from href=”http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/scott-special-olympics/”>ThinkProgress:
Today, Rick Scott Will Lay Out Cuts For Developmentally Disabled And Then Attend A Special Olympics Photo-Op
/> Today, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) will announce deep cuts to programs that help the developmentally disabled in his state. Scott will invoke his “emergency powers” to impose a 15 percent cut to the rates charged by group home workers and case workers that help the 30,000 Floridians with cerebral palsy, autism, and Down Syndrome.Those who provide services to the developmentally disabled are already decrying the cuts. “This would be a catastrophe,” one advocate told the Miami Herald. “The system can’t take this. Eventually, we will have to cut jobs and reduce services.”
Scott says the cuts are necessary to address a $ 170 million deficit in the Agency for Persons with Disabilities — but at the same time, he is also proposing $ 1.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and $ 1.4 billion more in property tax cuts.
Even more galling, today — the same day his cuts are announced — Scott is scheduled to appear at a Special Olympics Torch Run with his wife and other state officials. The run is designed to promote the upcoming Special Olympics in Florida, and raise money for developmentally disabled athletes along the way:
Some people…….should just burn in hell.
Part of the debate in Washington surrounding American involvement in Libya is whether the U.S. is actually helping terrorists take down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Earlier this week, U.S. NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there are potentially “flickers” of al Qaeda and Hezbollah elements within the Libyan rebel movement. However, one senior counterterrorism official has said that “no one should think the opposition is being led by al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
Yesterday during a hearing in front of the same committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen echoed those sentiments. “We just haven’t seen anything other than what I would call aspirational from al Qaeda leadership,” he said. But outside of whether anti-American terrorists have joined the Libyan resistance, Defense Secretary Robert Gates later added that even if there are al Qaeda elements, there is “no evidence” the Libyan people would support their ideology. Mullen agreed:
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do either one of you believe the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda led Libya?
GATES: Absolutely no evidence to support that.
MULLEN: No, I don’t. […]
GATES: Look, the real power in Libya is in the hands of the tribes and even Qaddafi realizes that. And I just don’t understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda.
Various reports back up Adm. Stavridis’s statement this week but there is so far no evidence to suggest that al Qaeda or any other terror group is leading the Libyan resistance. U.S. officials reportedly “haven’t seen much, if any” extremist activity in Libya. The rebels themselves say they aren’t affiliated with terrorists, and reporting from the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi this week, The New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson concluded of the rebels, “It seems unlikely…that they represent Al Qaeda.”
Conservatives here at home — such as Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — have been attacking President Obama for allegedly committing the U.S. military to fight on behalf of al Qaeda in Libya. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence to support these claims, Gates addressed this argument and noted that it’s important to be mindful that Qaddafi is using it to justify his attacks on the rebels and civilians:
GATES: One of the things that Qaddafi is doing though is in his information operations, he is trying to gin up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda and so one of the things that’s making it a little difficult is he broadcasts all the time that al Qaeda is involved and al Qaeda is doing this and that. So we just have to be aware that he is using this in his own propaganda.
Watch it:
Part of the debate in Washington surrounding American involvement in Libya is whether the U.S. is actually helping terrorists take down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Earlier this week, U.S. NATO commander Adm. James Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there are potentially “flickers” of al Qaeda and Hezbollah elements within the Libyan rebel movement. However, one senior counterterrorism official has said that “no one should think the opposition is being led by al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.”
Yesterday during a hearing in front of the same committee, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen echoed those sentiments. “We just haven’t seen anything other than what I would call aspirational from al Qaeda leadership,” he said. But outside of whether anti-American terrorists have joined the Libyan resistance, Defense Secretary Robert Gates later added that even if there are al Qaeda elements, there is “no evidence” the Libyan people would support their ideology. Mullen agreed:
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do either one of you believe the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda led Libya?
GATES: Absolutely no evidence to support that.
MULLEN: No, I don’t. […]
GATES: Look, the real power in Libya is in the hands of the tribes and even Qaddafi realizes that. And I just don’t understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda.
Various reports back up Adm. Stavridis’s statement this week but there is so far no evidence to suggest that al Qaeda or any other terror group is leading the Libyan resistance. U.S. officials reportedly “haven’t seen much, if any” extremist activity in Libya. The rebels themselves say they aren’t affiliated with terrorists, and reporting from the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi this week, The New Yorker’s Jon Lee Anderson concluded of the rebels, “It seems unlikely…that they represent Al Qaeda.”
Conservatives here at home — such as Newt Gingrich and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — have been attacking President Obama for allegedly committing the U.S. military to fight on behalf of al Qaeda in Libya. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence to support these claims, Gates addressed this argument and noted that it’s important to be mindful that Qaddafi is using it to justify his attacks on the rebels and civilians:
GATES: One of the things that Qaddafi is doing though is in his information operations, he is trying to gin up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda and so one of the things that’s making it a little difficult is he broadcasts all the time that al Qaeda is involved and al Qaeda is doing this and that. So we just have to be aware that he is using this in his own propaganda.
Watch it:
from href=”http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/scott-special-olympics/”>ThinkProgress:
Today, Rick Scott Will Lay Out Cuts For Developmentally Disabled And Then Attend A Special Olympics Photo-Op
/> Today, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) will announce deep cuts to programs that help the developmentally disabled in his state. Scott will invoke his “emergency powers” to impose a 15 percent cut to the rates charged by group home workers and case workers that help the 30,000 Floridians with cerebral palsy, autism, and Down Syndrome.Those who provide services to the developmentally disabled are already decrying the cuts. “This would be a catastrophe,” one advocate told the Miami Herald. “The system can’t take this. Eventually, we will have to cut jobs and reduce services.”
Scott says the cuts are necessary to address a $ 170 million deficit in the Agency for Persons with Disabilities — but at the same time, he is also proposing $ 1.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and $ 1.4 billion more in property tax cuts.
Even more galling, today — the same day his cuts are announced — Scott is scheduled to appear at a Special Olympics Torch Run with his wife and other state officials. The run is designed to promote the upcoming Special Olympics in Florida, and raise money for developmentally disabled athletes along the way:
Some people…….should just burn in hell.
The first GOP presidential candidate debate of the 2012 election season has been postponed, according to msnbc.com.
Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty – despite the slew of GOP prospects for 2012 (most of whom have at one point said they are exploring the idea of setting up an exploratory committee to explore a presidential run), only Pawlenty has officially started such a committee, which he announced March 21.
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation announced Wednesday that it was pushing the debate (to be moderated by Politico and NBC) from May 2 to Sept. 14
Actually, there is one Republican who has officially filed his candidacy for 2012 — and that’s Fred Karger, a little-known political activist who made his announcement March 22 and submitted his papers to the Federal Election Commission the next day. Karger, who is openly gay and has been excluded from numerous Republican events, formed his exploratory committee in July 2010 and has already done a bit of campaigning around the country — but the odds that he would be invited to a highly publicized debate are still slim.
Karger announcing his candidacy on CBS:
Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed
On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Rory Cooper to discus a possible deal in the House to avoid a government shutdown. Then Pejman Yousefzadeh talks about what a shutdown could mean politically.
We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.
Related Links:
Budget Negotiators Reach Tentative Deal To Avert Government Shutdown
Heritage: Freshman Lawmakers Make the Case for Government Spending Cuts
Understanding the numbers in budget talks
Lots of Talk, But Shutdown Still Looming
Howard Dean: Democrats Should Be ‘Quietly Rooting’ for Shutdown
Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Rory on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed
On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Rory Cooper to discus a possible deal in the House to avoid a government shutdown. Then Pejman Yousefzadeh talks about what a shutdown could mean politically.
We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.
Related Links:
Budget Negotiators Reach Tentative Deal To Avert Government Shutdown
Heritage: Freshman Lawmakers Make the Case for Government Spending Cuts
Understanding the numbers in budget talks
Lots of Talk, But Shutdown Still Looming
Howard Dean: Democrats Should Be ‘Quietly Rooting’ for Shutdown
Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Rory on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Creeping Sharia in action. Islamic law forbids the public expression or propagation of faiths other than Islam. But hey, let’s try it in the West anyway, and no, really, this time it’ll be different.
An update on this story. “Malaysian Christians say no to discriminatory government slogans on Bible,” from AsiaNews, March 31:
Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews / Agencies) – The Christian Federation of Malaysia has rejected the Government’s proposal to release 35 thousand Bibles with “For Christianity” printed on the cover. The books, written in Malay, have been under lock and key since 2009 in the port where they arrived. The government had earlier decided to release them, but wanted to stamp a serial number and the slogan “Only Christians” on the cover. The controversy stems from a government decision to ban the use of the word “Allah” to refer to God by non-Muslims. The judiciary has decided against the government on this point, but a sate for the appeal hearing has yet to be fixed.
The Malaysian Christians argue that there should be no “restrictions, prohibitions and proscriptions” in the use of the sacred books. The government wants to impose an inscription on the Bible, printed in Indonesia, to reduce the risk of Muslims converting.
Their paranoia makes them look weak.
The Bible Society of Malaysia, which imports https://southcapitolstreet.com/files/tag/there/and_distributes_bibles__took_charge_of_a_shipment_of_five_thousand_bibles___8220.css;defaced” by the government writing on March 28. The general secretary of the company, Simon Wong, said that they “can not be sold to Christian buyers” in their current state. “Instead they will be respectfully kept as museum pieces, a witness of the Christian Churches in Malaysia.” The president of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, Bishop Ng Moon Hing, said that “there is a systematic and progressive reduction of public space to practice, profess and express our faith. The freedom to wear and display crosses and other religious symbols, to use religious terms and to build places of worship has been progressively restricted. ”
I always think revisiting past predictions is good practice. Two days ago, Wonkbook led with me saying, “if I were a betting man…my money would be” on a shutdown. Today’s top story? “Democratic and Republican leaders are nearing a budget deal.” Shows what I know. The deal, at least as it’s being reported, has congressional leaders looking for $ 23 billion in cuts above the $ 10 billon included in the first two stopgaps. For those keeping track at home, that’ll leave us with $ 33 billion in cuts — barely half as much as House Republicans have called for, but actually slightly more than the House Republican leadership originally proposed.
That brings up the question of the riders — the policy-oriented amendments defunding Planned Parenthood and handicapping the EPA and so on. The way to think of an eventual agreement, a Republican aide told me, was to assume that the more cuts there were, the fewer riders there would need to be, and vice-versa. And you’re seeing some of that in this agreement. Paul Kane says that, “on Wednesday, the vice president indicated that such an agreement was at least a possibility, although he did not give details or say which riders Democrats might be willing to accept.” Remember that Sen. Chuck Schumer has ruled out riders on Planned Parenthood or the Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Pelosi has ruled out riders trying to repeal or otherwise undermine the health-care law. But Boehner’s going to need to bring something significant back to his members lest they accuse him of folding.
Which leads to the remaining question: where do Boehner’s votes come from? A deal, after all, does not mean a law, and Boehner has lost important votes before. Conventional wisdom was that Republicans wouldn’t support a compromise on these terms, and reports have suggested Boehner will not back a plan that splits his members in half. But there’s no major third party in the House right now, so how is Boehner expecting to get a majority?
Housekeeping: You’ll notice a slight change to Wonkbook today: the “Top Stories” has been replaced by an “Unnamed list” of five stories. Why five stories? Because people love lists of five. And lists in general. And Wonkbook wants to be loved. Also, marketable. But I couldn’t think of a name for the feature. “Top Five” is banal, and “The Wonkbook Five” sounds like they’re defendants in a really boring murder case. So I turn to you. If you’ve got any ideas for a name, e-mail me or leave a comment. Winner will credit in Wonkbook, of course, and the thanks of a grateful nation.
Unnamed list feature
1) Democratic and Republican leaders are nearing a budget deal, reports Paul Kane: “After weeks of arguing, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill began negotiations Wednesday on a possible budget agreement that would slash federal spending by as much as $ 33 billion and avert a government shutdown. ‘We’re all working off the same number now,’ Vice President Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democratic leaders at the Capitol on Wednesday evening. ‘Obviously, there’s a difference in the composition of that number — what’s included, what’s not included. It’s going to be a thorough negotiation.’ If approved, the deal would be the largest single-year budget cut in U.S. history… The two sides have already agreed on $ 10 billion in cuts; now, the House and Senate appropriations committees are searching for an additional $ 23 billion to extract from the budget.”
