Wednesday, September 9, 2009
About the Speech Tonight
.jpg)
Mr.President, forget the Republicans kick them to the curve, forget Ben Nelson and Max Baucus, forget the Blue Dogs,(they won't get re-elected). Republicans have been horrible to you Mr. President and your administration from day one. It's time to move on and let them wallow in their misery.
I have high expectations on the President's speech tonight. He will be direct, tough, definitive, not wavering, clear and precise. He will grab hold of this drifting debate about health care reform and impose not just clarity but a sense of purpose and direction.
"Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action," he said.(President Obama).
President Obama said the legislation he seeks would guarantee insurance to consumers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, as well as other protections. "As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most," he added in the excerpts released in advance.
The president also assured those with insurance that "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
He's trying to indoctrinate our kids.
You have got to be kidding me? Those crazy, paranoid, right wing-nuts are just that, crazy and paranoid. What a bunch of jack asses. Those lunatics harbor so much hatred and prejudice, I wonder how they sleep at night. (No I don't). How can they live with themselves.
They have spent the last week whipping themselves into a frenzy over President Obama's speech tomorrow in which he will indoctrinate the nation's school children using the instruments of mass media.
Those ignorant morans really believe that the President of the United States would give a harmful speech on education. Something that he is most passionate about. What the hell are they afraid of? Why do they fear this man so much?
They have spent the last week whipping themselves into a frenzy over President Obama's speech tomorrow in which he will indoctrinate the nation's school children using the instruments of mass media.
Those ignorant morans really believe that the President of the United States would give a harmful speech on education. Something that he is most passionate about. What the hell are they afraid of? Why do they fear this man so much?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
HEALTH CARE REFORM
We need health care reform now. Not next year or the year after, BUT NOW. Most Americans are in favor of Health Care Reform. So what is all this hoopla against health care reform? I'll tell you. It's those crazy right wing-nuts who are determined to bring President Obama down. They are adamant (utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion)about wanting to destroy the first Black President of The United States of America. I've said it before, and I'll say now, along with the GOP, there are many RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS in this country who have not accepted the fact that the President is "A BLACK MAN".
And now they are at it again. The claim that President Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children. Is there no end to their madness?
And now they are at it again. The claim that President Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children. Is there no end to their madness?
Citizen Legislature Project
Citizen Legislature Project
Join Citizens for California Reform in our effort to bring accountability back to Sacramento by returning California to a Part Time Legislature.
Since statehood, California has experimented with how frequently and for what periods of time the Legislature should meet in session. Sessions have been one year or two years, limited and unlimited in duration, with and without mandatory intervening recesses, and limited to certain legislative matters during specific types of legislative sessions.
The biggest change came in 1966 when California voters enacted a sweeping revision of the State Constitution, including a provision providing for a full-time Legislature with no limitation on the duration of a legislative session.
Our full-time Legislature has failed the people of California. The result is a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and break the stranglehold of these special interests.
Full-time politicians are completely out of touch with the people they represent. By shortening the legislative season, we will take power away from Sacramento and return it to our local communities to ensure that legislators have a better sense of the needs of their communities.
Citizens for California Reform has filed proposed ballot initiative language with the state’s Attorney General to create a part-time, citizen-legislature.
The Citizen Legislature Act outlines a legislative session, which will convene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. The Legislature will then reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days.
THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT
SECTION 1. Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The Citizen Legislature Act.”
SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes.
The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that
their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows:
(a) California’s experiment with a “full-time” Legislature has failed. The result has been
a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not
work “full-time” yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all
other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most
important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time.
(b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the
people’s business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and
most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen
legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of
unnecessary and self-serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable
government institution.
(c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby
amend the California Constitution to enact the “Citizen Legislature Act.”
SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment
Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows:
Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in
January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature
shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in
May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional
period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor
pursuant to section 10.
SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability
(a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for
the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012.
(b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be
given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Citizen Legislature
What is a Citizen Legislature? A Citizen Legislature is composed of every-day citizens, not professional politicians, who meet on a part-time basis to pass the state budget and consider new legislation.
Why does California need a Citizen Legislature? California’s experiment with a “full-time” Legislature has failed. The result has been a legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests that continually fails to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on time.
How will a Citizen Legislature help California? A Citizen Legislature will break the stranglehold of special interests, provide Californians with better representation and shakeup the status quo in Sacramento. It will also reduce the number of unnecessary and self-servicing bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution.
Is California too big for a Part-Time Citizen Legislature? No, but California is too big for a legislature that fails year after year to pass an on time budget and is no long responsive to the people. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous.
www.reformcal.com
Join Citizens for California Reform in our effort to bring accountability back to Sacramento by returning California to a Part Time Legislature.
Since statehood, California has experimented with how frequently and for what periods of time the Legislature should meet in session. Sessions have been one year or two years, limited and unlimited in duration, with and without mandatory intervening recesses, and limited to certain legislative matters during specific types of legislative sessions.
The biggest change came in 1966 when California voters enacted a sweeping revision of the State Constitution, including a provision providing for a full-time Legislature with no limitation on the duration of a legislative session.
Our full-time Legislature has failed the people of California. The result is a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and break the stranglehold of these special interests.
Full-time politicians are completely out of touch with the people they represent. By shortening the legislative season, we will take power away from Sacramento and return it to our local communities to ensure that legislators have a better sense of the needs of their communities.
Citizens for California Reform has filed proposed ballot initiative language with the state’s Attorney General to create a part-time, citizen-legislature.
The Citizen Legislature Act outlines a legislative session, which will convene in regular session on the first Monday in January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days. The Legislature will then reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days.
THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT
SECTION 1. Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The Citizen Legislature Act.”
SECTION 2. Findings and Purposes.
The People of the State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that
their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows:
(a) California’s experiment with a “full-time” Legislature has failed. The result has been
a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. Legislators do not
work “full-time” yet they receive full-time pay and benefits, more than double the amount of all
other states. Yet, with all of these incentives, they continually fail to accomplish their most
important job, passing a balanced state budget on-time.
(b) California needs and deserves a Legislature that is only interested in conducting the
people’s business. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and
most populous. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen
legislators and will break the stranglehold of special interests. It will reduce the number of
unnecessary and self-serving bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable
government institution.
(c) In order to further these and the purposes stated in section 1.5, the people hereby
amend the California Constitution to enact the “Citizen Legislature Act.”
