FP, MP, MDP, RKP, and TPP. Besides detailing the approved names, the Chairman also clarified the campaign funding rules and regulations. Parties will become eligible for their public campaign funds once they poll over 5% in the national Wallup Poll. The first poll results are expected later this week. Finally, the press conference ended with the prediction that the parties would be launching campaign websites in the coming days.
Pirate Attack
The Franklin Times -A Franklin oil tanker was seized by pirates off the Somali coast early this morning. The seizure of the tanker marks the first time a Franklin vessel has been captured in this dangerous part of the world. While the incident marks the first Franklin connection, it by no means represents the first pirate attack in these waters. Pirates, based on the Somali coast, have been engaged in a quickly expanding enterprise of capturing and ransoming sea-going vessels.
Initial reports indicate that twenty-one crew members were also seized but there are no indications as to their well being. This poses an interesting foreign policy question for the newly formed political parties. What if anything can be done to reduce this threat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