2) Obama has unveiled his new energy plan, reports Steven Mufson: “President Obama on Wednesday called for a one-third cut in oil imports by 2025, part of a plan he says will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum. With rising gasoline prices at home and political turmoil throughout the Middle East, Obama sought in a speech at Georgetown University to rally Americans — and bickering lawmakers — behind a program that draws equally from energy savings and increases in energy production. ‘We’ve been down this road before,’ Obama said, acknowledging that past presidents have made similar calls for greater energy independence. But, he added, ‘we can’t rush to action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button when prices are low again.’”
Note: Head down to Wonkbook’s energy section for a range of reactions to the proposal.
3) Nancy Pelosi has ruled out including anti-health care riders in a budget deal, reports Felicia Sonmez: “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that any longer-term government funding bill that eventually gets signed into law by President Obama will not include any policy riders aimed at defunding the national health-care law. ‘Let’s put it this way: the health-care rider is not one that will be in any bill that will be sent to the president and that the president will sign…This bill will not be repealed,’ Pelosi said at an event touting Democrats’ health-care and student loan laws. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday signaled some willingness to consider the controversial provisions known as policy riders included in the House-passed funding bill.”
4) GOP negotiations with Blue Dogs have backfired, reports Susan Crabtree: “Any attempt — real or imagined — by House Republican leaders to court enough Blue Dog Democrats to their side on the budget talks to avoid a government shutdown, may have backfired. Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), a founding member of the Blue Dogs, told TPM he didn’t think the talks were ‘all that effective’ because House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had ‘talked down to them’ during a recent meeting. Peterson was short on specifics but said McCarthy had definitely rubbed members of the fiscally conservative Democratic coalition the wrong way. Still, a significant number of Democrats carried an earlier stopgap spending bill across the finish line two weeks ago when 54 conservative Republicans voted against it.”
5) Shutdowns, defaults and assorted other pieces of evidence that our political system can no longer function will not be looked upon kindly by the market: “Asger Lau Andersen, David Dreyer Lassen and Lasse Holbøll Westh Nielsen — remember them? — have looked into how the market treats late budgets in the states — and late budgets in the states, it should be noted, are considerably less public and psychologically disruptive than a shutdown of the federal government during a weak economy. The answer is: not kindly (pdf). “We estimate that a budget delay of 30 days has a long run impact on the yield spread between 2 and 10 basis points,” they conclude. To put that in context, economists estimated that if the Federal Reserve pumped $ 400 billion into the economy, it’d lower yield spreads by about 20 basis points, or two-tenths of a percent. And it actually gets worse than that: ‘Markets also punish late budgets much more harshly if they occur during times of fiscal stress.’ I think it’d be fair to characterize this as a time of fiscal stress, don’t you?”
Country music interlude:
Deer Tick plays “These Old Shoes” live.
Got tips, additions, or comments?
E-mail me.
Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device?
Subscribe!
Still to come: Liberals want GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt out of the Obama administration; Tom Coburn his laying a trap for Grover Norquist; Alan Blinder sees four major dangers blocking a global recovery; VA attorney general Ken Cucinnelli thinks he’ll win his anti-health reform lawsuit; the House wants to revive a voucher program in DC; commentators react to Obama’s energy plan; and a puppy pushes a car.
Economy
Liberal activists are pushing GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to resign from his advisory role in the administration, reports Perry Bacon: “Two liberal groups Wednesday called for General Electric Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt to step down as the head of the White House’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness following a report that GE paid no federal taxes last year despite more than $ 14 billion in profits. ‘One of the chief ways GE avoids paying taxes is by shifting a large portion of its profits overseas, and jobs follow. Now GE’s CEO is the person charged with helping the President create jobs here in America. That’s just perverse,’ the groups MoveOn.org and Progressives United told supporters in an e-mail message. President Obama tapped Immelt to head the council in January.”
Tom Coburn has a plan to take on Grover Norquist, writes Jon Chait: “To Norquist, eliminating a tax loophole is just as bad as raising rates. So he opposes any attempt to increase revenue through the elimination of loopholes, however unworthy those loopholes may be. Norquist and Coburn have been circling each other for months, trading barbs in the media. Now Coburn is using a test case to expose Norquist’s Pledge. That test case is the ethanol subsidy, which is pork that survives due to the strength of the agriculture lobby, but which the conservative movement at least putatively opposes. The ethanol subsidy, like many subsidies, comes in the form of a tax break. Eliminating it is, therefore, a tax increase. Therefore, eliminating the ethanol subsidy, without using the revenue for a tax cut, would violate the Pledge. In other words, Coburn has set a trap for Norquist. He has proposed eliminating the ethanol subsidy. If Norquist supports it, he has to alter his pledge to allow for closing loopholes that raise revenue. If he opposes it, he has to admit that he opposes closing loopholes that even Norquist admits are unsupportable. Norquist’s response? He opposes closing the loophole”
Elizabeth Warren defended the consumer protection bureau before the Chamber of Commerce, reports Brady Dennis: “In her perpetual campaign to win over the many opponents of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren has crisscrossed both the capital and the country for months, meeting with bankers and business owners and lawmakers. On Tuesday, that quest took her only several blocks to the headquarters of one of the agency’s most ardent critics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars and countless hours trying to prevent the creation of the consumer bureau last year. Warren, the Harvard law professor appointed to stand up for the new watchdog, joked that her visit had been likened to Daniel in the lion’s den or President John F. Kennedy speaking to Protestant ministers.”
The government safety net will continue to function if the government shuts down, reports Arthur Delaney: “Social Security recipients will still see receive their benefits even if the federal government switches off next month, said Cristina Martin Firvida, a lobbyist for the AARP… Current Medicare beneficiaries also should not be affected by a short shutdown, said AARP’s Mary Liz Burns… A similar situation would likely occur with unemployment insurance benefits…Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior analyst with the Center for Law and Social Policy, said other programs administered at the state level, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly known as welfare) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), should continue as well.”
The economic recovery faces four obstacles, writes Alan Blinder: “If you’re searching for a metaphor for the U.S. economy right now, think of an athlete who is recovering from serious injuries and must navigate a difficult obstacle course. She’s getting into better shape but there are hazards along the way that might keep her from reaching the finish line. Here’s my list of the four biggest obstacles to recovery right now-in ascending order of seriousness. The Japanese disaster: Many people view the physical and human tragedy now afflicting Japan as a serious threat to global recovery. Based on what’s known so far, I don’t…The European sovereign debt crisis: This one is starting to look like a hardy perennial… The U.S. budget deficit: The unedifying and sometimes irrational political wrangling over our own budget deficit is more worrisome… The oil market: This is the most worrying.”
