Alex Salmond stands tallest, closely followed by David Cameron with Nick Clegg far behind. Personalities matter, more than ever

A year ago, the country was plunged into a weekend of murky uncertainty after a general election that nobody won. This time, there was no fog or confusion – only dazzling clarity. It illuminated a battlefield in which Alex Salmond stood tallest, master of all he surveyed, closely followed by a grinning David Cameron, whose plan for dominating the decade took another step forward. Far, far behind, picking his way through the corpses of his mown-down troops, was a bloodied Nick Clegg. And, all around them, the landscape of a Britain that could be about to change drastically – even breaking in two.

The day brought three outcomes whose scale was breathtaking. Most expected the Scottish National party to triumph in Edinburgh, but few predicted it would crush its opponents so comprehensively, winning an overall majority under a PR system designed 12 years ago to thwart just such a possibility. Never let it be said again that PR produces indecisive outcomes, while first past the post guarantees certainty: in Scotland and Westminster it's the other way around.

The second knockout result came in the AV referendum, with a thorough walloping of the alternative vote. The unmistakable victims of that, and of the rest of the day's voting, were the Liberal Democrats. The party was not just given a bloody nose by the electorate: it was slapped, punched, kicked and finally knifed before being left for dead. Flattened in Scotland, the Lib Dems lost half their councillors in England, their share of the vote reduced to numbers so meagre they were last seen back when the party was known as the SLD and mocked as "Salads".

Defeated politicians always talk of "lessons learned" in such circumstances, so here's one. Personalities matter, now more than ever. Voters may piously tell phone-in programmes they care only about the issues, but the last 24 hours have confirmed that that's bunk. The SNP swept the board largely because Scots saw Salmond as a natural first minister, while his Labour opponent was anything but: Gray by name, grey by nature.

In the 21st century, candidates for the biggest jobs need vivid, stand-out personalities. Labour take note: they can have as many policy reviews as they like, but if the British public don't warm to Ed Miliband it will all be in vain. This personalisation of British politics cuts both ways. Few deny that the Lib Dem wipeout and the AV defeat were a repudiation of Clegg. The no campaign calculated that the mere sight of the Lib Dem leader's face on their leaflets would turn millions off voting reform – and their calculation paid off.

The immediate impact will be on the coalition. Lib Dems now understand exactly why the Tories were so eager to make that "comprehensive and generous offer" a year ago this weekend. It was not so much a power-sharing arrangement as a blame-taking one: the Lib Dems' role is to be the Conservatives' human shield and on Thursday they played the part perfectly. They took the heat while the Tories remained unscathed, their share of the vote unchanged since 2010, with even some council gains in England. For the senior partner, coalition is working out very nicely.

Conventional wisdom says Clegg will now demand a consolation prize or two, goodies to soothe his battered party and keep it content with coalition. But Cameron has no pressing reason to be emollient. For what leverage does Clegg have? He can't threaten to walk out, knowing that in an early general election only annihilation awaits. The Lib Dems are now hostages in this coalition, chained to the cabinet table, fated merely to hope that something turns up between now and 2015.

That is but one measure of Cameron's strength. His victory in the no campaign is another. Even Lord Mandelson praised him for his "bold leadership", conceding that it was the prime minister's eventual intervention on AV that made the difference. Above all, Cameron has now secured the long-term future of a first-past-the-post system that ensured virtual Tory hegemony for most of the last century. The shrivelling of the Lib Dems helps him further still, as onetime tactical Lib Dem voters head back to Labour – thereby splitting the anti-Tory vote and letting the Conservatives win. That's how the Tories picked up seats yesterday.

But surely the most significant consequence of 5 May will be the SNP's ability to stage a referendum on Scottish independence, at a time of its choosing. Again, the received wisdom and polls say such a vote will be lost. But they said the same about the SNP – or any party – winning 65 seats in Holyrood. And now the SNP has 69. Besides, Salmond is probably the most accomplished political operator and performer in these islands. I would not bet against him.

And if he won a referendum and the union that has lasted three centuries were to break up? Obviously, the cultural and constitutional impact would reverberate for generations. But the narrower electoral consequences would endure too. An independent Scotland would deprive Labour of its most solid base, all but ensuring a permanent Tory majority in Westminster.

That is the sharpest lesson for Labour, on what was a tepid night for the party at best. It can no longer rely on Scotland; it has to be competitive in England. Otherwise, the future is clear, but it is definitely not orange. The future is blue.

Former State Senator Bill Heckroth announced today that he will run as a Democrat in Iowa House district 63 next year. Heckroth owns a financial planning business in Waverly, the largest town in the district. To my knowledge, Heckroth does not have a campaign website up yet. I've posted the Iowa House Democrats' press release after the jump, along with a district map.

The new district 63 includes all of Bremer County and parts of northern Black Hawk County, outside the Waterloo and Cedar Falls city limits. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the district, but independents have a plurality. As of April 2011, the district contained 5,225 registered Democrats, 6,395 registered Republicans and 9,128 no-party voters.

Aside from a few Black Hawk County precincts, the entire territory in the new House district 63 was part of the old Iowa Senate district 9, which Heckroth represented from 2007 through 2010. Here's a map of that district. Over the past two decades, Heckroth has been involved with a wide variety of community organizations in Waverly; his press release lists them below. In his successful 2006 race, Heckroth outpolled Republican Tom Hoogestraat in both the Bremer and Black Hawk portions of the district. Heckroth lost his 2010 re-election bid to Bill Dix, who also had a strong base in Waverly, but even then Heckroth outperformed Governor Chet Culver in Bremer.

No current state representative lives in the new district 63. As far as I know, no Republican has announced plans to run in this district. Three-term House member Pat Grassley currently represents part of Bremer County; he could move to this district as a way to resolve being paired with fellow House Republican Annette Sweeney in the new House district 50. However, that scenario seems unlikely. House district 50 has a much larger GOP voter registration advantage than district 63. Also, Sweeney voted against the redistricting plan while Grassley voted for it, suggesting that he will be able to stay put.

Friday, May 6, 2011                              For More Information, Contact:
                                                          Bill Heckroth, 319-231-9606

Heckroth Announces Bid for House District 63

Waverly, Iowa - Long-time Waverly community leader and small business owner Bill Heckroth  announced today that he will run for State Representative in the new House  District 63.  Heckroth already knows the people of Bremer County and northern Black Hawk County well after serving for four years in the Iowa Senate.

"A strong rural Iowa economy depends on thriving small businesses, a strong agricultural economy, and a skilled workforce ready for the jobs of the 21st Century," said Heckroth, who owns Financial Architects in Waverly. "I will focus on those three key areas, while also keeping the state's fiscal house in order."

In addition to operating his business, Heckroth is a member of the Waverly Rotary club and the Knights of Columbus.  Since moving to Waverly in 1987, he has also been active in leadership rolls with the Waverly-Shell Rock High School Booster Club, United Way of Waverly-Shell Rock, the Waverly Parks and Recreation Board, St. Mary's Catholic Church Parish Council, and the Bartels Lutheran Retirement
Community Board of Directors and Strategic Planning Committee and several other organizations.

"I have always appreciated the many opportunities I have had over the years to actively serve
our community and our State. This is one more way that I can take an active leadership role to help
make our state a great place to live, work, and raise a family," said Heckroth. "I am extremely excited about
this opportunity!"

Bill was raised in Dysart, a farming community just south of Waterloo and is a graduate of the
University of Iowa where he earned his Financial Management degree and played
baseball for the Hawkeyes.  He is married to Jan Heckroth, who is a chaplain in
a Waterloo hospital, and they have three grown sons.

###

Mike Elk, a third-generation union organizer who writes for the Campaign for America's Future has a post up at Alternet, which should be of considerable interest to both the labor movement and the Democratic Party. Elk's post, "Major Union Victory for Rite Aid Workers Offers Roadmap for Labor Movement," is important to the Democratic Party because labor unions function as a pivotal source of funding and volunteers for Democratic candidates. When unions grow, the Party's resources will expand.

Elk's insights about the highly successful campaign of the International Longshoremen Workers Union to organize Rite Aid workers at the company's southwest distribution center should prove instructive for future campaigns. First, a little history:

The victory is a testament to the resolve of the workers and organizers -- it's a success five years in the making. It reveals how tough the environment for rehabilitating the labor movement is, but also how it is still possible to win through creative, direct action.

"We're excited about winning this victory, even if it took longer than it should have" said Carlos "Chico" Rubio, a 10-year warehouse worker who was on the union bargaining committee. Unlike many unions that do win a good contract, the union was quick not to praise the boss for agreeing to a contract, but to point out instead that the process was a long and costly one. Workers decided to first start organizing a union in March of 2006 and hoped to have a new contract within several months, not five years.

Rite Aid management responded with the typical toolbox of anti-union tactics. They hired a team of expensive union busters to hold anti-union intimidation sessions and captive audience meetings. They threatened to fire workers if they supported the union and even fired two workers for wanting to a join a union. They asked a delay of over 18 months from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on scheduling a vote so that they could have more time to run intimidation sessions to make workers wary of joining a union. Finally after two years of organizing and despite massive anti-union attacks, workers voted to join a union 283 to 261 in an NLRB supervised election in June of 2008.

Elk reports that Rite Aid stalled with bad faith or "surface bargaining" for a full year after the vote. Then the union and workers got creative:

...Workers started by attending yearly stockholder meetings and opening lines of communications with stockholders and board members. They released detailed reports about how much money the union busting efforts of Rite Aid was costing the company. Workers were able to persuade some stockholders to put pressure on Rite Aid to negotiate a fair and equitable contract.

Likewise, they used their leverage against Rite Aid by expanding the fight across various unions and the country. They formed a coalition of nationwide Rite Aid workers from various unions including UFCW, SEIU, and Teamsters who coordinated their strategy. Workers reached out to powerful community allies with groups like United Students against Sweatshops and Jobs with Justice. They held protests in nearly 50 cities across the country against Rite Aid and promised to apply more heat if Rite Aid didn't settle the contract dispute in California.

After creative coalition-building comes economic withdrawal, a.k.a. 'hardball':

Most importantly, the workers union had a strong presence within the distribution center in Lancaster, California. Workers even engaged in "work to rule," where they purposely slowed down movement in the distribution center in order to put pressure on the company to settle a contract. Even last year, 75 workers walked off the job for a day in Lancaster, California to protest Rite Aid's lack of good faith bargaining.