SECTION 3. Constitutional Amendment
Section 3.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution is added to read as follows:
Sec. 3.5(a) The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in
January of each year for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, whereupon the Legislature
shall stand in recess. The Legislature shall reconvene in regular session on the first Monday in
May for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature may reconvene for an additional
period of 5 days following recess or adjournment to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor
pursuant to section 10.
SECTION 4. Operative Date/Severability
(a) Section 3.5 shall become effective immediately, however it shall become operative for
the biennium session commencing on the first Monday in December in 2012.
(b) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications which can reasonably be
given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Frequently Asked Questions
Citizen Legislature
What is a Citizen Legislature? A Citizen Legislature is composed of every-day citizens, not professional politicians, who meet on a part-time basis to pass the state budget and consider new legislation.
Why does California need a Citizen Legislature? California’s experiment with a “full-time” Legislature has failed. The result has been a legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests that continually fails to accomplish their most important job, passing a balanced state budget on time.
How will a Citizen Legislature help California? A Citizen Legislature will break the stranglehold of special interests, provide Californians with better representation and shakeup the status quo in Sacramento. It will also reduce the number of unnecessary and self-servicing bills and will result in a more responsible and accountable government institution.
Is California too big for a Part-Time Citizen Legislature? No, but California is too big for a legislature that fails year after year to pass an on time budget and is no long responsive to the people. Most states have a part-time Legislature, including some of the largest and most populous.
www.reformcal.com
Friday, September 4, 2009
That's the way to give that Obamacare supporter your finger.
Hey do fries go with that finger? See wingnuts, this is what you get when you try to give his O ness your finger, you lose it. Yep seems that these health care debates are getting rather heated. Those damn Obamaholics are finally coming out to stand by their man. What were you wingnuts thinking? Did you really think that you were the only ones who were going to come out swinging...or should I say biting at these debates? There is passion on both sides.
But it's nice to see that you wingnuts are fighting back . -There is nothing like a vibrant political debate- I bet poor Luis Perrero didn't know what hit him.
"I'm amazed at the way this has become such a politicized issue,'' Perrero said as he sat on the ground holding his jaw. ``It shows that people who are against the public option will resort to anything -- including battery on a senior citizen -- to prevent healthcare reform.''
Oh come on Luis; man up. You took one for the home team. I know you are 65 but we need every able bodied man and woman out there fighting these wingnuts.
Still, in spite of Luis doing like Sony Liston, this round goes to the Obamacare folks.
"The Obamacare supporter, who was on the side of the street with other supporters, came across the street toward the anti-Obamacare crowd and singled out an elderly man and proceeded to “get in his face” about his views. The Obamacare supporter then pulled the old man out into the street, unprovoked I might add, and then bit the old guys finger off while the old guy was just trying to get away. The old man then shuffled off toward a hospital.
I then went out into the street and found the old man’s finger. We called 911 and the dispatcher gave them the location to the nearest hospital which she said would be their best bet for finding the man. They rushed over and were able to find the old man and provide him with his finger. I went back to the scene to wait for police and gave the police the entire account and they tried to find the attacker amongst the Obamacare supports, but he had fled by then." [From Beetle Blogger]
Boy wingnuts really are dumb. If someone went Mike Tyson on my finger I guarantee you that I wouldn't be "shuffling" to the hospital. Nope, I would be doing my best Usain Bolt imitation. And here is the irony: seems the old wingnut is covered by Medicare. So, in essence, the very kind of program that he is protesting against is what paid for his medical treatment in the first place. But don't worry for the old guy. All is well that ends well, because it seems that they were able to find his finger. I sure hope they can reattach it for him. He is going to need that finger to give the Socialist president in the beige house a proper salute.
Posted by field negro
Monday, February 9, 2009
President Obama making his case in Elkhart, Indiana
Making his case in the most dire terms, President Barack Obama said that if Congress does not quickly pass an economic stimulus package, the nation will slip into a crisis so deep that "we may be unable to reverse" it.
"We can't afford to wait. We can't wait to see and hope for the best," Obama said in Elkhart, Ind., a community reeling in job losses during the recession that has defined his young presidency. "We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us in into this mess in the first place."
Obama took the Washington debate Monday to a Midwest setting of everyday Americans, sought to build support for a massive infusion of government spending.
"Doing nothing is not an option," Obama said. "We've had a good debate. Now it's time to act."
President Obama said on Friday it is "inexcusable and irresponsible" for Congress not to pass a stimulus program as quickly as possible to revive the economy.
"We can't afford to wait. We can't wait to see and hope for the best," Obama said in Elkhart, Ind., a community reeling in job losses during the recession that has defined his young presidency. "We can't posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us in into this mess in the first place."
Obama took the Washington debate Monday to a Midwest setting of everyday Americans, sought to build support for a massive infusion of government spending.
"Doing nothing is not an option," Obama said. "We've had a good debate. Now it's time to act."
President Obama said on Friday it is "inexcusable and irresponsible" for Congress not to pass a stimulus program as quickly as possible to revive the economy.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Schieffer carries water for GOP, mouthing myth about stimulus
Summary: On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer adopted the often repeated Republican talking point that some government spending in the recovery package currently being debated in the Senate is not stimulus. In fact, while testifying about the bill, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that CBO and "most economists" believe that "all of the increase in government spending ... provides some stimulative effect."
On the February 8 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer adopted the often repeated Republican talking point that some government spending in the recovery bill currently being debated in the Senate is not stimulus. In fact, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf has explicitly refuted the suggestion that some of the spending provisions in the bill would not have a stimulative effect.
Schieffer said, "Senator [John] McCain makes the point that some of this is not going to stimulate the economy. And basically what he's saying -- and these are my words, not his -- is that some of this is just the pet projects the Democrats have been trying to write into law for a long, long time, and while they may be good things, they will not help get this economy going again." In fact, contrary to the "point" Schieffer said McCain made, in January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf stated: "[I]n our estimation -- and I think the estimation of most economists -- all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work."
Additionally, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker wrote in a February 3 post to his American Prospect blog that "[s]pending is stimulus," and that "[a]ny spending will generate jobs." Baker later added: "Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." From Baker's post:
Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. There is a question of whether the spending will go to areas that will provide benefits, long-term or short-term, to the economy, but there is no question that money that is spent will create jobs and therefore is stimulus.
Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy.
From the February 8 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain makes the point that some of this is not going to stimulate the economy. And basically what he's saying -- and these are my words, not his -- is that some of this is just the pet projects the Democrats have been trying to write into law for a long, long time, and while they may be good things, they will not help get this economy going again. How do you respond to those allegations?
SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): You know, Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and I offered an amendment to take out some of these things that have less stimulative effect, in favor of addressing the housing crisis, which must be addressed, because, unless we have a healthy housing market, and housing, and the fiscal situation is stabilized, we can't have recovery.
But, look, in economic terms -- in economic terms, stimulus is stimulus. If you put more money into the economy to offset this falling demand -- remember what's happening here: The economy is contracting, and consumers don't have the money to put in to offset those losses. Companies don't. The only one that does is the taxpayer of the United States. We are going to have to come forward and put up money to offset this falling demand. If we don't, we could enter a deflationary spiral that would be devastating.
— C.S.
Posted to the web on Sunday, February 08, 2009 at 02:58 PM ET
On the February 8 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer adopted the often repeated Republican talking point that some government spending in the recovery bill currently being debated in the Senate is not stimulus. In fact, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf has explicitly refuted the suggestion that some of the spending provisions in the bill would not have a stimulative effect.
Schieffer said, "Senator [John] McCain makes the point that some of this is not going to stimulate the economy. And basically what he's saying -- and these are my words, not his -- is that some of this is just the pet projects the Democrats have been trying to write into law for a long, long time, and while they may be good things, they will not help get this economy going again." In fact, contrary to the "point" Schieffer said McCain made, in January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf stated: "[I]n our estimation -- and I think the estimation of most economists -- all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work."
Additionally, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker wrote in a February 3 post to his American Prospect blog that "[s]pending is stimulus," and that "[a]ny spending will generate jobs." Baker later added: "Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." From Baker's post:
Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. There is a question of whether the spending will go to areas that will provide benefits, long-term or short-term, to the economy, but there is no question that money that is spent will create jobs and therefore is stimulus.
Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy.
From the February 8 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain makes the point that some of this is not going to stimulate the economy. And basically what he's saying -- and these are my words, not his -- is that some of this is just the pet projects the Democrats have been trying to write into law for a long, long time, and while they may be good things, they will not help get this economy going again. How do you respond to those allegations?
SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): You know, Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and I offered an amendment to take out some of these things that have less stimulative effect, in favor of addressing the housing crisis, which must be addressed, because, unless we have a healthy housing market, and housing, and the fiscal situation is stabilized, we can't have recovery.
But, look, in economic terms -- in economic terms, stimulus is stimulus. If you put more money into the economy to offset this falling demand -- remember what's happening here: The economy is contracting, and consumers don't have the money to put in to offset those losses. Companies don't. The only one that does is the taxpayer of the United States. We are going to have to come forward and put up money to offset this falling demand. If we don't, we could enter a deflationary spiral that would be devastating.
— C.S.
Posted to the web on Sunday, February 08, 2009 at 02:58 PM ET
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Obama and Senate Republicans bicker over stimulus
By ANDREW TAYLOR and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers Andrew Taylor And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans bickered Saturday over his historically huge economic recovery plan after states and schools lost tens of billions of dollars in a late-night bargain to save it.
The $827 billion measure is on track to pass the Senate on Tuesday despite stiff opposition from the GOP and disappointment among Democrats, including the new president who labeled it imperfect. Next up: Difficult negotiations between the House and Senate, which are divided over spending for tax cuts, education and aid for local governments.
"We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address, sounding a note of pragmatism that liberal followers rarely heard on the campaign trail.
Still, the popular president — six in 10 voters approve of his performance so far — scolded Republicans with a pointed reminder that Democrats, not Republicans, were victorious in November.
Hours later, the Senate convened a rare Saturday session to debate a compromise forged between GOP moderates and the White House late Friday, a rare burst of comity aimed at securing passage of the bill with a few Republican votes joining the Democratic majority.
The compromise reached between a handful of GOP moderates, the White House and its Senate allies stripped $108 billion in spending from Obama's plan, including cut-backs in projects that likely would give the economy a quick lift, like $40 billion in aid to state governments for education and other programs.
Yet it retained items that also probably won't help the economy much, such as $650 million to help people without cable receive digital signals through their old-fashioned televisions or $1 billion to fix problems with the 2010 Census.
Among the most difficult cuts for the White House and its liberal allies to accept was the elimination of $40 billion in aid to states, money that economists say is a relatively efficient way to pump up the economy by preventing layoffs, cuts in services or tax increases.
"It reduces a number of highly stimulative items like state fiscal relief ... and largely substitute for it some large tax cuts that are highly ineffective as stimulus," said Bob Greenstein, founder of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "So your net result is a bill that gets significantly less bang for the buck."
Still, the bill retains the core of Obama's plan, designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations by combining hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector, along with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.
Negotiators left in the package $70 billion to address the alternative minimum tax to make sure families wouldn't be socked with unexpected tax increases averaging $2,300 or so. The problem was going to be fixed later in the year anyway, and congressional economists say fixing the AMT problem helps the economy by surprising little.
While publicly supportive of the bill, White House officials and top Democrats said they were disappointed that so much money was cut, including almost $20 billion for construction and repair of schools and university facilities. Those funds would have supported many construction jobs.
The $827 billion package debated in the Senate on Saturday included Obama's signature tax cut of up to $1,000 for working couples. Also included is a tax credit of up to $15,000 for homebuyers and smaller breaks for people buying new cars. Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of extending unemployment insurance through the end of the year and increasing benefits by $25 a week, free or subsidized health care, and increased food stamp payments.
Obama himself acknowledged that the bill was far from perfect but said it would be too dangerous to leave it lifeless on the table.
"In the midst of our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people were hoping that Congress would begin to confront the great challenges we face," Obama said in the address, released before he made his first trip to Camp David, the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains.
"That was, after all, what last November's election was all about," he said.
Obama made an aggressive push for House and Senate lawmakers to work quickly to resolve their differences. The White House plans a major public relations blitz: A prime-time news conference Monday, several trips outside Washington next week and an address to a joint session of Congress later this month.
Lawmakers were already looking ahead to House Senate talks that would test the mettle of GOP moderates — only three have promised to support the bill, including Susan Collins of Maine — against House Democrats unhappy with changes such as curbing increases for early childhood education and subsidies to bring the Internet to rurals areas.
After weeks of losing a public-relations fight with Republicans, Obama's aides considered any forward movement of Obama's legislation a victory toward fixing the economic crisis that has left 3.6 million Americans without jobs.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican's No. 2 in the Senate, criticized Obama as misrepresenting Republicans' concerns and accused the president of using "dangerous words" in describing the emergency.
"This is still a very big spending bill," Kyl said on the Senate floor as an afternoon session got under way. "You can't fix it by simply shaving a little bit off."