The SEC has issued a new rule regulating executive pay, reports David Gilzenrath: “The five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission gave their preliminary endorsement Wednesday to a proposal that would ostensibly require executive pay to be set by independent members of corporate boards. But the SEC proposed leaving details to another group of rulemakers, the stock exchanges. The SEC also proposed letting the exchanges carve out major exceptions to whatever independence standards they adopt.”
Tax deferral is dead, writes Matt Miller:
http://wapo.st/gYFJqp
Obama should show more resolve in the budget battle, writes EJ Dionne: “Someone should introduce the Barack Obama who addressed the nation Monday on Libya to the Barack Obama who has been dancing around the edge of the budget fight. In his Libya speech, Obama was clear, forceful and principled. Yes, there were some ambiguities but these were dictated by a genuinely uncertain situation on the ground, not by muddled thinking. The president made the case for a foreign policy rooted in morality yet also alive to the difficulties of acting wisely in an imperfect world that does not bend easily to one man’s or one country’s will. On the budget, by contrast, it’s hard to know what the president’s bottom line is, what deals he would regard as reasonable or when he will even join the fray.”
Adorable animals powering transportation interlude:
A dog-pushed car.
Health Care
VA attorney general Ken Cuccinelli handicaps his chances of persuading the Supreme Court to overturn health-care reform: “I am cautiously optimistic. I’d say, above 50 percent, no higher than 60 percent, because the nature of constitutional cases is very unpredictable. A lot of people presume the government will win, because it usually does, but there have been four major Commerce Clause cases and the court ruled in favor of the limited-government side in two of the four, so it isn’t as if we always lose and that is within the past 16 years.”
The Senate could fast-track 1099 repeal:
http://politi.co/fVExJ6
Tea Party legislators are finding success in blocking health-reform’s implementation at a state level, reports Sarah Kliff: “Despite their best efforts, tea party activists could not stop Congress from passing health reform last year. Now, they’re finding surprising success doing the next best thing: blocking the law’s implementation. In South Carolina, tea party activists have been picking off Republican co-sponsors of a health exchange bill, getting even the committee chairman who would oversee the bill to turn against it. A Montana legislator who ran on a tea party platform has successfully blocked multiple health exchange bills, persuading his colleagues to instead move forward with legislation that would specifically bar the state from setting up a marketplace.”
Domestic Policy
The House has revived a DC school voucher program, reports Ben Pershing: “The House approved a bill Wednesday to revive the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, even as the controversial school-choice measure faces an uncertain future. Under the program, which began in 2004, low-income D.C. students are given federal money to help pay for private school tuition. Democrats closed the program to new entrants in 2009. House Speaker John A. Boehner’s bill — known as the SOAR Act — would reopen it, offering $ 20 million annually for five years for new scholarships, along with another $ 20 million apiece for D.C. charter schools and traditional D.C. public schools. Boehner’s bill passed the House on a 225 to 195 vote, with all but nine Republicans present voting in favor and all but one Democrat opposed.”
A bill would cut the number of Senate confirmable appointments:
http://wapo.st/hT3cmE
The House GOP is taking on the AARP, reports Dan Eggen: “House Republicans, who are continuing their efforts to chip away at President Obama’s health-care law, have now set their sights on a powerful group that strongly supported the legislation: the AARP seniors lobby. Two GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee released a report Wednesday alleging that the nation’s largest seniors group stands to gain financially from the Affordable Care Act, because the law could result in greater demand for supplemental Medicare policies that carry the AARP stamp of approval. In addition, the Ways and Means health and oversight subcommittees have scheduled a joint hearing Friday to grill AARP officials about the organization’s financial ventures.”
Obama has threatened to veto an anti-union aviation bill:
http://bit.ly/ho0OjV
Gun control legislation enacted after Reagan’s shooting saved lives, writes Sarah Brady: “It took seven years and an immeasurable number of hours of talking, walking and testifying for Congress to pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. President Bill Clinton cradled and carried our cause in his heart all the way to the signing ceremony. The legislation requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on purchasers. Since enactment, 2 million gun purchases have been denied to people too dangerous and irresponsible to possess firearms. We’ll never know how many lives have been saved. It’s hard to believe that despite this success, some conservatives who claim to revere Ronald Reagan still reject the common-sense gun reforms he backed.”
Adorable children being talented interlude:
10-year-old Connie Talbot covers Adele’s “Something Like You”.
Energy
The energy plan’s focus on “security” is a bad sign, writes Ezra Klein: “Energy security is shorthand for ‘oil we drill here’ as opposed to ‘oil that gets shipped here.’ So the first part of the plan is all about expanding domestic production of some of the very fuel we need to be weaning ourselves off of. The truth is that the Obama administration’s energy policy looks more like Sarah Palin’s applause lines than the cap-and-trade program it advocated during the election. That’s not because the White House wouldn’t prefer the plan it pushed in 2008 to the plan it’s pushing in 2011. Congress, not the administration, opposes to cap-and-trade. But we are where we are, and there’s no use dressing it up. You can put lipstick on ‘drill, baby, drill,’ but it’s still ‘drill, baby, drill.’”
The plan is unambitious, writes David Roberts:
http://bit.ly/iddWRU
There’s nothing wrong with imported oil, writes Daniel Griswold: “We Americans benefit tremendously from our relatively free trade in petroleum products. Like all forms of trade, the importation of oil produced abroad allows us to acquire it at a price far lower than we would pay if we had to rely more heavily on domestic oil supplies. The money we save buying oil more cheaply on global markets allows our whole economy to operate more efficiently. Oil is the ultimate upstream input that virtually all U.S. producers use to make their final products, either in the product itself or for shipping. If U.S. manufacturers and other sectors are forced to pay sharply higher prices for petroleum products because of import restrictions, their final goods will cost more and will be less competitive in global markets.”
Obama’s speech should have called the GOP to task, writes Joseph Romm:
http://bit.ly/g5y0U7
Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews and Michelle Williams.