Finally, when negotiations seemed to be breaking down at the last second, they launched a "pinpoint" boycott campaign at two Rite Aid workers at two Rite Aid Stores in San Pedro, California on April 1, 2011. They persuaded hundreds of seniors to switch their prescriptions to other pharmacies. The threat of a larger boycott spreading forced Rite Aid to finally settle the contract a month later.

To put the Rite Aid campaign's success in perspective, Elk points out that "fewer than 1 in 6 organizing drives ever results in a union contract for workers in the workplace."

It looks like the ILWU and Rite Aid workers have developed a promising organizing template for the 21st century union movement. It's an especially welcome development, coming soon after the Wisconsin protests and the awakening of many workers to the unexpected consequences of voting Republican.

An invigorated labor movement is also critically-important for insuring the integrity of the Democratic party. As Joan Walsh notes in her Salon.com post today, data provided to her by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka indicates,

...Democrats have become almost as reliant as Republicans on corporate money (Republicans get 79 percent of campaign contributions from business; Democrats get 72 percent, and the share from unions has dropped in half in just the last decade.)

Restoring a larger share of contributions from unions to Democratic candidates will help make the Party less beholden to their corporate contributors -- and more responsive to the priorities of working families. But the challenge is made more difficult, as Walsh reports, by the AFL-CIO's recent decision to invest more of current resources in shoring up the Federation's structure and programs, and less on federal candidates for office. In her interview with Trumka, he explains how the allocation of the Federation's resources will be different going forward:

...We're going to do a full-time, around the calendar political program that's going to be mobilizing and educating people 12 months a year, 24 months a cycle, as opposed to doing it till Election Day and dismantling it. We're going to keep people in place, and actually make people pay a price [if they don't keep promises]. We'll start running some of our own, in state races.

Democrats face a tough challenge in the short run in raising funds for candidates to make up for the expected shortfall resulting from the AFL-CIO's new priorities. If they can raise the needed funds through other means, a stronger union movement could result in a more mutually beneficial relationship down the road. In the longer run, what it comes down to is that Democrats must do a better job of supporting unions and their priorities, so unions can grow and return the favor.

Be careful what you wish for is an adage worth pondering as Wales wakes up to yet another set of extraordinary twists in its 21st Century devolution journey. All along during this election campaign the overriding and tantalising question has been: will the inevitable swing to Labour be enough to push it from 26 Assembly Members to cross the barrier of 30 seats to secure a majority?

At the start of the day Labour was hovering on the edge. However, as the north Wales results came in, with the Conservatives holding Clwyd West and gaining Aberconwy, Labour stuck on 30. Could that lead to Carwyn Jones’ worst nightmare: forced to govern alone without a clear majority? Or will the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru offer him the escape route of a coalition?

Without a coalition Carwyn Jones will be taken out of the comfort zone Labour occupied during the whole of the last term when the One Wales Labour Plaid coalition luxuriated in such a large majority that the whips were made redundant.  During much of the term Karen Sinclair, Labour’s former AM for Clwyd  South, was absent due to illness, and it didn’t matter a jot. But it would in the coming term if Labour opts to run as, in effect, a minority Welsh Government.

And without being ageist, let’s not forget either that Labour will now have two septuagenarians among its ranks – Keith Davies, the new Labour AM for Llanelli, and Gwenda Thomas, who continues as AM for Neath.

In these circumstances it becomes critical whether Government or Opposition provides the Presiding Officer. Labour voices are saying they see no reason why Plaid’s Lord Dafydd Elis Thomas shouldn’t continue in the post. However, Plaid Cymru will not be keen to surrender his vote. In anticipation of the role his deputy in the last term, Newport West Labour AM Rosemary Butler has apparently been busy stocking up on her wardrobe.

Apart from living on a knife edge, without a coalition partner Carwyn Jones will struggle to find the personnel to fill his Cabinet. If Labour does end up governing alone expect a reduction in the size of the Cabinet and a new constellation of portfolios. For example Environment could be merged with Rural Affairs and Housing with Social Justice and Local Government. And, of course, there would be no need for a Deputy First Minister.

However, if Carwyn Jones decides to try governing alone Labour will have little political cover in standing up for Wales against the public spending onslaught about to be unleashed by an unsympathetic Westminster government. In particular, Wales’s financial fortunes will be laid bare when compared with the relative spending deal enjoyed by Alex Salmond’s SNP Government north of the border. With a Scottish independence referendum looming towards the end of the five-year term, the Westminster Government will find all manner of reasons for failing to look for an alternative to the Barnett funding formula which works to Scotland’s benefit but against the interest of Wales.

A couple of weeks after he became the UK Prime Minister a year ago David Cameron visited the National Assembly and said he regarded the nations of the UK as a family that he wanted to keep together, adding, “I don’t want our family to fall out over money.” Expect a good deal of falling out in the next few years, with Carwyn Jones’ Welsh Government becoming more and more frustrated and cross at its inability to wrest any concessions from a London Treasury continuing to pacify the Scots with financial largesse.

Despite all these dilemmas Welsh Labour can at least comfort itself that they are problems of success, the outcome of winning the election. Nonetheless, it will surely be looking for a coalition partner. Before the election Carwyn Jones made it clear he did not wish to lead a minority government. Thirty seats places Labour in the position it found itself in the wake of the 2003 election, living day to day at the mercy of events and negotiating one deal after another with one or the other party.

Not only that, 30 seats puts Labour under potential pressure from any discontented backbencher. This was demonstrated in the term following the 2003 election when the late Peter Law left Labour to form the People’s Voice movement in Blaenau Gwent.

Carwyn Jones will undoubtedly lean in the direction of renewing the One Wales agreement with Plaid Cymru. Although, according to today’s Western Mail, the Liberal Democrats have already made overtures to Labour, they will surely be tainted – in Labour’s eyes – because of their coalition with the Conservatives in the UK government.

Plaid Cymru undoubtedly suffered a severe setback in the election, though in some areas only by a small number of votes. Helen Mary Jones lost Llanelli by just 80 votes. In South West Wales former Plaid AM Dai Lloyd lost his List seat by only 50 votes. A similar margin cost them an extra List seat in North Wales.

Nonetheless, while Plaid Cymru struggled in the campaign to strike a distinctive note, Labour did well in the main because it very successfully presented itself as the antidote to the London Government’s assault on welfare benefits and public sector spending. But it also did well because it emphasised the Welsh dimension of its Labour identity, in the form of the personality of Carwyn Jones and his nationalist slogan ‘standing up for Wales’.

In part this was gifted him by Plaid Cymru which insisted on the referendum for greater powers as the keystone of the coalition One Wales coalition agreement. Plaid then provided the legwork in delivering the commitment while allowing Labour to take the credit and the electoral benefit. Whereas in Scotland the SNP has become the party most clearly identified with defending the nation’s interest, in Wales currently it is Labour.

This is why many in Plaid Cymru will argue that the last thing it needs is an internal argument about whether it should go into coalition again with Labour. Having delivered the referendum, they will say, it now needs a spell in the wilderness to recover its direction, its impetus, and its soul. However, this is a decision that will be made by the Plaid Group in the Assembly. I fancy their judgement, led by Ieuan Wyn Jones, will be to seek a coalition deal from Labour that they can project as being in the interests of Wales.

Constituencies Scoreboard

Party	Seats	+/-	Votes	%	% Change
Labour	28	+4	401,677	42.3	+10.1
Conservative	6	+1	236,916	25	+2.6
Plaid Cymru	5	-2	182,907	19.3	-3.1
Liberal Democrat	1	-2	100,731	10.6	-4.2
Other	0	-1	27,021	2.8	-5.4

After 40 of 40 constituencies declared

Regions Scoreboard

Party	Seats	+/-	Votes	%	+/- %
Conservative	8	+1	213,773	22.5	+1.1
Plaid Cymru	6	-2	169,799	17.9	-3.1
Liberal Democrat	4	+1	76,349	8	-3.7
Labour	2	0	349,935	36.9	+7.2
Other	0	0	139,532	14.7	-1.5
Turnout			949,388	42.2	-1.1

After 5 of 5 regions declared

The immediate problem for the Welsh Conservatives is that in polling relatively well last night, the vagaries of the Additional Member electoral system resulted in the loss of their leader, the former List member for Mid and West Wales, Nick Bourne. In addition, the loss of the Conservative’s Cardiff North AM Jonathan Morgan, who lost his seat to Labour’s Julie Morgan, has removed Nick Bourne’s obvious successor. This presents a more deep-seated problem for the Welsh Conservatives than might at first be appreciated. For between them, Bourne and Morgan have been the major influencers in putting that ‘Welsh’ in front of the party’s name over the past decade. If, for instance, Andrew R. T. Davies, who headed up the party’s List AMs in South Wales Central last night, becomes leader – as seems likely – then the Welsh identity of the Conservative Party in Wales could be blown sideways. To be sure David Melding, another strong Welsh identifier, also made it on the Conservative List in South Wales Central, but he has ruled himself out of the leadership  contest.

The Conservatives have relatively minor problems, again resulting from electoral success, when compared with those facing the Liberal Democrats. It could be said that the Welsh Liberal Democrat vote collapsed in many areas of Wales, and especially in Cardiff, through no fault of their own but because the party at the UK level went into coalition with the Conservatives. That is essentially the case, but what it says is that the Welsh electorate does not distinguish the Welsh Liberal Democrats from those in the rest of the UK. Welsh Liberal Democrats face an existential crisis about their Welsh identity.  What do they stand for that marks them out? After more than a decade of the National Assembly it remains a hard question to answer.

It is paradoxical that much the same problem faces the most distinctive party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, though of course in very different ways. It now has to judge whether it can address the fundamental issues it faces at the same time as being in a coalition government with Welsh Labour that so successfully, in this election at least, has wrapped itself in the Draig Goch. I suspect Ieuan Wyn Jones will judge that he will achieve a greater profile in doing so over the next five years, rather than choosing the alternative, which does not offer him even the position of Leader of the Opposition.

John Osmond is Director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs and a member of Plaid Cymru.

This piece was originally published on ClickOnWales.org.