The Senate headed toward a key vote on Monday. If, as expected, the bill passes lawmakers will need to resolve the differences between the Senate and House bills before sending a final package to Obama.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans bickered Saturday over his historically huge economic recovery plan after states and schools lost tens of billions of dollars in a late-night bargain to save it.
The $827 billion measure is on track to pass the Senate on Tuesday despite stiff opposition from the GOP and disappointment among Democrats, including the new president who labeled it imperfect. Next up: Difficult negotiations between the House and Senate, which are divided over spending for tax cuts, education and aid for local governments.
"We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address, sounding a note of pragmatism that liberal followers rarely heard on the campaign trail.
Still, the popular president — six in 10 voters approve of his performance so far — scolded Republicans with a pointed reminder that Democrats, not Republicans, were victorious in November.
Hours later, the Senate convened a rare Saturday session to debate a compromise forged between GOP moderates and the White House late Friday, a rare burst of comity aimed at securing passage of the bill with a few Republican votes joining the Democratic majority.
The compromise reached between a handful of GOP moderates, the White House and its Senate allies stripped $108 billion in spending from Obama's plan, including cut-backs in projects that likely would give the economy a quick lift, like $40 billion in aid to state governments for education and other programs.
Yet it retained items that also probably won't help the economy much, such as $650 million to help people without cable receive digital signals through their old-fashioned televisions or $1 billion to fix problems with the 2010 Census.
Among the most difficult cuts for the White House and its liberal allies to accept was the elimination of $40 billion in aid to states, money that economists say is a relatively efficient way to pump up the economy by preventing layoffs, cuts in services or tax increases.
"It reduces a number of highly stimulative items like state fiscal relief ... and largely substitute for it some large tax cuts that are highly ineffective as stimulus," said Bob Greenstein, founder of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "So your net result is a bill that gets significantly less bang for the buck."
Still, the bill retains the core of Obama's plan, designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations by combining hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector, along with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.
Negotiators left in the package $70 billion to address the alternative minimum tax to make sure families wouldn't be socked with unexpected tax increases averaging $2,300 or so. The problem was going to be fixed later in the year anyway, and congressional economists say fixing the AMT problem helps the economy by surprising little.
While publicly supportive of the bill, White House officials and top Democrats said they were disappointed that so much money was cut, including almost $20 billion for construction and repair of schools and university facilities. Those funds would have supported many construction jobs.
The $827 billion package debated in the Senate on Saturday included Obama's signature tax cut of up to $1,000 for working couples. Also included is a tax credit of up to $15,000 for homebuyers and smaller breaks for people buying new cars. Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of extending unemployment insurance through the end of the year and increasing benefits by $25 a week, free or subsidized health care, and increased food stamp payments.
Obama himself acknowledged that the bill was far from perfect but said it would be too dangerous to leave it lifeless on the table.
"In the midst of our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people were hoping that Congress would begin to confront the great challenges we face," Obama said in the address, released before he made his first trip to Camp David, the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains.
"That was, after all, what last November's election was all about," he said.
Obama made an aggressive push for House and Senate lawmakers to work quickly to resolve their differences. The White House plans a major public relations blitz: A prime-time news conference Monday, several trips outside Washington next week and an address to a joint session of Congress later this month.
Lawmakers were already looking ahead to House Senate talks that would test the mettle of GOP moderates — only three have promised to support the bill, including Susan Collins of Maine — against House Democrats unhappy with changes such as curbing increases for early childhood education and subsidies to bring the Internet to rurals areas.
After weeks of losing a public-relations fight with Republicans, Obama's aides considered any forward movement of Obama's legislation a victory toward fixing the economic crisis that has left 3.6 million Americans without jobs.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican's No. 2 in the Senate, criticized Obama as misrepresenting Republicans' concerns and accused the president of using "dangerous words" in describing the emergency.
"This is still a very big spending bill," Kyl said on the Senate floor as an afternoon session got under way. "You can't fix it by simply shaving a little bit off."
The Senate headed toward a key vote on Monday. If, as expected, the bill passes lawmakers will need to resolve the differences between the Senate and House bills before sending a final package to Obama.
Barely Bipartisan But a Senate Stimulus Deal is Done
Sat Feb 7, 12:55 am ET
The U.S. Senate looks to be on track to pass a bill that sounds almost exactly like what President Barack Obama asked for last month. The measure - now heralded as $780 billion, down from $890 billion - will include about 40% in tax cuts and more than 80% of the spending will flood the faltering economy within the next 18 months. But with just three Republican votes, the bill falls well short of the bipartisan goal Obama worked hard to achieve.
The final cost of the bill remained fuzzy late Friday as senators scrambled to figure out how three amendments the Senate has already passed, estimated to add at least another $30 billion more in spending, would affect the total. Ten additional pending amendments could also alter the overall number. Democrats estimate the total in the end could range from $780 billion to $820 billion; Republican leaders said they believe the bill would cost more than $827 billion even before other amendments are added.
Nevertheless, the deal has three G.O.P. votes in the Senate in its support - three more than the President got in the House. They come at a cost. Depending on what the final bill amounts to, the deal could cost more than $35 billion in cuts per Republican vote. And that's after the Dems removed several provisions at the G.O.P. senators' request - from family planning for low-income women to money to restore the National Mall. Senator Susan Collins, the lead Republican negotiator said that the miniscule support from her party proved how hard it will be for Obama to overcome deep political divisions. "It's really unfortunate as I think the American people really want us to work together and really are sick and tired of all the partisanship," she said.
At one time, the Obama administration had hoped to draw as many as 80 votes in the Senate but several spending provisions that would not have kicked in until after 2011 drew fire from both sides of the aisle. Collins and Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, spent most of the week closeted with 18 centrists, including six Republicans, hammering out the deal reached late Friday. In the end only Collins, her fellow senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania signed on. Collins said she will continue to lobby her G.O.P. colleagues.
Since he took office Obama has reached out to the G.O.P., even though the Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers of Congress. The President made an unprecedented trip to the Hill to meet with the Republican conferences, invited select G.O.P. senators to meet him with him in the Oval Office, at times one-on-one, and called numerous senators to convince them to come on board. In recent days, though, as the bill languished before the Senate his tone turned sharper. "The American people did not choose more of the same," Obama said at a White House meeting Friday announcing his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. "They did not send us to Washington to get stuck in partisan posturing, or to turn back to the same tried and failed approaches that were rejected in the last election. They sent us here with a mandate for change, and the expectation that we would act. The bill before Congress isn't perfect, but it is absolutely necessary."