There’s no guarantee there will be NFL football on Sundays this year, but there still may be some football on Sunday. And no, I’m not talking about the Lingerie Football League. That’s not football, it’s something to masturbate to. I’m talking about college football. Specifically, the Pac-10. The Pac-10 is discussing the possibility of playing […]
President Obama is delivering today what is being billed as a very big speech on “energy security.” You can watch it live around 11:20 am here.
UPDATE: Obama calls for a one-third cut in oil imports https://southcapitolstreet.com/files/tag/there/by_2025_from_2008_levels_of_11.1_million_barrels_a_day. _but__a_rel_.css”nofollow” href=”http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf”>the eia reports that net imports for have averaged 9.0 mbd for the first two months of 2011 — and 8.9 MBD over the last 6 months (h/t Oildrum) We only need to hit 7.4 to achieve Obama’s goal!
I propose the following drinking game:
- The first time the President uses the phrase “climate change” or “global warming,” down the drink of your choice.
- The second time, empty out the liquor cabinet.
- The third time, it’s a weekend in Las Vegas with Charlie Sheen (or Chelsea Handler).
OK, perhaps this is best called a sobriety game, if this is anything like his State of the Union Address (see Obama calls for massive boost in low-carbon energy, but doesn’t mention carbon, climate or warming).
UPDATE 2: I’ve seen the speech text (reposted below). He mentions “climate change” once and then “carbon pollution that threatens our climate.” Clean out half your liquor cabinet while watch reruns of Mad Men! The fact sheet that the White House released this morning ahead of the speech leads with expanded production of fossil fuels:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FACT SHEET: America’s Energy Security
Rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners. Businesses see it impact their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder. That’s why we need to make ourselves more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio. With an ultimate goal of reducing our dependence on oil, in the near term we must responsibly develop and produce oil and gas at home, while at the same time leveraging cleaner, alternative fuels and increasing efficiency. And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity – keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.
Reducing oil imports
In 2008, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By 2025 – a little over a decade from now – we will have cut that by one-third.
- Expanding Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production:
o Implementing critical safety reforms: In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration has launched rigorous and comprehensive environmental and safety reforms to ensure the responsible development of offshore oil and gas resources.
o Identifying underdeveloped resources: The President asked the Department of the Interior (DOI) to issue a report on the status of unused oil and gas leases. That report showed that 57 percent of all leased onshore acres and 70 percent of offshore leased acres are inactive – meaning that they are neither being explored or developed.
o Developing incentives for expedited development and production: DOI is developing incentives for expedited development of oil and gas production from existing and future leases. For its offshore leasing program, the DOI has already begun to employ incentives, including the shortening of some lease terms to encourage earlier development, and requiring drilling to begin before an extension can be granted on a lease. DOI is also evaluating the potential use of graduated royalty rate structures, such as those adopted by the State of Texas, to encourage more rapid production.
- Securing Access to Diverse and Reliable Sources of Energy: The U.S. is acting in the international arena to moderate global oil demand and secure additional supplies of liquid fuels and clean energy. We are working with our international partners to increase natural gas supplies, replace oil with natural gas in power generation, and increase responsible oil production in a manner that ensures safety . We are also increasing sustainable bioenergy production, building a new international framework for nuclear energy, and promoting energy efficiency.
- Developing Alternatives to Oil, Including Biofuels and Natural Gas: Some of our most effective opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard. We are committed to finding better and smarter ways to use these abundant energy resources. That means:
o Expanding biofuels markets and commercializing new biofuels technologies: Corn ethanol is already making a significant contribution to reducing our oil dependence, but increasing market share will require overcoming infrastructure challenges and commercializing promising cellulosic and advanced biofuels technologies. To help achieve this goal, the Administration has set a goal of breaking ground on at least four commercial-scale cellulosic or advanced bio-refineries over the next two years. And as we do all of these things, we will look for ways to reform our biofuels incentives to make sure they meet today’s biofuels challenges and save taxpayers money.
o Encouraging responsible development practices for natural gas: The Administration is committed to the use of this important domestic resource, but we must ensure it is developed safely and responsibly. To that end the Administration is focused on increasing transparency about the use of fracking chemicals, working with state regulators to offer technical assistance, and launching a new initiative to tap experts in industry, the environmental community and states to develop recommendations for shale extraction practices that will ensure the protection of public health and the environment.
- Cutting Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks: The Administration is building on recent investments in advanced vehicles, fuel, technologies, high speed rail, and public transit:
o Setting historic new fuel economy standards: Standards for model years 2012-16 will raise average fuel economy to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles covered. In July, the Administration will also finalize the first-ever national fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks, vans and buses built in 2014 – 2018. These standards will cut oil use and promote the development and deployment of alternative fuels, including natural gas. The Administration is also developing the next generation of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger vehicles 2017-2025 and expects to announce the proposal in September 2011.
o Paving the way for advanced vehicles: The President has set an ambitious goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. To help us get there, the President’s FY 2012 Budget proposes a redesigned $ 7500 tax credit for consumers, competitive grants for communities that encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, and funding for R&D to drive innovation in advanced battery technology. At the same time, the President is calling on Congress to move forward with policies that can help unlock the promise of natural gas vehicles.
- Leading by Example With the Federal Fleet. The Federal government operates more than 600,000 fleet vehicles. We have already doubled the number of hybrid vehicles in the federal fleet. Today, the President is calling for administrative action directing agencies to ensure that by 2015, all new vehicles they purchase will be alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrid and electric vehicles.
Innovating Our Way to a Clean Energy Future
Charting a path towards cleaner sources of electricity and greater energy efficiency, and remaining on the cutting edge of clean energy technology.
- Creating Markets for Clean Energy: To move capital off of the sidelines and into the clean energy economy – creating jobs in the process – we need to give businesses and entrepreneurs a clear signal that there will be a market for clean energy innovation. That’s why the Administration is committed to pursuing a Clean Energy Standard (CES), an ambitious but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of the Nation’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 – including renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower; nuclear power; efficient natural gas; and clean coal.