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Indianapolis, Indiana

10:36 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  I just want to mention a couple of things before I get started here.  First, as you all know, we had an employment report today that showed private sector payrolls increasing by 268,000 in April, which makes 14 consecutive months of private sector employment growth.  During that period, the economy added 2.1 million private sector jobs, including more than 800,000 jobs since the beginning of the year.

This is obviously good news.  The February number was revised upwards to 261,000 private sector jobs created, and the March number was estimated upward to 231,000 -- very, very solid; an average of approximately a quarter of a million private sector jobs created each month for three straight months. 

We're pleased about that.  We obviously have a lot more work to do.  The recession cost the American labor force 8 million jobs and we're still digging ourselves out of that hole. 

Next I'd like to just remind you about where we're going today.  The President will first visit Allison Transmission, which is a leader in hybrid technology and the world’s largest manufacturer of fully automatic transmissions for medium and heavy-duty commercial vehicles, tactical military vehicles, and hybrid compulsion systems.  This visit is meant to highlight the President’s commitment to diversifying our energy requirements, to reduce our dependence on imported oil, and to ensure that we are leaders in clean energy technology in the 21st century.

Finally, I just wanted to note that when we go to Fort Campbell today, the President and Vice President will be visiting with members of the 101st Airborne Division, which, if you don't know, has such a remarkable history, beginning in World War II, where they were the first allied forces to set foot on occupied France territory; fought valiantly through World War II; were a vital division during the Cold War, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm and then obviously in the Iraq war, and most recently in Afghanistan.  Extraordinary service, extraordinary sacrifice.

What is less known is that it was elements of the 101st Airborne Division who were sent by President Eisenhower to Little Rock to ensure that the “Little Rock Nine” attended Little Rock Central High School.  It was also elements of the 101st that were sent to help make sure that James Meredith was able to attend as the first African American at the University of Mississippi.  So it is a noble, noble history.  And both the President and Vice President look forward to that visit.

With that I will take your questions.

Q    Jay, the President has said he doesn't want to spike the ball.  But he’s speaking to troops.  Doesn't he expect a celebratory mood there in the wake of bin Laden’s death?  And does that kind of go against that mood that he’s trying to -- a non-gloating mood?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't expect you’ll hear the President spiking the ball or gloating when he speaks to troops returning from Afghanistan today.  The point he will make is that while the successful mission against Osama bin Laden was an historic and singular event, it does not by any means mean that we are finished with the war against al Qaeda.  The fight goes on.

And one of the reasons why the President refocused our resources and attention on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, increased our commitment there in terms of troops -- which these troops represent -- is because he believed very strongly that al Qaeda central was the number one target -- should be the number one target of that effort.

He’s going to speak to these troops to thank them for their service.  They have fought valiantly and incurred significant casualties in that effort.  So there’s nothing -- there’s no intent to gloat at all in that regard.

Q    Is he meeting with members of the teams that carried out the operation to get Osama bin Laden?

MR. CARNEY:  What I can say is that he is meeting with special operators -- some special operators who were involved in that, but that is all I can say.

Q    On the bin Laden operation, Al Arabia is reporting that al Qaeda is now -- may not come as a shock -- threatening to attack the U.S. in retaliation for killing bin Laden.  Is the President aware of that?  And what’s his thinking on that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we are aware of it, seen the reports.  What it does do, obviously, is acknowledge the obvious, which is that Osama bin Laden was killed on Sunday night by U.S. forces.

Q    Is there any more concern now that there’s been --

MR. CARNEY:  We're being extremely vigilant.  You can ask questions of the Department of Homeland Security as well, but the -- we’re quite aware of the potential for activity and are highly vigilant on that matter for that reason. 

One of the things we saw I think last night was the notice that DHS put out with regard to the information collected about the consideration at least of a terrorist plot against American railways back in February of 2010.  The fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist might have been considering further terror plots against the United States is not a surprise, but it reminds us, of course, that we need to remain ever vigilant.    

Q    Jay, can you at least tell us whether this group of special operators that you referred to will include Navy SEALs or helicopter pilots --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to say anything more about that.  It is extremely important that I say nothing more.

Q    If we’re done with the bin Laden questions, or are you not?  On another matter, the Republican congressional leaders appear to be backing away from attempting to pass their Medicare plan prior to the 2012 election it’s widely reported today.  What does the President think about that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say simply that the talks that the Vice President led yesterday, the initial meeting of the members of Congress and team from the administration, was productive.  And we certainly think that it’s a good thing if those who are participating in those negotiations understand that in order to achieve compromise, we need to find common ground. 

We obviously have -- the President has laid out his plan, and there are elements of stark contrast with the House Republican’s budget that passed.  What we’re looking for now is where we can find some common ground to achieve a goal that Republicans and Democrats share, which is reducing the debt significantly, getting our fiscal house in order and, as the President sees it, while making sure that we protect the investments we need to protect in order to continue to grow the economy, continue to create jobs and educate our children.

Q    Does the President have any reaction to the report today that CEO pay is up 25 percent over last year  --

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t heard him react to that, no.

Q    Jay, can you tell us anything about the President’s immigration speech next week and any other events from the week ahead?

MR. CARNEY:  What I can say is that the speech will reflect the President’s continued commitment to find a bipartisan way to create a bipartisan -- rather comprehensive immigration reform.  As I think I said earlier this week, the fact that we were not able to achieve that in the first two years only means that we need to refocus our efforts and try to find that compromise.  In the past, obviously there has been Republican support for the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that is necessary and we hope that there will be again in the future.  

Q    -- rest of the week ahead?

MR. CARNEY:  I do have that, if you’re ready for it.

Q    Can you field more questions after?

MR. CARNEY:  Do you want to ask those questions first, and then I’ll do --

Q    In April of 2008, President Obama -- or then candidate Obama appeared at a gas station in Indiana -- gas was at $3.60 a gallon -- said we need to vote for change, a new set of policies. He’s returning to Indiana now with gas well over $4.00 a gallon. What does it say about the success he has had over the last three years in dealing with the fuel issue, the gas issue?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you’ve heard the President speak quite a lot lately about the impact of high gas prices on Americans’ pocketbooks and wallets.  We’re very concerned about it.  We do note the steep drop in oil prices in the last couple of days.  And I would also note that one of the things the Attorney General task force will be looking at is coordinating with state attorneys general to make sure that we don’t have a what I’ve heard described as a “rockets-and-parachutes phenomenon,” where prices at the pump rocket up when oil prices rocket up, and yet they come down in a parachute fashion when oil prices go down.  So we want to make sure that a drop in oil prices is appropriately reflected in a drop in gas prices at the pump.

Q    Does the President believe gas prices will drop in the coming months?  The futures market seem to be indicating they will.

MR. CARNEY:  We don’t predict markets here, obviously.  And we have seen a drop.  We have -- but they go up and down.  The President, as you know, has said many times that there are no silver bullet solutions here, no short-term solutions, and that’s why he is committed to -- while we are doing the things in the short term that we hope can provide some relief, the big challenge is the long-term solution that weans us off our dependence on foreign oil, that diversifies our energy supply, that allows us to build clean energy industries in the United States that both enhance our national security and provide quality jobs in this country. 

So that’s been his commitment; you’ve heard him speak about that many times.  You’ll hear him speak about it again today in Indiana.

Q    What does the President think about all the Monday morning quarterbacking on the Osama bin Laden operation?  Does he think it’s helpful -- all the criticism and the questioning about how it went down?  Does it --

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t heard much criticism about how it went down.  What I’ve heard is a pretty universal acclamation of the fact that a remarkable team of U.S. personnel conducted one of the most -- one of the riskiest operations imaginable flawlessly, and limited collateral damage and civilian casualties, achieved their goal of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, and returned safely every single American.

So I think that is what most people have focused on, appropriately, because it was a remarkable achievement that was the product of years of intelligence work, years of training in the case of the personnel involved in the actual mission, and some very bold decision-making by the President and others to bring this about.

Q    Jay, how did he feel about yesterday’s events in New York?

MR. CARNEY:  He felt very good about it.  I think he -- the meetings with firefighters, with the police, with families and loved ones of victims were powerful events.  And I think he understands that this is a bittersweet moment, especially for those who lost loved ones in 9/11, both in New York, in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.  And he was very glad he made the trip.

Q    Jay, the President won Indiana by less than 30,000 votes in ’08.  Does he think that it’s as tough or even tougher political environment right now for him to get support for his agenda or even win reelection?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that it’s a long time before next year’s election, and he’s focused on the things that a President needs to be focused on -- our national security -- his focus on that I think has been quite evident in the last several days; and the economy, which is what he’ll be focusing on today in Indiana.

I think that the President firmly believes that making the right policy decisions tends to be beneficial come political season, but for him, at least, political season is a long way off.

Q    -- we’re flying into another swing state.

MR. CARNEY:  The fact is that this -- Allison Transmission is, as I just read to you, a major manufacturer of the kind of the technology that the President believes is going to help us win the future in the 21st century.  So I think we go where the action is, and in this case, this company is where the action is.

Q    Did the President watch the Fox News Republican debate last night?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t asked him.  I don't know.  I think there was some basketball on last night -- maybe there wasn’t, maybe that's tonight -- so I don't know.  I think the Bulls are playing tonight, is that right?  Well, come on, guys. 

Yes.  Okay, I can do the week ahead if you don't have any more questions.

On Monday, the President will meet with heads of the Chinese Strategic Economic Dialogue delegation at the White House. 

On Tuesday, the President will travel, as you know, to the El Paso, Texas area to deliver a speech on comprehensive immigration reform.  He will then travel to Austin, Texas, before returning to Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday, the President will participate in a CBS Town Hall at the Newseum.  In the evening, the President and the First Lady will host a celebration of American poetry and prose by welcoming accomplished poets, musicians and artists, as well as students, from across the country to the White House.

On Thursday, the President will deliver remarks at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. 

And on Friday, the President will attend meetings at the White House.

Q    The town hall is Wednesday, not Thursday?  Initially it was --

MR. CARNEY:  That’s correct, it’s Wednesday. 

All right, thanks, guys.

END
10:52 A.M. EDT

6:21 P.M. EDT

      THE PRESIDENT:  Gracias, gracias.  (Applause.)

      AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA!

      THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Gracias.  Buenas noches.  (Applause.)  Bienvenidos.  Welcome to the Cinco de Mayo at the White House.  (Applause.)   

      Nothing ruins a good fiesta like a long speech from a politician.  (Laughter.)  So I'm going to keep it short.

      MRS. OBAMA:  Keep it short.  (Laughter.)

      THE PRESIDENT:  Keep it short.  I just want to acknowledge a few proud Latinos and friends of Latinos who are here with us tonight:  A great friend to me and to the United States, Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan is here, from Mexico, with his lovely wife Verónica.  (Applause.)  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is in the house.  (Applause.)  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is here.  (Applause.)  Several members of Congress have made the trek tonight.  And everybody please join me in wishing a feliz cumpleaños to the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Charlie Gonzalez.  (Applause.)  Happy birthday, Charlie.  (Applause.)

      We are also joined by Hispanic Americans serving at every level of my administration, some who’ve contributed to a new website that we launched this week:  whitehouse.gov/Hispanic. (Applause.)  So check out the website.  And welcome to all of you who are serving on the commission to explore the creation of a new National Museum of the American Latino.  (Applause.)  Today they presented me with their final report to Congress, and I’m grateful for their hard work and hopefully we will see that museum become a reality.  So we're very grateful to them.

      Finally, I want to thank my -- my band, the United States Marine Band.  (Applause.)  And we are looking forward to hearing Javier Cortés spin some of his records, and he has done great work so I know that he’s going to keep this party lively this evening.  

      But this is really a day for commemorating our shared heritage.  Our shared heritage -- Mexicans and Americans.  It’s a day for remembering that America is a richer, stronger, more vibrant place thanks to the contributions of Mexican Americans to the life of this nation –- contributions in commerce, culture, in language and literature, in faith, and obviously in food.  (Laughter.)

      I asked Michelle the other day, I said, what’s your favorite food -- because we were sitting around with the girls.  She said, oh, Mexican food.  That's -- (applause.)  You do not want to be between Michelle and a tamale.  (Laughter.)  That is true.  That's true.  But she’s moving, though, so she can afford to have as many tamales as she wants.  (Laughter and applause.)

      It is also a day for honoring the service of the many Mexican Americans who serve proudly in our country’s uniform, and we are grateful to them.  (Applause.)

      And it’s a day we commit ourselves to advancing the aspirations of all Latinos, and reaffirm the ideals that we share as Americans.  That means improving the education that we provide to our children; strengthening the social safety net that we build for our seniors and the poor and the sick; living up to our values as a nation of immigrants that built this country into the economic powerhouse that it is and the beacon of hope that it is around the world.  (Applause.)

      I’ve talked to you in recent weeks about this immigration issue.  I strongly believe that we’ve got to fix this broken system so that it meets the needs of our 21st century economy and our security needs.  I want to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, to enforce our laws and also to address the status of millions of undocumented workers.  I want to sign the DREAM Act into law.  (Applause.)  This is not going to be easy.  It’s going to require bipartisan support.  I’m going to need your help.  We’ve got to keep doing the hard work of changing minds and changing hearts and changing votes, one at a time.  But all of you are going to be out there, and you're going to have to help make this happen.

      Let me just -- let me just wrap up by saying this.  Last week I had the honor of traveling down to Florida and delivering the commencement address at Miami Dade College.  And Dr. Eduardo Padrón is here.  (Applause.)   There he is over there.  And I want to brag on him a little bit because he’s actually a graduate of the school.

      This is a school with more than 170,000 students who come from 181 different countries, speak 94 different languages.  The graduates were so excited, they were so proud.  They spent a good portion of the ceremony dancing and doing the wave.  (Laughter.) I mean, you know, there were Cubanos there.  There were Haitians. There were -- there were Puerto Ricanos.  (Applause.)  I mean everybody was there.  (Laughter and applause.)  Everybody was there -- and everybody could dance.  (Laughter.)

      And they were excited not just to finally get their exams out of the way, but because they finally knew what it was to achieve a dream.  Many of them were the first in their families ever to graduate from college, and they overcame obstacles and defeated their own doubts to finish.  And a lot of their parents, they're crying, and they could only dream of such a day as was happening there.

      And by the way, Miami Dade is rated one of the top community colleges in the nation.  And as the ceremony -- the formal ceremony finally began, the dancing quieted down a little bit.  The students in the campus ROTC took turns marching the flags of the countries where -- of origin for each of the graduating students.  So you had 181 countries.  And the students would stand up and cheer after -- when the Haitian flag went by, or the Colombian flag went by.  You name it, right, everybody was getting up and cheering.

      Some flags received a lot of cheers.  (Laughter.)  Mexico, Guatemala.  (Applause.)  And then there were -- then there was like the Ukrainian flag.  (Laughter.)  And the Canadian flag, Estonia -- there were just a couple -- (laughter.)  But, I mean, they were proud, but it was just not as many people.  (Laughter.)
      But there was one flag that every single student and spectator cheered loudly and proudly for -- and that was when the American flag came through.  (Applause.)  The American flag.   (Applause.)  So it was a wonderful reminder -- we all come from different backgrounds, we have different beliefs, we have sometimes petty and sometimes not-so-petty political differences. But we all share a set of ideals.  We all have a common future.  We’re the heirs to mothers and fathers and grandparents, great grandparents, who struggled and sacrificed to forge and realize the American Dream.

      And that fills us with the collective responsibility to leave an even bigger and bolder, more generous, more compassionate nation for our children.  That's what drives me each day.  That's what inspires Michelle.  I know that's what drives many of you.

      So I am thrilled to have you here today where we celebrate your incredible heritage, but we also celebrate the incredible heritage of this great country of ours.  (Applause.)   

      God bless you.  Feliz Cinco de Mayo.  Muchas gracias.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

                              END                    6:32 P.M. EDT

Igor Semyonovich Kon, an outstanding person and one of the founders of Soviet sociology, is no longer with us. Sadly there are ever fewer of people like him, who are at the same time passionate scientists and profoundly interesting people.

Unlike many of his colleagues Kon did not consider the situation in Russian sociology catastrophic.

When the idea for the polit.ru project Adult People was born, I had no doubt that the hero of the first interview would be Igor Kon. Who else? The series records in text and video conversations with outstanding figures in the fields of science, culture and public life, so it could only be him. His book “The Sociology of Personality” has stood on my bookshelf since I was a child. Igor Kon was always able to write very clearly about complicated subjects and I was fascinated by this book when I was 13. I’m not sure that any other sociological tome would have been able to enthrall a girl of that age, but this one did and I couldn’t put it down.

Igor Semyonovich readily agreed to a meeting for two reasons: he had recently celebrated his 80th birthday and his book with the poignant title “80 Years of Solitude” had been published to coincide with the sociological congress marking 50 years of Russian sociology. When I said to him that sociology was 50 years old and that he had been working in the discipline for the same amount of time, he corrected me, saying that he had become interested in sociology before that date.

Editors’ note: Igor Kon (1928-2011), who has died aged 82, was one of Russia’s leading intellectuals. In the 1960s he was one of the founders of the new Soviet sociology, a branch of science which had been virtually eradicated in the 1920s. He wrote more than 300 articles and books on a wide range of subjects, including philosophy, history, psychology, anthropology, ethnology and sexology.

Starting in the 1970s Igor Kon virtually single-handed created the science of sexology in Russia. For him it was an independent interdisciplinary science encompassing the humanities and social, as well as medical, branches of science. However, his “Introduction to Sexology”, which has gone through many editions, was only published in Russian in 1988. Igor Kon played a leading role in the social acceptance of homosexuality in Russia. On more than one occasion he suffered harassment at the hands of organisations and people who considered that his kind of scientific research had no place in Russia.

Gender studies occupied an important place in Igor Kon’s body of scientific work. These were motivated more by socio-psychological and cultural-anthropological interests, than the purely linguistic and include his study of the status of men in a changing world, the history of ideas on the subject of the formation of boys’ personality. His last monograph was devoted to the problem of the physical punishment of children.

Igor Kon was an Honorary Professor of Cornell University USA and a doctor honoris causa of the University of Surrey UK. He was also a regular specialist contributor and author on our partner web site www.polit.ru.

Our first meeting was on 8 December 2008 and after that we met annually. A discussion with Igor Kon started each new project year; on top of that we corresponded and he sent me everything he wrote. His output was considerable: he published on average one book a year. Titles include “Men in a changing world”, “The boy is father to the man”, “Strawberries on the birch tree: sexual culture in Russia”, and quite recently “To beat or not to beat” about domestic violence. I don’t know if it’s been published, because he sent it to me in manuscript, but we discussed it for the last time quite recently. Alas, that it should be the last time.

Igor Semyonovich was talking about his plans for the future, of which there were many.  Over the years he had almost exhausted his studies of ‘masculine themes’, but he was intending to carry on. There is a considerable amount of good quality feminist literature published in Russia, but much less is written about men, so Kon had the scientific lead in this field.

All the books he published in the last few years were a long time in preparation. They are seminal works in which he worked through thousands of sources, mainly foreign. I open the book “The boy is father to the man” to find that the bibliography alone extends to 54 pages and this is how he always worked. In one of our interviews he said without a trace of fishing for compliments (which was absolutely not part of his make up): “There are 700 pages in this book. In our 21st century only a graphomaniac would write a book of this length. Who'll be able to read it? ”

Of his book “80 years of solitude” he said “It's more of an intellectual biography than an academic work. I wasn't writing my autobiography, but the history of my work, which was very interesting to do, not least because I have written about many good people.” It really is the history of a scientist and there's not much about his own life. I didn't ask why he had given the book this title, because I didn't need to. Kon was a very solitary person and this subject came up in every one of our interviews. “Unfortunately that's just how it turned out. I have always been alone and that's unlikely to change in my ninth decade.”

Kon regarded the future of Russia in general and sociology in particular without much enthusiasm. Having said that, he was absolutely not given to emotional judgements, which had not been carefully considered and weighed up. He was not biased or easily carried away, nor did he see life in terms of black and white. Nothing of the kind. In his first interview he gave an insight into his approach to life: “I am no optimist, even the opposite. I always said I was a sceptic and now I've become a pessimist. But I am convinced that pessimism as a philosophy is politically incorrect.” I think that in his last years he became more and more “politically incorrect” and lonely.