Democrats had hoped to vote on the measure Friday. Indeed, Senator Ted Kennedy, who is undergoing treatment for a brain tumor, was prepared to return to Washington to cast his vote in support. But Republicans said they wanted more time to examine the deal and passage looks unlikely until Sunday, at the earliest. "No action is not what any of my Republican colleagues are advocating, but most of us are deeply skeptical that this will work," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said announcing his opposition to the measure. "And that level of skepticism leads us to believe that this course of action should not be chosen." It remained unclear if Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who is Obama's nominee to run the Commerce Department, would vote. Gregg had said he did not intend to, but if Kennedy is absent he may be forced to step in to help pass his future boss' plan.
Most of the cuts that led to the deal - about $85 billion - came from reduced spending on school construction (a $19 billion proposal was zeroed out), teacher funding and higher education. The negotiators also cut provisions that the Congressional Budget Office said diffused less than 10% of funds into the economy within 18 months - for example, shrinking Head Start and a program to make federal buildings more energy efficient. "The Democrats wanted to see a lot of education funding and the Republicans generally argued that the programs, while worthwhile, should go through the regular appropriations process," Collins said. "Or in the case of the $19 billion for school construction there's a real case on whether that's a federal role or a local and state role." Tax cuts and other finance provisions allowed the negotiators to slash another $25 billion.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the Democratic caucus' briefing on the compromise and senators said he pushed hard for their support. Emanuel, a former House leader still popular with his ex-colleagues, may help win backing for the bill from House Dems upset over the loss of funding for their projects. Obama will also hit the road to sell the stimulus, visiting Elkhart, Indiana and Fort Myers, Florida early next week. Elkhart has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country - at, 15.3%, dramatically up from 4.7% a year ago. Fort Myers has an unemployment rate of 10%.
Democratic leaders hope that the only thing Americans will remember of this excruciating process is the passage of a historic bill that could go a long way to fixing the economy. With his own twist to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said: "The world will little note nor long remember how many votes we had to pass the measure. The world and Congress and the nation want to know if this will work. If it passes with 61 votes or 81 votes, it's just a footnote in history."
View this article on Time.com
The U.S. Senate looks to be on track to pass a bill that sounds almost exactly like what President Barack Obama asked for last month. The measure - now heralded as $780 billion, down from $890 billion - will include about 40% in tax cuts and more than 80% of the spending will flood the faltering economy within the next 18 months. But with just three Republican votes, the bill falls well short of the bipartisan goal Obama worked hard to achieve.
The final cost of the bill remained fuzzy late Friday as senators scrambled to figure out how three amendments the Senate has already passed, estimated to add at least another $30 billion more in spending, would affect the total. Ten additional pending amendments could also alter the overall number. Democrats estimate the total in the end could range from $780 billion to $820 billion; Republican leaders said they believe the bill would cost more than $827 billion even before other amendments are added.
Nevertheless, the deal has three G.O.P. votes in the Senate in its support - three more than the President got in the House. They come at a cost. Depending on what the final bill amounts to, the deal could cost more than $35 billion in cuts per Republican vote. And that's after the Dems removed several provisions at the G.O.P. senators' request - from family planning for low-income women to money to restore the National Mall. Senator Susan Collins, the lead Republican negotiator said that the miniscule support from her party proved how hard it will be for Obama to overcome deep political divisions. "It's really unfortunate as I think the American people really want us to work together and really are sick and tired of all the partisanship," she said.
At one time, the Obama administration had hoped to draw as many as 80 votes in the Senate but several spending provisions that would not have kicked in until after 2011 drew fire from both sides of the aisle. Collins and Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, spent most of the week closeted with 18 centrists, including six Republicans, hammering out the deal reached late Friday. In the end only Collins, her fellow senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania signed on. Collins said she will continue to lobby her G.O.P. colleagues.
Since he took office Obama has reached out to the G.O.P., even though the Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers of Congress. The President made an unprecedented trip to the Hill to meet with the Republican conferences, invited select G.O.P. senators to meet him with him in the Oval Office, at times one-on-one, and called numerous senators to convince them to come on board. In recent days, though, as the bill languished before the Senate his tone turned sharper. "The American people did not choose more of the same," Obama said at a White House meeting Friday announcing his Economic Recovery Advisory Board. "They did not send us to Washington to get stuck in partisan posturing, or to turn back to the same tried and failed approaches that were rejected in the last election. They sent us here with a mandate for change, and the expectation that we would act. The bill before Congress isn't perfect, but it is absolutely necessary."
Democrats had hoped to vote on the measure Friday. Indeed, Senator Ted Kennedy, who is undergoing treatment for a brain tumor, was prepared to return to Washington to cast his vote in support. But Republicans said they wanted more time to examine the deal and passage looks unlikely until Sunday, at the earliest. "No action is not what any of my Republican colleagues are advocating, but most of us are deeply skeptical that this will work," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said announcing his opposition to the measure. "And that level of skepticism leads us to believe that this course of action should not be chosen." It remained unclear if Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who is Obama's nominee to run the Commerce Department, would vote. Gregg had said he did not intend to, but if Kennedy is absent he may be forced to step in to help pass his future boss' plan.
Most of the cuts that led to the deal - about $85 billion - came from reduced spending on school construction (a $19 billion proposal was zeroed out), teacher funding and higher education. The negotiators also cut provisions that the Congressional Budget Office said diffused less than 10% of funds into the economy within 18 months - for example, shrinking Head Start and a program to make federal buildings more energy efficient. "The Democrats wanted to see a lot of education funding and the Republicans generally argued that the programs, while worthwhile, should go through the regular appropriations process," Collins said. "Or in the case of the $19 billion for school construction there's a real case on whether that's a federal role or a local and state role." Tax cuts and other finance provisions allowed the negotiators to slash another $25 billion.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the Democratic caucus' briefing on the compromise and senators said he pushed hard for their support. Emanuel, a former House leader still popular with his ex-colleagues, may help win backing for the bill from House Dems upset over the loss of funding for their projects. Obama will also hit the road to sell the stimulus, visiting Elkhart, Indiana and Fort Myers, Florida early next week. Elkhart has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country - at, 15.3%, dramatically up from 4.7% a year ago. Fort Myers has an unemployment rate of 10%.
Democratic leaders hope that the only thing Americans will remember of this excruciating process is the passage of a historic bill that could go a long way to fixing the economy. With his own twist to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said: "The world will little note nor long remember how many votes we had to pass the measure. The world and Congress and the nation want to know if this will work. If it passes with 61 votes or 81 votes, it's just a footnote in history."