- Cutting Energy Bills through More Efficient Homes and Buildings: Our homes, businesses and factories consume over 70 percent of the energy we use. By making smart investments in energy efficiency in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, we can improve U.S. competitiveness and protect our environment, while saving consumers money on electricity bills. That is why the Administration is on track to weatherize 600,000 low-income homes through Recovery Act investments, and why we remain committed to a series of policies that increase efficiency across sectors – including a HOMESTAR program to help homeowners finance retrofits, a “Better Buildings Initiative” to make commercial facilities 20 percent more efficient by 2020, and steps to promote industrial energy efficiency.
- Staying on the Cutting Edge through Clean Energy Research and Development: Through the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, we have invested in over 100 cutting-edge projects in areas ranging from smart grid technology, to carbon capture, to battery technology for electric vehicles. Past Budgets funded three “Energy Innovation Hubs” that explore building efficiency, fuel from sunlight, and nuclear reactor modeling and simulation. The FY 2012 Budget request more than doubles funding for ARPA-E and doubles the number of Hubs to include new Hubs that will advance smart grid technology, critical materials research, as well as batteries and energy storage.
###
Absent a climate crisis, this would be great stuff. But on planet Eaarth, it can’t possibly deliver Americans genuine security since it ignores the biggest threat to the health and well-being of Americans. That is especially true coming on the heels of last week’s decision to expand coal production.
Since Obama has already set the historic fuel economy standards, the CES is crucial. That said, the inclusion of natural gas and the undefined “clean coal” makes it difficult if not impossible to translate his CES into CO2 reductions.
Finally, if Obama is serious about the R&D push, then he is going to have to issue a veto threat over any bill that cuts clean energy R&D (not just ARPA-E) — and then carry through with the threat. Since he seems unwilling to do so, the final bullet point above is all but meaningless.
Here’s the speech:
As Prepared for Delivery—
We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world. In a matter of months, we’ve seen regimes toppled and democracy take root across North Africa and the Middle East. We’ve witnessed a terrible earthquake, catastrophic tsunami and nuclear emergency batter a strong ally and the world’s third largest economy. And we’ve led an international effort in Libya to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region.
As Americans, we are heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events. We are moved by the thirst for freedom in many nations, as well as the strength and perseverance of the Japanese people. And of course, it’s natural to feel anxious about what all this means for us.
One area of particular concern has been the cost and security of our energy. In an economy that relies on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners. Businesses see it hurt their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder.
But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $ 4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.
The truth is, of course, was that all these gimmicks didn’t make a bit of difference. When gas prices finally fell, it was mostly because the global recession led to less demand for oil. Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising oil prices are higher. And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $ 10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
The point is, the ups and downs in gas prices are usually temporary. When you look at the long-term trends, though, there will be more ups than downs. That’s because countries like India and China are growing at a rapid clip. And as two billion more people start consuming more goods, and driving more cars, and using more energy, it’s certain that demand will go up a lot faster than supply.
So here’s the bottom line – there are no quick fixes. And we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy.
We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Presidents and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. I’ve pledged to reduce America’s dependence on oil too, and I’m proud of the historic progress we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal. But we’ve also run into the same political gridlock and inertia that’s held us back for decades.
That has to change.
We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out. Not anymore. Not when the cost to our economy, our country, and our planet is so high. Not when your generation needs us to get this right.
It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future.
So today, I’m setting a new goal: one that is reasonable, achievable, and necessary. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.
I set this goal knowing that imported oil will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, we can partner with neighbors like Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, which recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and with whom we can share American technology and know-how.
But our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard. And we boast one critical, renewable resource the rest of the world cannot match: American ingenuity.
To make ourselves more secure – to control our energy future – we will need to harness that ingenuity. It is a task that won’t be finished by the end of my presidency, or even the next. But if we continue the work that we have already begun over the last two years, we won’t just spark new jobs, industries and innovations; we will leave your generation and future generations a country that is safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
Today, my Administration is releasing a Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy we’ve pursued since the day I took office. And here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we will secure that future.
Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. And for the first time in more than a decade, oil we imported accounted for less than half the liquid fuel we consumed.
To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my Administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible. I don’t think anyone’s forgotten that we’re not even a year removed from the largest oil spill in our history. I know the people of the Gulf Coast haven’t. What we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility – for example, if you’re going to drill in deepwater, you’ve got to prove that you can actually contain an underwater spill. That’s just common sense.
Today, we’re working to expedite new drilling permits for companies that meet these standards. Since they were put in place, we’ve approved 39 new shallow water permits; and we’ve approved an additional 7 deepwater permits in recent weeks. When it comes to drilling onshore, my Administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well that the industry started to drill. So any claim that my Administration is responsible for gas prices because we’ve “shut down” oil production might make for a useful political sound bite – but it doesn’t track with reality.
In fact, we are pushing the oil industry to take advantage of the opportunities they already have. Right now, the industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it’s not producing a drop – sitting on supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped. That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives that promote rapid, responsible development of these resources. We’re also exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas development from Alaska to the Mid- and South Atlantic. Because producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security.
But let’s be honest – it’s not the long-term solution to our energy challenge. America holds only about two percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. And even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every one of those reserves, it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.
All of this means one thing: the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil. We have to find ways to boost our efficiency so that we use less oil. We have to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy with less of the carbon pollution that threatens our climate. And we have to do it quickly.
In terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. As I mentioned earlier, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves – perhaps a century’s worth – in the shale under our feet. Now, we have to make sure we’re doing it safely, without polluting our water supply. And that’s why I’m asking my Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but he’s got a Nobel Prize for physics, after all. He likes to tinker on this stuff in his garage on the weekend.
But the potential here is enormous. It’s actually an area of broad bipartisan agreement. Last year, more than 150 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. They were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil. So I ask them to keep at it and pass a bill that helps us achieve this goal.
Another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels – not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass, wood chips, and biomass.
If anyone doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil. Already, more than half – half – of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels. And just last week, our Air Force used an advanced biofuel blend to fly an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound. In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016. And I’m directing the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but trucks and commercial airliners.
So there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using these renewable fuels throughout America. That’s why we’re investing in things like fueling stations and research into the next generation of biofuels. Over the next two years, we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground on four next-generation biorefineries – each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year. And going forward, we should look for ways to reform biofuels incentives to make sure they meet today’s challenges and save taxpayers money.
As we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuels, we can also reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place. After all, 70 percent of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation. And so does the second biggest chunk of most families’ budgets. That’s why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save folks more money is simply to make our transportation more efficient.