According to Kon the sexual liberation that
accompanied the collapse of the Soviet
regime has been transformed into
commercialized, trivialized sexuality

He developed his credo a long time ago and it didn't change. This was primarily true of his scientific sense of responsibility and motivation. “The people who created Soviet sociology were motivated.” If you are working on a book or lecturing to students you have to be fully prepared and to study all the available world literature and not to allow yourself any indulgences: “I may answer to no one, but I would be ashamed to give students something that is not quite up to date, when something new and interesting has appeared on the scene. I'm not teaching a general course and I am answerable for my subject. If you are a serious person, you're a professional. You have a sense of responsibility, so while you're teaching a course you have moral duties and an intellectual requirement to operate at the proper scientific level.”

Kon was not someone who chose one topic and studied it all his life. He often made abrupt changes to his interests, even the branch of science he was studying. He didn't consider himself a warrior, nor did he try to refashion the world with the help of science.  He wanted to work and he worked: “At one time, when it was not possible to do sociological research, I moved to the Institute of Ethnography. There I created a new area of study, the 'ethnography of childhood'.” He was very proud of this and pleased that he had created a new area of scientific research, even though he had done so because there was no other way forward. 

Explaining his ability to make sharp turns and find new interests (especially if it was politically difficult to carry on with the old interests), he said: “I am able, and this is probably a positive character trait, to become interested in almost anything. Experience has taught me that any subject can be interesting once you start examining it…and once you start and it is interesting, then it's very difficult to stop!”

Kon said that “the idea that a sociologist is someone who refashions society is absurd.  That's what Marx said about philosophers, but it's a scientist's job to explain, not to re-make, which they wouldn't be able to do anyway.”

The subject of science and his approach to scientific work was extremely important for Kon and he was always coming back to it.  “For me there has to be an intellectual problem. Doing something simply to help unfortunate human nature, to free someone or protect them…this is not for me. Although I am a lover of mankind. I have great respect for human rights campaigners and all kinds of warriors, but it's not my kind of work. I am under no illusion that I shall be able to change the world. But the other side of that coin is that I only embark on the study of an issue if I can see that it is of some significance. I have never carried out research into a given subject because there are no PhD dissertations on that topic or no books have been published. I do it because it's necessary and the problem has to be a genuine social issue, not just an intellectual one. The 'Glass Bead Game' is not for me – I don't have the right mindset.”

He may not have wanted to refashion the world and to have emphasised this frequently, but he was far from indifferent to the way in which his utterances were received. He wanted his “word” to be not only heard, but acted upon by society, particularly during his last years when he was writing about men. In every one of his last books on the subject he was demonstrating that men today are not what they were: that there's nothing superior about the controlling, aggressive man and that it's much better to be a man with understanding and concern for others, who can love and is not even afraid to cry. He was always so pleased when he received readers' reactions to this message – from fathers and teachers, rather than from other scientists. He didn't get many such reactions, but those he did receive gave Igor Semyonovich a degree of that optimism that he lacked.

He was always ready to engage in scientific and personal exchanges of opinion, as long as they were serious. He received many letters from students and postgraduates, young academics and he answered every one of them. But it upset him that these conversations were more often than not requests for reading lists, rather than serious, professional letters from colleagues. When asked for reading lists, he would enquire what kind of research project was intended and what the person was trying to find out. The correspondence would usually peter out at this point. He told me about a girl whose request had engendered very warm feelings in him: “It was an unusual case, because the question she asked me was one that could be answered. The majority of them want me to do their work for them. I answer those letters, but I ask them to set down what they actually want and that's usually the end of it.»

Igor Kon was a veritable polymath
whose interests ranged from
history to sexology

Unlike many of his colleagues Kon did not consider the situation in Russian sociology catastrophic. Not good and difficult – yes, but something is actually happening, there is some kind of movement, albeit very, very slow. His main message was that dreaming of the wonders of Russian sociology and then checking off the reality against this dream is the wrong way to go about it. Russian sociology is as it is and this is an objective situation. “So we've got what we've got – an overall picture of sociological mediocrity with individual granules of serious science drowning in it.” Given that situation, we have to do all we can to improve it.

He used to speak with great joy of colleagues whose work was of a genuinely high level.  Sometimes he described the level as “world quality». In particular he considered that the work of the demographers in A.G. Vishnevsky's group was a model of scientific endeavour and spoke of them with affection and pride. He regarded the work of the Levada Center leading specialists in a similar way: Lev Gudkov and Boris Dubin he considered worthy of the greatest respect, and the women sociologists of the European University in St Petersburg too. Good scientists, professional pieces of work. When he spoke of them, his expression and the timbre of his voice changed, evidence of his pleasure at his colleagues' work.

Igor Semyonovich's life was carefully structured: he got up at 5 or 6 in the morning and worked for 14 hours a day. This was his regular way of life and enabled him to produce such a considerable body of work. He wrote until 2pm, then he read background materials and got in touch with people he needed to contact; then he did his correspondence and at 10 he went to bed. If he went any later he suffered from terrible insomnia. He used to say that he would love to be able to go the theatre or somewhere else in the evening, but his body was so used to this regime that it wouldn't let him. He tried fighting it, but to no avail.

Any inessential i.e. not work-related events (such as our interviews) always took place in the afternoon, because work until 2pm was sacred for him. He even asked people to ring after 2pm, as he didn't want to be distracted. Recently he had not been feeling very well and said that his productivity had fallen off, which slowed up work on “To beat or not to beat.”

Kon said that “the idea that a sociologist is someone who refashions society is absurd.  That's what Marx said about philosophers, but it's a scientist's job to explain, not to re-make, which they wouldn't be able to do anyway.”

To conclude I should like to quote something very important that Kon said during our conversation: “The two biggest bestsellers on bringing up boys both recommend special techniques. They say that boys should be taught to cry. They don't need teaching that, but they shouldn't be taught that they mustn't cry either, because a boy who doesn't cry is a problem. He will grow up into an unfeeling man, unable to express his feelings or understand other people.” This is really the main idea of his last books: a man must be able to express his feelings and he must understand others. I think Igor Semyonovich understood others, even though he was a very private person.

That Igor Semyonovich Kon is no longer with us is a matter of huge regret, because he was a great man and I shall miss him terribly. I'm very glad I said to him some of the things that we don't always get round to saying to people who are important to us. I don't know what he thought about that, but it was very important for me. 

Sideboxes

'Read On' Sidebox: 

Books and articles by Igor Kon

Igor Kon, Curriculum Vitae

Sex and Russian Society, Igor Kon & James Riordan (Eds.), Bloomington, Indiana: University of Indiana Press, 1993, 176 pages

History of Classical Sociology. Trans. H. Campbell Creighton. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989

 (1995) Sexual Revolution in Russia: From the Age of the Czars to Today. Trans. James Riordan. New York: Free Press, 337 pages

The Concept of Alienation In Modern Sociology, Marxism and Sociology, Views from Eastern Europe, Edited by Peter L. Berger, New School for Social Research, New York 1969

Sidebox: 

Although the old communist bureaucracy is bankrupt, the so-called "democrats" are not much better. All too often they come across as irresponsible chatterboxes full of false promises. Once swept to power, some proved to be even more corrupt than their predecessors. Ironically, there is more corruption and cynicism today than under Brezhnev's rule, when the officialdom paid some homage to appearances and feared losing its privileges. Before 1985, the Soviet Union was the most hypocritical country in the world, now it is the most cynical one.

Igor Kon, Moral Culture: Public Morality and Private Responsibility

Related stories: 

Tatyana Zaslavskaya’s moment

Sexually liberated, or just badly brought up?

One of the more disturbing and under-reported stories these days is the Republican campaign to obstruct voting by pro-Democratic groups. It's happening in many states, and it's a more serious threat than usual, as a result of GOP gains in November, which give them additional leverage in state legislatures.

The Miami Herald is doing a pretty good job of covering this campaign in Florida, and I would urge progressives to monitor the GOP's voter suppression efforts at the state level more closely. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a report by the Herald's Steve Bousquet on Democratic Senator Bill Nelson's critique of Florida's recent efforts at election law "reform":

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson blasted state Republican lawmakers Monday for an election law overhaul that he says will block college students and military personnel from having their votes counted next year when he and President Barack Obama both seek re-election.

Then Nelson waded into a controversy of his own when he suggested the U.S. special forces that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden could be blocked from voting if the Legislature passes the bill.

"Should we deny those very military that carried out this very successful decapitating of the al-Qaida snake?" Nelson asked at a Capitol news conference. "Should we deny them because they have signed their voter registration card in a different way than they signed their absentee ballot overseas?"

Senator Nelson's point is well-put and well-timed. Naturally, Florida Republicans went ballistic and accused Nelson of, gasp, political opportunism. Bousquet explains what the 'reform' proposals would do:

The target of Nelson's wrath are bills awaiting floor votes in the last few days of the session. Under the proposed changes, voters could not update addresses at the polls unless they moved within their county, and third-party groups that don't turn in voter registration forms within 48 hours would face $50-a-day fines.

The Herald's Joy-Ann Reid elaborates in her Sunday article, "In Florida, GOP Squeezes Obama-friendly Voters":

In Florida, the GOP-dominated legislature will soon pass laws squeezing the voting methods favored by minorities, college students and the working class.

Between them, the House and Senate bills would cut early voting from two weeks to one; force people who need to update their name or address on Election Day (say, due to marriage or divorce or a move by a military family) to vote on provisional ballots; and impose onerous restrictions on groups registering people to vote.

In the most extreme case, Republicans hope to pack the Supreme Court to undermine the anti-gerrymandering Fair Districts Amendments voted through by a public who actually thought the authoritarians in Tallahassee would let a little thing like the Constitution come between them and their stranglehold on power.

And in an especially creative flourish, Rick Scott and his Cabinet have revived the spirit of Jim Crow by re-imposing restrictions on voting rights restoration that had been brought into the 21st Century by former Gov. Charlie Crist.

As for the motivation behind the FL GOP reforms, Reid explains:

Florida's two-week early voting period was among the reforms meant to prevent embarrassments like the 2000 election. It was a hard-won victory for working people who sometimes can't get to the polls if they work odd hours, or run out of time to resolve a problem at the polls.