View this article on Time.com
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama on the offensive
Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.
Obama Warns of Need for Stimulus Bill Right Away
The Associated PressThursday, February 5, 2009; 12:28 PM
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now."
Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.
He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."
Republicans and some Democrats have expressed reservations about the growing price tag of the package _ more than $900 billion. Senate Democratic leaders hope to have a bill completed by Friday.
Earlier today, Obama warned that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill.
Senate moderates gathered behind closed doors in an effort to find at least $50 billion in spending reductions that might make the $900 billion-plus package more palatable to centrists. Democratic leaders hoped to pass the legislation by Friday at the latest.
Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.
In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece.
He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient. His latest plea came on the same day the economy dealt with another dose of bad news: A big jump in jobless claims and another round of weak retail sales.
Initial jobless claims rose to 626,000, a 26-year high, the Labor Department said. And the number of claims by people continuing to apply for unemployment benefits reached a new record of nearly 4.8 million.
The housing tax break was the most notable attempt to date to add help for the crippled industry and gave Republicans a victory as they work to remake the legislation more to their liking.
"It is time to fix housing first," Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., said Wednesday night as the Senate agreed without controversy to add the new tax break to the stimulus measure, at an estimated cost of nearly $19 billion.
Three swing-vote senators met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday to discuss possible cutbacks, but they declined to discuss details of their talks. Obama has made the legislation a cornerstone of his recovery plan.
For their part, Senate Republicans signaled they would persist in their efforts to reduce spending in the measure, to add tax cuts and reduce the cost of mortgages for millions of homeowners.
Officials figures were unavailable, but it appeared that the measure carried a price tag of more than $920 billion, making it bigger than the financial industry bailout that passed last year and as large as any measure in memory.
Despite bipartisan concerns about the cost, Republicans failed in a series of attempts on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size.
The most sweeping proposal, advanced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., would have eliminated all the spending and replaced it with a series of tax cuts. It was defeated 61-36.
Democrats also upheld a so-called Buy American provision that requires projects financed by the measure to be built with domestically produced iron and steel.
But with Obama voicing concern about the provision, the requirement was changed to specify that U.S. international trade agreements not to be violated.
Additionally, Democrats turned back an attempt to strip out a provision that Obama has said was essential. It would provide a tax cut of up to $1,000 for working couples, including those who do not make enough to pay income taxes.
Isakson said the new tax break for homebuyers was intended to help revive the housing industry, which has virtually collapsed in the wake of a credit crisis that began last fall.
The proposal would allow a tax credit of 10 percent of the value of new or existing residences, up to a $15,000 limit. Current law provides for a $7,500 tax break but only for first-time homebuyers.
The provision was the second tax cut approved in as many days targeted to individual industries. On Tuesday, the Senate voted to give a break to consumers who buy new cars.
The House approved its own version of the bill last week.
© 2009 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now."
Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.
He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."
Republicans and some Democrats have expressed reservations about the growing price tag of the package _ more than $900 billion. Senate Democratic leaders hope to have a bill completed by Friday.
Earlier today, Obama warned that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill.
Senate moderates gathered behind closed doors in an effort to find at least $50 billion in spending reductions that might make the $900 billion-plus package more palatable to centrists. Democratic leaders hoped to pass the legislation by Friday at the latest.
Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.
In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece.
He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient. His latest plea came on the same day the economy dealt with another dose of bad news: A big jump in jobless claims and another round of weak retail sales.
Initial jobless claims rose to 626,000, a 26-year high, the Labor Department said. And the number of claims by people continuing to apply for unemployment benefits reached a new record of nearly 4.8 million.
The housing tax break was the most notable attempt to date to add help for the crippled industry and gave Republicans a victory as they work to remake the legislation more to their liking.
"It is time to fix housing first," Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., said Wednesday night as the Senate agreed without controversy to add the new tax break to the stimulus measure, at an estimated cost of nearly $19 billion.
Three swing-vote senators met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday to discuss possible cutbacks, but they declined to discuss details of their talks. Obama has made the legislation a cornerstone of his recovery plan.
For their part, Senate Republicans signaled they would persist in their efforts to reduce spending in the measure, to add tax cuts and reduce the cost of mortgages for millions of homeowners.
Officials figures were unavailable, but it appeared that the measure carried a price tag of more than $920 billion, making it bigger than the financial industry bailout that passed last year and as large as any measure in memory.
Despite bipartisan concerns about the cost, Republicans failed in a series of attempts on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size.
The most sweeping proposal, advanced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., would have eliminated all the spending and replaced it with a series of tax cuts. It was defeated 61-36.
Democrats also upheld a so-called Buy American provision that requires projects financed by the measure to be built with domestically produced iron and steel.
But with Obama voicing concern about the provision, the requirement was changed to specify that U.S. international trade agreements not to be violated.
Additionally, Democrats turned back an attempt to strip out a provision that Obama has said was essential. It would provide a tax cut of up to $1,000 for working couples, including those who do not make enough to pay income taxes.
Isakson said the new tax break for homebuyers was intended to help revive the housing industry, which has virtually collapsed in the wake of a credit crisis that began last fall.
The proposal would allow a tax credit of 10 percent of the value of new or existing residences, up to a $15,000 limit. Current law provides for a $7,500 tax break but only for first-time homebuyers.
The provision was the second tax cut approved in as many days targeted to individual industries. On Tuesday, the Senate voted to give a break to consumers who buy new cars.
The House approved its own version of the bill last week.
© 2009 The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Jesse Lee Peterson: Obama elected by black racists and guilty white people
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmXBB4tPusY
Is Obama's post-partisan politics dead on arrival?
WASHINGTON (AFP) — After Barack Obama's first big win, the White House finds itself in the odd position of denying the new president has absorbed a power-sapping defeat.
In the first test of Obama's vow to drain the bile from Washington politics and govern without the bitterness of the last two decades, the president appealed to Republicans to get behind his massive economic stimulus package.
The Democratic president plied Republican leaders with cocktails, sent out invites to a White House Super Bowl party and even made a rare presidential foray to Congress to woo the other side.
But when the 819-billion-dollar package came up in the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted yes.
This week, the Senate gets its chance, and undaunted, Obama is again on the hunt for Republican votes.
"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk," he told Americans in his weekly radio and video address on Saturday.
"With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington. It's time to move in a new direction."
But does Obama have any grounds to hope that Republican senators will look more kindly on the bill than their House counterparts, and could a failed bipartisan approach drain presidential prestige and political capital?
Professor Steven Smith, a congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said that even without winning Republican support, Obama may please American voters tired with the partisan games in Washington.