Last year, we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks. Our cars will get better gas mileage, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. Our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump – $ 3,000 on average over time. And our automakers will build more innovative products. Right now, there are even cars rolling off assembly lines in Detroit with combustion engines that can get more than 50 miles per gallon.
Going forward, we’ll continue working with automakers, autoworkers and states to ensure that the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in America. This summer, we’ll propose the first-ever fuel efficiency standard for heavy-duty trucks. And this fall, we’ll announce the next round of fuel standards for cars that builds on what we’ve done.
To achieve our oil goal, the federal government will lead by example. The fleet of cars and trucks we use in the federal government is one of the largest in the country. That’s why we’ve already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet, and that’s why, today, I am directing agencies to purchase 100% alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015. And going forward, we’ll partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets.
We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering Americans – urban, suburban, and rural – the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
Still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles. Soon after I took office, I set a goal to have one million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015. We’ve created incentives for American companies to develop these vehicles, and for Americans who want to buy them. New manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years. And a modest, $ 2 billion investment in competitive grants for companies to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jumpstarted a big new American industry. Soon, America will be home to 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity for these batteries. And that means jobs. But to make sure we stay on the road to this goal, we need to do more – by offering more powerful incentives to consumers, and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for adoption of these vehicles.
Now, the thing about electric cars is that, well, they run on electricity. And even if we reduce our oil dependency, a smart, comprehensive energy policy requires that we change the way we generate electricity in America – so that it’s cleaner, safer, and healthier. And by the way – we also know that ushering in a clean energy economy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new businesses – jobs that we want right here in America.
Part of this change comes from wasting less energy. Today, our homes and businesses consume 40 percent of the energy we use, costing us billions in energy bills. Manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products are challenged by rising energy costs. That’s why we’ve proposed new programs to help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plants with new, energy-efficient building materials like lighting, windows, heating and cooling – investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year, free up money for investment and hiring, and create jobs for workers and contractors.
And just like the fuels we use, we also have to find cleaner, renewable sources of electricity. Today, about two-fifths of our electricity comes from clean energy sources. But I know that we can do better than that. In fact, I think that with the right incentives in place, we can double it. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called for a new Clean Energy Standard for America: by 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from an array of clean energy sources, from renewables like wind and solar to efficient natural gas to clean coal and nuclear power.
Now, in light of ongoing events in Japan, I want to say another word about nuclear power. America gets one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy. It has important potential for increasing our electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe. That’s why I’ve requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe. We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of plants. And my Administration is leading global discussions towards a new international framework in which all countries operate their nuclear plants without spreading dangerous nuclear materials and technology.
A Clean Energy Standard will broaden the scope of clean energy investment by giving cutting-edge companies the certainty they need to invest in America. In the 1980s, America was home to more than 80 percent of the world’s wind capacity, and 90 percent of its solar capacity. We owned the clean energy economy. But today, China has the most wind capacity. Germany has the most solar. Both invest more than we do in clean energy. Other countries are exporting technology we pioneered and chasing the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century clean energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy.
I want America to be that nation. I want America to win the future.
A Clean Energy Standard will help drive private investment. But government funding will be critical too. Over the past two years, the historic investments we’ve made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays among the largest in the world, tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line, and toured once-shuttered factories where they’re building advanced wind blades as long as a 747 and the towers to support them. I’ve seen the scientists searching for that next big energy breakthrough. And none of this would have happened without government support.
Now, in light of our tight fiscal situation, it’s fair to ask how we’ll pay for all of it. As we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we have to make tough choices. We’ll have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. Unfortunately, some want to cut these critical investments in clean energy. They want to cut our research and development into new technologies. They’re even shortchanging the resources necessary to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling. These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs, terminate scientists and engineers, and end fellowships for researchers, graduate students and other talent we desperately need for the 21st century.
See, we are already paying a price for our inaction. Every time we fill up at the pump; every time we lose a job or a business to countries that invest more than we do in clean energy; when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet you’ll inherit – we are already paying that price. These are the costs we’re already bearing. And if we do nothing, that price will only go up.
At a moment like this, sacrificing these investments would weaken our energy security and make us more dependent on oil, not less. That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past. And I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.
I want to close by speaking directly to the people who will be writing America’s next great chapter – the students gathered here today.
The issue of energy independence is one that America has been talking about since before your parents were your age. On top of that, you go to school in a town that, for a long time, has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices. Because of all this, you’d be forgiven for thinking that maybe there isn’t much we can do to rise to our challenges.
But everything I have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise. I believe it is precisely because you have come of age in a time of rapid and sometimes unsettling change – born into a world with fewer walls, educated in an era of information, tempered by war and economic turmoil – that you believe, as deeply as any of our generations, that America can change for the better.
We need that. We need you to dream big. We need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism, that bold willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness – to save democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and imagination.
That is what America is capable of. And it is that very history that teaches us that all of our challenges – all of them – are within our power to solve.
I don’t want to leave this challenge for future presidents. I don’t want to leave it for my children. And I do not want to leave it for yours. Solving it will take time and effort. It will require our brightest scientists, our most creative companies, and, most importantly, all of us – Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between – to do our part. But with confidence – in America, in ourselves, and in one another – I know it is a challenge we will solve.
Thank you. God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America.
###
President Obama's decision to bomb Libya is not even so multilateral as President George W. Bush's decision to attack Iraq. Nor is it ultimately driven by humanitarian concerns — and certainly not by any vital U.S. national interest.
Despite Obama's vilification of Bush for his alleged unilateralism, "Obama's 'coalition of the willing,'" according to foreign policy reporter Josh Rogin, "is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War." Obama's Libyan intervention is more unilateral than Dubya's in another respect, as well: Obama has brazenly refused even to consult Congress, much less seek its blessing.
As I argued in my most recent column, this is just the foreign policy outworking of Obama's campaign to fundamentally transform America. Notice the common thread. He is using domestic policies to effectuate "economic justice" at home, trying to cut "wealthy" Americans down to size. Now he is using foreign policy to diminish America's role and stature in the international community to cut wealthy, imperialistic America down to size.