Arguably, it also contributed to Obama's Florida win in 2008, as black churches and college students took full advantage of the extra time (and the history-making opportunity)...Karen Andre, who ran the Liberty City/Little Haiti office for the Obama campaign, called the impact of early voting in those neighborhoods "amazing...It was raining constantly during early voting and people would not leave the polls," she said.

Held harmless by the "reformers" will be absentee voting, which happens to be the method used most effectively by Republicans.

Early voting and same day registration "have been critical in getting sizable numbers of black, Hispanic and young voters to the polls, particularly in presidential elections," according to the Reid Report's "Florida Republicans' War on Voting Continues."

Lawsuits to stop the Florida GOP's disenfranchisement campaign are expected, but prospects for a favorable decision are unclear at best. In any case, Democrats in Florida and other states facing similar shenanigans now have an extra incentive to break records in registering new voters and turning them out in '12.

Today the President and Senior Administration Officials will meet with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss the importance of fixing the broken immigration system for our nation’s 21st century economic and security needs so that America can win the future. The President will also discuss how we can work together to foster a constructive national conversation on this important issue as we work to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress.

Administration officials expected to attend the meeting include:
Bill Daley, Chief of Staff
Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor
Melody Barnes, Director, Domestic Policy Council
Rob Nabors, Director, Legislative Affairs
Cecilia Muñoz, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs
Mark Zuckerman, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy Council
Alejandro Pérez, Special Assistant to the President, Legislative Affairs
Louisa Terrell, Special Assistant to the President, Legislative Affairs
Felicia Escobar, Senior Policy Advisor, Domestic Policy Council

CHC members expected at the meeting include:

Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX), Chair
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX), 1st Vice Chair
Rep. Ben R. Luján (D-NM), 2nd Vice Chair
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Whip
Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA)
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-IL)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NY)
Rep. Grace Flores Napolitano (D-CA)
Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Rep. Gregorio Sablán (D-NMI)
Rep. José E. Serrano (D-NY)
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY)

Background on Administration Immigration Policy
President Obama remains deeply committed to fixing the broken immigration system.  The United States has been enriched by a steady stream of hardworking and talented people who have helped make America an engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world.  As we work to rebuild the economy, our ability to thrive depends, in part, on restoring responsibility and accountability to the immigration system.  President Obama believes Democrats and Republicans should come together to tackle an issue that is critical not only to our national security but also to the economy and our global competiveness.

The President has outlined a vision for fixing the broken immigration system through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:

·         Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: Today, our borders are more secure than at any time in the past several decades. However, the Administration continues to refine and strengthen its strategy.  Enforcement resources should be increased where appropriate and focused on stopping potential terrorists and others who would do our nation harm.

·         Accountability for businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers:  Employers that break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers must be held accountable.  At the same time, we must give employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.

·         Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally:  Those people living here illegally must also be held accountable for getting on the right side of the law, by admitting they broke the law, paying taxes and a penalty, learning English before they can get in line to become legalized and citizens.  Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with fundamental responsibilities.  We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, and reflects of our values.

·         Strengthen economic competiveness by creating a legal immigration system that meets our diverse needs: Our immigration laws should encourage high-skilled individuals we train in our world-class institutions of higher education to stay in the United States and create jobs, stop punishing innocent young people for their parents’ actions by denying children the chance to earn an education or join the military so they can earn higher wages and generate more tax revenues, provide farmers a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and should respect families following the rules.  

The President takes seriously his responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and secure the border.  Over the last two years, the Obama Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, taken important steps to make interior and worksite enforcement of our immigration laws smarter, and more effective, and made improvements to the legal immigration system.

·         Dedicating Unprecedented Resources to Secure the Border: Today, there are more “boots on the ground” along the Southwest Border than ever before.  DHS has also deployed thousands of technology assets, including aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and completed nearly all fencing.  Last year, Congress answered the President’s call to bolster the federal government’s efforts through the Southwest Border Security Supplemental Bill.  DHS is using these resources to build on their successful efforts to decrease the numbers of illegal aliens who cross the border and increase seizures of illegal currency, drugs, and guns that have led to thousands of criminal arrests and prosecutions.

·         Making our Interior and Worksite Enforcement Efforts Smarter and More Strategic:  The Administration has laid out new enforcement strategies targeted at removing immigrants convicted of serious crimes and unscrupulous employers who seek to exploit both immigrant and American workers.  These new strategies are having real results with deportations of criminal immigrants significantly increasing and auditing and fines against employers who are not in compliance with immigration laws in FY 2010. DHS has also invested in implementing important reforms to the detention system, enhancing the security and efficiency of the detention system while prioritizing the health and safety of detainees.

·         Improving our Legal Immigration System: The Administration is improving processing times and clearing backlogs of pending immigration applications, including fully eliminating the FBI National Name Check Program’s backlog.  DHS is also working to ensure that naturalization is accessible to all qualified legal immigrants.  Since January 2009, DHS has worked with the Armed Forces to naturalize 14,000 military personnel.  DHS is also devoting critical funding to support citizenship preparation and integration programs in communities throughout the country.  

Our efforts have been enormously successful, but we need comprehensive reform that demands responsibility and accountability from the government, businesses, and immigrants themselves.

Nick Clegg appeals to Labour supporters to vote for AV and signals greater distance from Tories after the vote

Nick Clegg has made a last-minute appeal to Labour supporters to set aside their desire to "poke him in the eye" and recognise that the alternative vote is an unambiguously progressive reform.

He has also vowed that his party will be more independent of the Conservatives after the referendum, saying the first phase of unanimity in public had been necessary due to the need to tackle the economic crisis.

In a Guardian interview, Clegg said: "For Labour party supporters thinking about how they should vote, Labour has always been at its best a progressive movement for reform. It always has been and always will be. This is a progressive change, an unambiguously progressive change.

"Yes, I understand people want to poke me in the eye and signal their displeasure. I understand all of that – I do not want to belittle that – but this is a fork of the road for progressives which is much bigger than me. This is not about Nick Clegg or the coalition government, it is about whether you take the progressive fork in the road, or do you stick with the status quo."

With polls showing that only a late swing by Labour voters to AV can rescue the yes campaign, Clegg – who is viewed with intense dislike by some on the left – praised Ed Miliband for the way he has led his party in the issue, contrasting him with the "old warhorses" of John Reid and David Blunkett, opposed to reform.

He also expressed his frustration at what some see as the duplicity of his Tory colleagues in government when they claim they are not responsible for the literature put out by the no campaign attacking his "broken promises".

He said: "I take what people say at face value. I do not try to second guess them, but it seems to be an established fact that this no campaign has transformed itself into a Conservative party campaign in all but name. It was transformed by a commitment from Conservative party high command. It is a pity that old warhorses like John Reid and David Blunkett have turned themselves into mouthpieces for what is in effect a Conservative party campaign.

"To be fair to George Osborne and David Cameron, they have been overt about the fact that they are going to do absolutely everything they can to stop a change that is inimical to their interests."

Echoing business secretary Vince Cable, he said the current electoral system had locked out progressive forces.

"The last century, as Vince has quite rightly said, has been dominated by one party – the Conservative party – on a minority of the vote. That is an incontrovertible fact. The whole Roy Jenkins thesis is that if you look at the last century, the left wing parties did not get a look in because they were splitting the difference."

He admits it is not immutable but argued that the trend has been for Labour and Lib Dems to vote tactically for one another. "Clearly, there has been affinity historically, ideologically between the two progressive parties. I am a progressive politician. I lead a progressive party

I always have and always will do.".

"I cannot for the life of me understand how intelligent, sophisticated folk in the Conservative party think it is defensible in the 21st century to have a system that ends up with hundreds of MPs with jobs for life – and they do not even deign to get 50% of the vote every few years."

Clegg is dismissive of critics who attack his record. "To use the challenges of coalition, compromise politics as a stick to beat us with is turning facts on its head to put it mildly. I don't indulge in anger, I think anger is a slightly useless emotion, but I reject this idea that I wilfully went back on my word. People that accuse me of doing a U-turn think I can behave as if I had won a landslide. I didn't. I will never apologise for the wider benefit of the country making those compromises. I accept that people want to shout me down simply to ignore argument and not to engage in rational debate, but that is the fact."

But he predicts his party from now on will be more independent inside the coalition. "If this referendum campaign, in a slightly gloves-off manner, has dramatised the fact that the Liberal Democrats are the progressive voice of this coalition, then it is not a bad thing in the long run.

"As we chalk up more progressive successes, I think people will see a pattern of progressive advance, and if people look out for that, or it is more obvious, or we are more articulate in explaining it, that would be a good thing. I always felt that the early stages were the most disciplined stages of the coalition because we were grappling with tricky fiscal issues, but inevitably over time you get those differences of identity to re-emerge."

But he urges his party not to think in terms of retreat if the referendum is lost or the local elections go badly. "Do I think it would be sensible for Liberal Democrats to bail out of a five-year plan at the very hardest point after a year? I think it would be an act of spectacular political masochism and it is something I am not going to do."

Joe Judge announced on May 1 that he will run as a Democrat in Iowa House district 80 next year. He has been a high school government and history teacher and coach in Albia (Monroe County) for the past seven years. He's a member of the state's largest teacher's union and is chief negotiator on his school district's Labor Management Committee. Judge's parents are former Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of Agriculture and State Senator Patty Judge and former State Senator John Judge, both Democrats.

So far the only material on Judge's campaign website is a link to his official announcement and bio. I've posted that after the jump, along with a district map.

The new district 80 includes all of Appanoose and Monroe counties, the eastern half of Mahaska County (but not the city of Oskaloosa), and most of western Wapello County (but not the city of Ottumwa). It is among the most evenly balanced new Iowa House seats, with 6,593 registered Democrats, 6,496 registered Republicans and 6,577 no-party voters as of April 2011.

No current state representative lives in the new district 80. Its territory was part of four House districts on the map used for the past decade. Democrat Kurt Swaim, who represented Appanoose County, has said he will not seek another term in 2012. Republican Rich Arnold has represented Monroe County and part of Mahaska, but the new map puts his Lucas County home in House district 28. Democrat Mary Gaskill has represented some of the Wapello County townships now placed in district 80, but she will stay in the new district 81, containing her Ottumwa base. Finally, Democrat Curt Hanson has represented the other parts of Wapello in district 80, but he plans to run in the new district 82, containing most of the population that elected him to the Iowa House in 2009 and 2010.