"He probably wins credit with the public for his strategy of reaching out to the Republicans -- the fact that they didn't respond with some votes did not detract from that effort," Smith said.
Republicans in the House had sound political reasons to obey their leadership and vote against the stimulus package.
They complain that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not get Obama's memo about bipartisanship and claim they were shut out of framing a bill they say features unnecessary spending and insufficient tax cuts.
Also, if Obama's stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it -- by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
Senators tend to be less radical than House members, as their six-year terms can shield them from immediate voter backlash, so Obama can expect a more favorable reception for his plan.
He may also win favor from Republicans from states which he won in last November's elections. Those lawmakers, with one eye of voters back home, may be loath to go against the popular new president.
One of those Senators, Judd Gregg from New Hampshire said Friday he is in fact in the running to become Obama's commerce secretary -- a tempting offer that would spare him a tough reelection fight in 2010.
But beyond a handful of wavering senators, there now seems little hope that the Obama plan will capture the 80 or so votes in the 100-seat Senate that some supporters had once targeted.
The president, while welcoming the House passage of the stimulus plan, said he was willing to "improve" the package -- code for amendments that could draw some Republicans when the final merged bill returns to the House.
But Smith said, Obama's hopes for an new era of bipartisan government may be thwarted by simple political realities in Washington.
"The plain fact is that there are very few Republicans that are located in the political space to the left of any Democrats," he said.
"If you look at the US Senate, there are very few Democrats who are to the right of any Republicans."
Obama will likely continue to try to forge bipartisan compromises, partly to lessen his dependence on radical members of his own Democratic Party in the House -- and may peel away Republican voter on some key agenda items.
But while his attitude may improve the atmosphere in Washington, any hopes of large numbers of Republicans deserting their party banner seem unlikely to be fulfilled.
In the first test of Obama's vow to drain the bile from Washington politics and govern without the bitterness of the last two decades, the president appealed to Republicans to get behind his massive economic stimulus package.
The Democratic president plied Republican leaders with cocktails, sent out invites to a White House Super Bowl party and even made a rare presidential foray to Congress to woo the other side.
But when the 819-billion-dollar package came up in the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted yes.
This week, the Senate gets its chance, and undaunted, Obama is again on the hunt for Republican votes.
"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk," he told Americans in his weekly radio and video address on Saturday.
"With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington. It's time to move in a new direction."
But does Obama have any grounds to hope that Republican senators will look more kindly on the bill than their House counterparts, and could a failed bipartisan approach drain presidential prestige and political capital?
Professor Steven Smith, a congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said that even without winning Republican support, Obama may please American voters tired with the partisan games in Washington.
"He probably wins credit with the public for his strategy of reaching out to the Republicans -- the fact that they didn't respond with some votes did not detract from that effort," Smith said.
Republicans in the House had sound political reasons to obey their leadership and vote against the stimulus package.
They complain that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not get Obama's memo about bipartisanship and claim they were shut out of framing a bill they say features unnecessary spending and insufficient tax cuts.
Also, if Obama's stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it -- by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
Senators tend to be less radical than House members, as their six-year terms can shield them from immediate voter backlash, so Obama can expect a more favorable reception for his plan.
He may also win favor from Republicans from states which he won in last November's elections. Those lawmakers, with one eye of voters back home, may be loath to go against the popular new president.
One of those Senators, Judd Gregg from New Hampshire said Friday he is in fact in the running to become Obama's commerce secretary -- a tempting offer that would spare him a tough reelection fight in 2010.
But beyond a handful of wavering senators, there now seems little hope that the Obama plan will capture the 80 or so votes in the 100-seat Senate that some supporters had once targeted.
The president, while welcoming the House passage of the stimulus plan, said he was willing to "improve" the package -- code for amendments that could draw some Republicans when the final merged bill returns to the House.
But Smith said, Obama's hopes for an new era of bipartisan government may be thwarted by simple political realities in Washington.
"The plain fact is that there are very few Republicans that are located in the political space to the left of any Democrats," he said.
"If you look at the US Senate, there are very few Democrats who are to the right of any Republicans."
Obama will likely continue to try to forge bipartisan compromises, partly to lessen his dependence on radical members of his own Democratic Party in the House -- and may peel away Republican voter on some key agenda items.
But while his attitude may improve the atmosphere in Washington, any hopes of large numbers of Republicans deserting their party banner seem unlikely to be fulfilled.
What's in a package?
What's in a package? By: Andie Coller February 4, 2009 04:30 AM EST
Republicans in Congress scored a free Super Bowl ad Sunday: a Vizio commercial for HD-TVs that referred to President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan as a “stimulus package.” By using that particular phrase, the ad told 95.4 million people what the Republicans already knew: They’ve won the war of words over the economic plan now being debated in the Senate — a victory that has significantly undercut the president’s chances of achieving bipartisan support for the bill he envisioned. “If the terms are defined on your terrain, you have a better chance of winning, and that’s what the Republicans have done,” said Republican consultant John Feehery. “Everyone thinks of it as a ‘stimulus package.’ That’s how everyone has talked about it — that was the expectation.” The problem with the word “stimulus” is that the bill, as the president conceived it, was never meant to be purely a fiscal jolt, but rather a far broader economic plan that included everything from investments in alternative energy to supports for those likely to be hit hardest by the economic downturn. Team Obama certainly recognized the import of the language to describe the legislation. They used focus groups to determine which words to employ and carefully crafted the bill’s title: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What they didn’t count on was that pretty much no one would call it that. Without a snappy nickname (even the non sequitur TARP, with its unfortunate connotations of shrouds and opacity, has come into more common usage) or an obvious headline phrase (“recovery” can’t stand on its own without “package,” “bill” or “act,” and therefore takes up too much real estate on the page), the media and just about everyone else have continued to cling to the word “stimulus.” “‘Stimulus’ was the term everyone was using in the beginning ... and once the media starts using a term, it is very hard to change,” explained Democratic pollster and strategist Celinda Lake. Even fellow Democrats have had a hard time getting with the program. Earlier this week, Politico reported that an Appropriations Committee staffer lectured House Dems about their loose language with respect to the bill — and then held up a chart with the word “stimulus” to describe the legislation. “You have to make sure that everyone on your side has message discipline in order to get something like this to stick,” says Drew Westen, a political consultant and author of “The Political Brain.” “You really have to have widespread agreement from everyone on your side that that’s what you’re going to call it, and we are not hearing all Democrats use the same phrase.” The battle is more than a rhetorical one, as the differences in language reflect real differences in philosophy: One approach treats the economy as if it is in coronary arrest and simply needs to be shocked back into rhythm. The other assumes that the economy is fundamentally unwell in some respects and that even once it has been “stimulated,” it will require a double bypass and years of rehabilitation in order to recover and thrive.