I don't want to get bogged down here in a discussion of whether his motive is thus to sabotage America. In my view, that's the effect of his policies, but I suppose that in his view, America will be a better nation if it uses government coercion to come closer to equalizing everyone's share of the pie — even if it results in the pie's shrinking — and if America operates less in its own self-interest in foreign affairs. It's a bizarre mindset and one that most Americans probably don't understand — so bizarre that they don't believe it despite the proof in front of their faces.
Think about it. Obama's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, admitted on national television Sunday that Libya poses no actual or imminent threat to the United States and that it is not a vital national security interest. This was no gaffe. Surely, Obama's team is not so incompetent and undisciplined that it didn't anticipate this question and carefully prepare the answer.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton damaged the administration's credibility even more by opining that as long as international bodies approved of America's kinetic military action, the president didn't even need to pick up the phone to call Congress. Consider what that reveals concerning the administration's mindset about America's sovereignty and prerogatives.
In terms of philosophy, ideology and motivations, the administration's approach to foreign policy can further be understood by Obama's position from the outset. He has been adamant that America is seen as imperialistic by foreign nations, especially Arab and Muslim nations, and must radically reset its image to ingratiate itself to the world community. He believes terrorism is in large part fomented by the world's negative perception of the United States — a perception he shares to some extent and one he is obsessed with changing.
That's why he went on his world apology tour, threatened (recklessly and unrealistically) to dismantle multiple components of Bush's anti-terror policies (later reneging) and promised to negotiate with dictators on even terms — "engagement." If you doubt this, then explain Gates' assertions that America's chief interest in Libya is "the engagement of Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans" and, he threw in, "the general humanitarian question."
There's more. In trying to distinguish between the Libyan and Syrian situations, Clinton said the Syrian situation isn't as severe yet. Then she got to the crux of it: "But in Libya, when a leader says 'spare nothing, show no mercy' and calls out air force attacks on his own people, that crosses a line that people in the world had decided they could not tolerate."
As liberal writer William Saletan points out, "the key phrase isn't no mercy or air force. It's they could not tolerate. Not we, but they. We're outsourcing our standards for intervention." But Saletan noted it is "worse than outsourcing." Outsourcing is hiring someone to do your bidding, but in Libya, "we're hiring ourselves out to do what somebody abroad wants." Indeed, one might consider our military the new mercenaries for foreign governments.
If you understand Obama's thinking, it all makes sense. He obviously believes it is in our interests to act in ways that don't fit the conventional definition of national self-interest. In his worldview, our conventional self-interest is selfish and imperialistic. For too long, America has looked out for its own interests and has exploited the world, its people and its resources. With these unrelenting overtures denying our self-interest, Obama hopes to show the world that the new America — Obama's America — is different and moral.
In the meantime, we may very well be propping up coalitions of jihadists in both Egypt and Libya and who knows where else, but that's OK because Obama and his fellow liberals have "good intentions."
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Sydney Morning Herald |
There can be no good ending to the Bonds perjury trial
SportingNews.com This is the golden week in the Barry Bonds steroids trial. The hope is his ex-girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, will take the stand and talk about how he was impotent at times, thanks to steroids, and how he had shriveling, let's just say, parts. … Barry Bonds' ex says he discussed steroid use Barry Bonds Trial Resumes, Welcomes Kimberly Bell To Stand Mistress gives lurid details of Barry Bonds |
(John)
Do you remember the good old days when an Englishman’s proudest vote was that he paid his way? That was then, and this is now: today something like a half million Englishmen demonstrated in London against proposed budget cuts. Their boast, apparently: someone else pays my way!
That’s bad enough. But the decline of British civilization is reflected even more brutally in the rampaging mob that smashed store fronts, “occupied” businesses, and battled police. And perhaps most of all in the weak response of the authorities.
First, the mob. Here, they smash windows at the historic Ritz Hotel:
Here, hundreds of bums “occupy” Fortnum & Mason:
Their rationale was as dumb as you would expect:
Sally Mason, one of the protesters who occupied the store, said: ‘Fortnum & Mason is a symbol of wealth and greed. It is where the Royal Family and the super-rich do their weekly shop and a picnic hamper costs £25,000.
‘This sits in stark contrast to everyone else who is struggling to make ends meet, fill in their tax returns and benefit forms and facing huge student debts, unemployment and the closure or dismantling of local services such as the NHS, libraries and leisure centres.’
Tonight, riot police tried to stem the mob’s destructive fury as fires burned in the center of London:
As noted earlier, the London police and other authorities failed to foresee the violence-odd, given the fact that last time there was a major demonstration in London, radicals tried to attack the Prince of Wales-and, worse, they responded weakly when the violence spiraled out of control:
Anarchist groups had spent weeks preparing the action on Facebook and Twitter and even posted a map directing people to the time and location of where to attack shops.
So naturally the police were taken by surprise.
More than 4,500 police officers were on duty for the march but seemed powerless to stop the violence, which began when a group of activists bent on trouble peeled off into London’s busiest shopping area. After five hours of running battles, there were 75 arrests. At least 30 people, including five police officers, were injured. Police said the anti-capitalists threw lightbulbs filled with ammonia at them.
Incredibly, the police considered weakness a virtue:
Senior officers watched the chaos from a command room in Scotland Yard where they had invited civil liberties activists to monitor a “softly-softly” approach after criticism of their tactics at earlier student protests. At one point they used Twitter to warn the occupiers of Fortnum and Mason they would be arrested.
How pitiful! Can you imagine the contempt with which a lawless mob would greet the arrival of a police tweet?
They ordered limited use of “kettling” to contain the rioters but admitted that such was the scale of the violence, they could not protect property.
Shoppers and day-trippers were forced to take refuge in stairwells. Karen Underwood, 28, who was shopping on Oxford Street, said: “It was pretty scary at times. Paint was being thrown and large groups of men were charging through the streets.”
Maybe this was part of the problem:
Chairman of Police Federation Ian McKeever has warned that many police officers who are assigned to patrol the protest marches are feeling a lot of sympathy with protesters as they are faced with thousands of redundancies and £500 million in pay cuts.
We have seen something similar in Madison, Wisconsin.
The first duty of any government is to maintain order. Peaceful demonstrations are fine, but mob rule is incompatible with civilization. Any government that cannot maintain order deserves to fall, and will. Napoleon had his faults-well, to be blunt, he was crazy as a loon-but he had the right prescription for dealing with mobs: a whiff of grapeshot.