I doubt Judge will face significant opposition in the Democratic primary. He's a past member of the Iowa Democratic State Central Committee as well as past chair of the Third District Central Committee and Monroe County Democrats. I haven't heard of any Republican expressing interest in this district yet. John Deeth points out that several House Republicans thrown together by redistricting live not far from the new district 80. One of them may end up being Judge's GOP opponent.  

Joe Judge of Albia announced Sunday [May 1] he will be a candidate on the Democratic ticket for the new Iowa House District 80. The new district includes all of Appanoose and Monroe Counties along with the western half of Wapello and the eastern half of Mahaska Counties.

"I am excited at the opportunity of serving our southern Iowa communities in the Iowa House of Representatives. If Iowa is going to grow and prosper in the 21st Century, we need to work together to find common sense solutions and I will do that in the Iowa legislature," Judge said during his announcement. "I have always felt that it's important to be an active part of our community and an important way to make sure Iowans have a strong voice in their government."

Judge is a life-long southern Iowan who grew up on the family cow-calf farm east of Albia. He earned a bachelor's degree in Political Science and History in 2001, a master's degree in Social Studies Education in 2004, and a Master's degree in School Administration in 2009 all from the University of Iowa.

"The four counties represented in District 80 need a strong voice to speak up for them in the Iowa House of Representatives. We need good-paying jobs and vibrant Main Streets to keep and attract a skilled workforce. Our schools must provide the highest quality education to keep our kids competitive as they enter college or the work force. I have the proven political experience to get things done, as a teacher I know the educational needs of our part of the state and have seen first hand the challenges that poverty brings to our communities, and as a Chief Negotiator I know the challenges that both labor and management must balance in order to succeed," added Judge.

Since 2004, Joe has been a Government and History teacher in Albia. He is also the head boys tennis coach and served as the head sponsor for the drama program, Letter Winners Club, and the Blue Pride Club at the high school. Judge is a member of ISEA and represents the local teacher's association on the district Labor Management Committee and as Chief Negotiator.

In the next few months Judge will travel to the communities in the new district, spending time with voters to hear their concerns and ask for their support and an official campaign kick off will occur early in June.

"We have the best tourist attraction in the state at Lake Rathbun and the beauty of our natural resources is second to none. But, we have to let the world know and that has to begin in the Iowa House of Representatives," concluded Judge.

Joe Judge is no stranger to politics having grown up in a Democratic family. As a child, he first campaigned with his mother, Patty Judge. Judge quickly made a name for himself on his own when he was elected to the Democratic National Convention in 2000 and 2008. He was also a member of the Democratic State Central Committee from 2002-2006, was the Chair of the 3rd District Democratic Central Committee from 2004- 2006, the Monroe County Democratic Chair from 2006-2009 and was elected in 2008 as one of Iowa's seven Presidential Electors in the Electoral College.

"Not Satisfied" Edition
*

Felicia Sonmez, WaPo political blogger, via Twitter:

“@sarahpalinusa was at msnbc afterparty... Msnbc's rachel maddow offered to make @sarahpalinusa a drink, & palin asked for a diet coke. Maddow brought 1 over a few mins later...Then both had a v pleasant exchange in which it sounded like r. maddow invited s. palin on the show 1 day and palin responded positively... palin was mobbed once guests realized she was there... Asked whether she's running for potus, palin said a decision's still a few months off and she's still sizing up the field... She said she's not satisfied yet with those who've already announced, but won't make a decision until the summer. Also: family a big factor”

Adrienne Ross at Motivation Truth:

“The story here, of course, was Rachel Maddow -- of all people -- greeting Governor Palin and serving her a diet coke after all the bashing and beating she does of her on the air. It amazes me how differently people react when they encounter the Governor face to face.”

philmon at The Clue Batting Cage:

“The screaming response from the Palin haters is that the Vice President breaks ties in the Senate, and that's it -- as if Sarah Palin got it all wrong... But... so many times Palin says something we're instructed to ridicule and laugh at, and then it turns out she was actually right (but nobody in the MSM does a retraction). So I go grab my handy dandy Constitution. From Article 1, Section 3: ‘The Vice President of the United States shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.’ ‘Shall be the President of the Senate’. Question for you snickerers. What is a President? What is the job of a President? If you are the President of something, aren't you ‘in charge’ of it? ‘pres·i·dent /ˈprɛzɪdənt/ [prez-i-duhnt] –noun... an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons...’ Again, Palin ridiculed for giving a supposedly ridiculous answer that turns out to be not so ridiculous.”

Jedediah Bila via Twitter:

“Recall that Levi retracted his negative comments about the Palins, then retracted his retraction. And now he's writing a book. LOL. #joke”

bc3b at Be John Galt:

“While every aspect of Sarah Palin’s life was placed under the microscope down to husband Todd’s former membership in the Alaskan Independence Party, Barack Obama was given a free pass. No major media outlet – including FNC – probed deeply into Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, his membership in the New Party, his association with William Ayers and [Bernardine Dohrn] or the mysterious periods in Obama’s life when he was MIA. We know Palin attended five colleges, but we have no idea how Obama, who supposedly was a poor to mediocre student at Occidential, managed to get into Columbia or Harvard or how his college expenses were funded.”

John Nolte at Big Hollywood:

“HBO is producing a multi-million dollar in-kind contribution to the Obama 2012 campaign.”

Matt Lewis at The Daily Caller:

“The Quotable Rogue is set for publication in June. Following are some of the excellent blurbs that will appear in the book... ‘Sarah Palin is one of the most important conservative leaders in America — and Matt Lewis is one of my favorite writers. Every conservative ought to have a copy of the Quotable Rogue in their personal library — if for no other reason than to refute the distortions and lies constantly hurled at Palin by her detractors.’ – Ken Blackwell... ‘For all the accolades heaped on Mr. Obama for his soaring rhetoric and brilliant, professorial oratory, it’s hard to deny that Sarah Palin is one of the most quotable leaders of the 21st century. The Quotable Rogue brings that into stunning clarity. And it’s not because she’s controversial — it’s because she’s usually just right.’ – S.E. Cupp”

I am Coyote at NW Republican:

“I wish Sarah Palin would actually get in the race now. I know a lot of folks might scoff at her but she is the one who has been banging the energy drum the loudest and the longest. And oh would I LOVE to see the moonbats just freak out should Palin defeat ‘the one.’ Heads would be exploding all over the left coast.”

Bernie Quigley at The Hill's Pundits Blog:

“A phrase recently appeared in the MSM: ‘anti-establishment conservatives.’ Brings to mind that well-worn phrase of the Sixties, ‘counter culture.’ But modeled for a new century and for new generations. Sarah Palin first busted out and today conservatism – from Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Donald Trump - bristles with creativity. It brings a change of paradigm to American politics and culture and suggests a forceful will and intelligence at work in its desire to become real. Commentator Michael Barone compared the change to that of the Sixties. There are now three elements: Democrats, Republicans and the new conservative counter culture which has no real name yet. By 2012 it could well become the new mainstream.”

M. Catharine Evans at American Thinker:

“Could it be that 21st century leftists are descended from a long line of progressive eugenicists? Could it be they are mimicking their ideological forefathers by picking on a Down Syndrome baby?”

Rick Moran at American Thinker Blog:

“In fact, what you will be hearing from Republicans over the next few weeks is that if catastrophe occurs, the fault will lie squarely with Geithner who has it within his power to act on financing our debt in the manner suggested by Palin and others.. If the markets blow up, it will be Geithner's deliberate choice that they do. So the question is: How irresponsible is the Obama administration willing to be on the debt ceiling issue? Given that Obama is already running hard for re-election, the answer is; as irresponsible as he can get away with.”

Phineas at Sister Toldjah:

“It seems to me the woman dismissed as ‘Caribou Barbie’ and a quitter has a better grip on our national interests than the Smartest President in History ever will. Darn her for confusing me by being right when our Cultural Elites insist she’s wrong.”

The Ignorant Fishermen:

“Ever since Sarah Palin entered the national political arena two and a half years ago as the Republican VP nominee, she has caused sheer panic in the hearts and minds of Leftist Liberals and Moderates in America. Accordingly, the Leftist media is hell-bent on doing all they can to discredit Palin’s accomplishments and destroy her character at any cost. Even now, much effort and energy is being expended to deceive the American people regarding her considerable achievements. Her popularity among conservatives is astounding, her books have been flying off of the shelves and many believe that she will get the 2012 endorsement for the presidency.”

Sunny Roseman at The Inconvenient Sunny Roseman Show:

“Have you ever considered hate to be a form of flattery? The harder Sarah Palin’s detractors try to tear her down, the brighter she shines!”

Tim Graham at NewsBusters:

“Rosie O'Donnell... went after Sarah Palin as an ignoramus... But when you start attacking other people as ignorant, it's probably a bad idea to start mangling words and getting things wrong: ‘Sarah Palin has ushered in a whole new level of ignorance as a consumerable quantity.’ Consumerable? If Palin said ‘consumerable,’ how many reporters and comedians would rejoice? (See ‘refudiate.’) Rosie then said ‘When she was running, it was almost like a joke that she would say the things that she did, like I can see Russia from my house. It wasn't ‘almost’ a joke. It was actually a joke by Tina Fey -- and not something Palin actually said.”

- JP

This Tuesday, the President will meet with Senior Administration officials and stakeholders to discuss the importance of fixing the broken immigration system for our nation’s 21st century economic and security needs so that America can win the future. The President will also discuss how we can work together to foster a constructive national conversation on this important issue as we work to build a bipartisan consensus in Congress.  After the meeting, several stakeholders will hold a media availability at the stakeout location outside the West Wing at 4:25 p.m.