“‘Stimulus’ implies immediacy, implies fast acting, implies a program that is meant to prop up and inspire the private sector, which really does fit in with what the Republicans are trying to do,” says Feehery. Agrees Lake: “‘Stimulus’ sets it up for people to make more judgments about it being short term and more tax-sensitive.” The prevalence of the word — coupled with the Obama administration’s desire to make the legislation a bipartisan effort — has put the Democrats on defense, forced to explain how one provision or another fits under the “stimulus” umbrella. “Stimulus equals short-term job creation, so it’s easy to hold up any longer-term investment and shoot it down if it’s not obvious how it creates jobs in the short term. And that allows the Republicans to shoot down a lot of perhaps worthwhile investments,” says Doug Hattaway, president of Hattaway Communications. Indeed, during the debates in the House, the word “stimulus” became a kind of litmus test among Republicans, who held various provisions up for scrutiny against that standard and dismissed as “bloat” or “pork” anything that didn’t conform. During the debate, Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) objected to $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts because “that is not economic stimulus.” Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) objected to $726 million for after-school snack programs for schoolchildren. “I’m sure our school kids need more snacks at taxpayer expense, but does anyone really think that will help the economy? Probably not.” If the bill is a “stimulus package,” Poe and his colleagues are saying, the question is whether school snacks will stimulate the economy. And in that formulation, it becomes irrelevant that the snacks may be necessary in the context of an economic downturn that is likely to increase hunger. Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois is among many Republicans who have begun to refer to the bill as “the so-called economic stimulus package,” by way of suggesting that the legislation is not what it was intended to be. It is working: Everyone from the Washington Post’s editorial page writers to Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota have begun to hold the bill to the standard that has been used for past stimulus packages: Provisions, they say, should be “targeted, timely and temporary.” “It does suggest that there’s a metric for judging every part of this proposal, which is, Does it put money back into the economy right now?” says Westen. “And that’s the wrong metric.” At least, it is if you agree with the Obama administration, which pollster Lake says most Americans do. She suggests that while the GOP might have won this battle, it may ultimately run afoul of public opinion. “Everything being short-term is not that popular with the public,” says Lake. “They are interested in job creation and getting our economy back on sound footing, and they think of those as long-term goals.” If what the Republicans are trying to do with the word “stimulus” is emphasize the short term, she says, “I hope they stay on that.”
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image
By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Hillel Italie, Ap National Writer Wed Feb 4, 6:56 pm ET
NEW YORK – On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.
The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.
"AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."
"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."
Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.
As it caught on, supporters began downloading the image and distributing it at campaign events, while blogs and other Internet sites picked it up. Fairey has said that he did not receive any of the money raised.
A former Obama campaign official said they were well aware of the image based on the picture taken by Garcia, a temporary hire no longer with the AP, but never licensed it or used it officially. The Obama official asked not to be identified because no one was authorized anymore to speak on behalf of the campaign.
The image's fame did not end with the election.
It will be included this month at a Fairey exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston and a mixed-media stenciled collage version has been added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.
"The continued use of the poster, regardless of whether it is for galleries or other distribution, is part of the discussion AP is having with Mr. Fairey's representative," Colford said.
A New York Times book on the election, just published by Penguin Group (USA), includes the image. A Vermont-based publisher, Chelsea Green, also used it — credited solely to Fairey_ as the cover for Robert Kuttner's "Obama's Challenge," an economic manifesto released in September. Chelsea Green president Margo Baldwin said that Fairey did not ask for money, only that the publisher make a donation to the National Endowment for the Arts.
"It's a wonderful piece of art, but I wish he had been more careful about the licensing of it," said Baldwin, who added that Chelsea Green gave $2,500 to the NEA.
Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed specially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist.
Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate.
"Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."
At first, Obama's team just encouraged him to make an image, Fairey has said. But soon after he created it, a worker involved in the campaign asked if Fairey could make an image from a photo to which the campaign had rights.
"I donated an image to them, which they used. It was the one that said "Change" underneath it. And then later on I did another one that said "Vote" underneath it, that had Obama smiling," he said in a December 2008 interview with an underground photography Web site.
___
Associated Press writer Philip Elliott in Washington contributed to this report.
NEW YORK – On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: A pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.
Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.
The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Manny Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement.
"AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."
"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's attorney, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."
Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.
A longtime rebel with a history of breaking rules, Fairey has said he found the photograph using Google Images. He released the image on his Web site shortly after he created it, in early 2008, and made thousands of posters for the street.
As it caught on, supporters began downloading the image and distributing it at campaign events, while blogs and other Internet sites picked it up. Fairey has said that he did not receive any of the money raised.
A former Obama campaign official said they were well aware of the image based on the picture taken by Garcia, a temporary hire no longer with the AP, but never licensed it or used it officially. The Obama official asked not to be identified because no one was authorized anymore to speak on behalf of the campaign.
The image's fame did not end with the election.
It will be included this month at a Fairey exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston and a mixed-media stenciled collage version has been added to the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.
"The continued use of the poster, regardless of whether it is for galleries or other distribution, is part of the discussion AP is having with Mr. Fairey's representative," Colford said.
A New York Times book on the election, just published by Penguin Group (USA), includes the image. A Vermont-based publisher, Chelsea Green, also used it — credited solely to Fairey_ as the cover for Robert Kuttner's "Obama's Challenge," an economic manifesto released in September. Chelsea Green president Margo Baldwin said that Fairey did not ask for money, only that the publisher make a donation to the National Endowment for the Arts.
"It's a wonderful piece of art, but I wish he had been more careful about the licensing of it," said Baldwin, who added that Chelsea Green gave $2,500 to the NEA.
Fairey also used the AP photograph for an image designed specially for the Obama inaugural committee, which charged anywhere from $100 for a poster to $500 for a poster signed by the artist.
Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate.
"Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."
At first, Obama's team just encouraged him to make an image, Fairey has said. But soon after he created it, a worker involved in the campaign asked if Fairey could make an image from a photo to which the campaign had rights.
"I donated an image to them, which they used. It was the one that said "Change" underneath it. And then later on I did another one that said "Vote" underneath it, that had Obama smiling," he said in a December 2008 interview with an underground photography Web site.
___
Associated Press writer Philip Elliott in Washington contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)