Administration officials expected to attend the meeting include:
Attorney General Eric Holder
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano
Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President & Senior Advisor
Nancy Ann DeParle, Assistant to the President & Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President & Director of Domestic Policy Council
Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy & Director of National Economic Council
Austan Goolsbee, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Cecilia Munoz, Deputy Assistant to the President & Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Heidi Avery, Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security

Stakeholders expected to attend the meeting include:
Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals
Hon. Michael Bloomberg, City of New York 
Bill Bratton, Former Police Chief, City of Los Angeles and City of New York
Hon. Julian Castro, Mayor, City of San Antonio
Secretary Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary Homeland Security
Governor John Engler, President and CEO, Business Roundtable 
Hon. Eric Garcetti, City Council, President City of Los Angeles
Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Former Secretary of Commerce
Raymond Kelly, Commissioner, New York City Police Department
Senator Mel Martinez, Former United States Senator/Chairman, Florida, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean JP Morgan Chase
Greg Page, Chairman & CEO, Cargill
Secretary Federico Pena, Former Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Energy
John Podesta, CEO, Center for American Progress
Charles Ramsey, Chief of Police, City of Philadelphia/President, Major City Chiefs
Al  Sharpton, President, National Action Network 
Sheryl Sandberg, COO, Facebook
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former California Governor
Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO
John C. Wester, Bishop, Archdiocese of Salt Lake City

Background on Administration Immigration Policy

President Obama remains deeply committed to fixing the broken immigration system.  The United States has been enriched by a steady stream of hardworking and talented people who have helped make America an engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world.  As we work to rebuild the economy, our ability to thrive depends, in part, on restoring responsibility and accountability to the immigration system.  President Obama believes Democrats and Republicans should come together to tackle an issue that is critical not only to our national security but also to the economy and our global competiveness. 

The President has outlined a vision for fixing the broken immigration system through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability:

• Responsibility from the federal government to secure our borders: Today, our borders are more secure than at any time in the past several decades. However, the Administration continues to refine and strengthen its strategy.  Enforcement resources should be increased where appropriate and focused on stopping potential terrorists and others who would do our nation harm.
• Accountability for businesses that break the law by undermining American workers and exploiting undocumented workers:  Employers that break the law by deliberately hiring and exploiting undocumented workers must be held accountable.  At the same time, we must give employers who want to play by the rules a reliable way to verify that their employees are here legally.
• Responsibility from people who are living in the United States illegally:  Those people living here illegally must also be held accountable for getting on the right side of the law, by admitting they broke the law, paying taxes and a penalty, learning English before they can get in line to become legalized and citizens.  Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with fundamental responsibilities.  We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, and reflects of our values.
• Strengthen economic competiveness by creating a legal immigration system that meets our diverse needs: Our immigration laws should encourage high-skilled individuals we train in our world-class institutions of higher education to stay in the United States and create jobs, stop punishing innocent young people for their parents’ actions by denying children the chance to earn an education or join the military so they can earn higher wages and generate more tax revenues, provide farmers a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and should respect families following the rules.  

The President takes seriously his responsibility to enforce our immigration laws and secure the border.  Over the last two years, the Obama Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, taken important steps to make interior and worksite enforcement of our immigration laws smarter, and more effective, and made improvements to the legal immigration system. 

• Dedicating Unprecedented Resources to Secure the Border: Today, there are more “boots on the ground” along the Southwest Border than ever before.  DHS has also deployed thousands of technology assets, including aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and completed nearly all fencing.  Last year, Congress answered the President’s call to bolster the federal government’s efforts through the Southwest Border Security Supplemental Bill.  DHS is using these resources to build on their successful efforts to decrease the numbers of illegal aliens who cross the border and increase seizures of illegal currency, drugs, and guns that have led to thousands of criminal arrests and prosecutions.
• Making our Interior and Worksite Enforcement Efforts Smarter and More Strategic:  The Administration has laid out new enforcement strategies targeted at removing immigrants convicted of serious crimes and unscrupulous employers who seek to exploit both immigrant and American workers.  These new strategies are having real results with deportations of criminal immigrants significantly increasing and auditing and fines against employers who are not in compliance with immigration laws in FY 2010. DHS has also invested in implementing important reforms to the detention system, enhancing the security and efficiency of the detention system while prioritizing the health and safety of detainees.
• Improving our Legal Immigration System: The Administration is improving processing times and clearing backlogs of pending immigration applications, including fully eliminating the FBI National Name Check Program’s backlog.  DHS is also working to ensure that naturalization is accessible to all qualified legal immigrants.  Since January 2009, DHS has worked with the Armed Forces to naturalize 14,000 military personnel.  DHS is also devoting critical funding to support citizenship preparation and integration programs in communities throughout the country.  

Our efforts have been enormously successful, but we need comprehensive reform that demands responsibility and accountability from the government, businesses, and immigrants themselves.

• Chancellor's claims on electoral reform cash are 'bizarre'
• Deputy PM Nick Clegg joins the attack on the no campaign

The former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown has launched an explosive attack on George Osborne, accusing the chancellor of cheap mud-slinging and scaremongering ahead of the alternative vote referendum.

As the AV debate grows increasingly acrimonious, laying bare growing coalition tensions between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, Ashdown takes Osborne to task over his allegations that the Electoral Reform Society stands to profit from a yes vote.

Osborne claimed the society, which gave £1.1m to the yes campaign, would benefit from the adoption of the alternative vote system through its commercial subsidiary, Electoral Reform Services Ltd (ERSL). But in a strikingly personal attack on the chancellor, Ashdown writes in today's Observer that Osborne's approach is a prime example of why British politics needs radical reform.

"The strategy is clear," writes Ashdown. "Throw as much mud as you can, don't let the issue be discussed openly and frighten the public over the next three weeks into voting to preserve the power the present first-past-the-post system gives you. This strategy stinks of the same odour which has surrounded our politics recently.

"For the chancellor of the exchequer – the chancellor of the exchequer – to claim that there is something 'dodgy' about the Electoral Reform Society donating cash to a campaign in favour of electoral reform is bizarre. George Osborne makes the case for change for us. He graphically shows why we need to change our politics. Why we need to clean it up. Why the voting public deserve something better."

Ashdown's aggressive intervention is made as the gloves come off in the increasingly embittered referendum debate. Twelve Tory ministers and cabinet ministers, including key allies of David Cameron, pounded pavements across the country drumming up support for the no vote.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, condemned the use of smear campaigns during the AV debate and attempted to distance himself from Tory policies. "The no campaign is getting increasingly desperate", the Lib Dem leader said. "That's why they are using ludicrous false claims to try to scare people into keeping things the way they are."

Clegg added: "Working together in the national interest does not mean we agree on everything. And it doesn't mean we shouldn't be taking the fight to the Tories in the local elections, criticising mistakes and wrong priorities wherever they occur."

Meanwhile, the former Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, said the no campaign was a "Conservative front". He urged Labour party supporters to ignore the no campaign of the former deputy prime minister, Lord Prescott, and vote yes with the Liberal Democrats and Labour leader Ed Miliband, to "stuff the Tories".

Oakeshott said: "The no campaign is a pantomime dinosaur, with Prescott at the front, [BNP leader Nick] Griffin at the back and Cameron firmly on top all the time. The stakes couldn't be higher on 5 May – a yes vote will empower the progressive majority in our country. A no will let the Tories in through the backdoor to dominate the 21st century like the 20th."

Friction between the coalition partners comes amid growing frustration on the part of those closest to Clegg that the no campaign has been used to attack the Lib Dems, and the deputy prime minister in particular. Clegg's image is prominent in the no campaign material.

A senior Lib Dem source told the Observer the personal attacks appeared to have been sanctioned from Downing Street. The source added: "The no campaign has been turned into an avenue through which the Tories can attack Nick, let off some steam. The campaign has been funded heavily by Conservative headquarters and the attacks have become very personal. It is like a pressure valve for the Tories for their frustrations in other policy areas."

The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has warned that negative campaigning by the Conservative chairwoman, Baroness Warsi, among others, could lead to a breakdown in the coalition, but senior Lib Dems believe that has not been heeded. Ashdown explicitly criticises Warsi, describing Tory tactics as "indefensible" and "tawdry".

"To have Baroness Warsi stand on the site of race riots in the 1930s and say that a yes vote will help the BNP is as tawdry as it is indefensible", he says. "The BNP are campaigning for a no vote. Such extremist parties as have, God help us, been elected in Britain, were elected through first past the post. As a host of independent commentators have commented, AV will diminish their chances, not increase them."

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is in a swivet. This would not, of itself, be newsworthy as they are virtually always in a swivet. That's not a criticism, by the way. We live in swivet-worthy times.

At the moment they are in a swivet because of the recent budget "deal" and their ever-growing sense that the president of the United States is not exclusively their president. There are even stirrings that it is time for a liberal challenger to the president in next year's primaries. These stirrings are not likely to amount to much as, at the moment, Obama looks so strong that even the Republican Party is having a hard time coming up with a credible alternative to the president.  But they are another sign that Democrats in Congress are likely to be more fractious going forward, with Nancy Pelosi's vote against the recent budget compromise exhibit A to that effect.

The liberals are concerned that the approach embraced in the recent deal and some elements hinted at in the president's speech are contrary to core liberal values, specifically that social programs should not be on the chopping block and that if the deficit is to be a priority -- and it's not clear some of them think it should be-the adjustments ought to come from taxing the rich, defense, closing corporate loopholes, etc. They also are worried about the president's recent support for trade deals like those with South Korea or Colombia. And they don't much like the intervention in Libya or the decision to double-down in Afghanistan. And they feel like the president was sold out by advisors who are too close to Wall Street and that's why "reforms" were incomplete. (None of them seem to be much mollified by the fact that the budget deal is a complete sham, saving in real terms more like $350 million than the vaunted $30-plus billion.)

In other words, they feel that Barack Obama is -- gack! -- a centrist.

They take no comfort in the fact that, as reported in today's New York Times, John Boehner is also taking heat from the wingnuts in his party for cutting a deal with Obama. Which begs the question: do these people understand the difference between politics and governing?

Personally, I think Obama is a liberal at heart (his writings and record before becoming president suggest this) who is also profoundly pragmatic. (Just like I think Boehner is a conservative at heart who is also profoundly pragmatic.)

Pragmatism may sound cheap and valueless, but compared to inaction in the face of urgent issues it's not so bad. Many of Obama's policy choices are compromises. Some are between him and the right, some are between him and the hawks in his administration, some are between him and our European allies, some are between him and the left and no doubt many are between him and his conscience or his own aspirations.

This makes idealists crazy because they feel like he should fall on his sword and bleed to death for the purest expression of the most extreme form of his values ... or rather, of their values. It's a crazy expectation. The real question they should be asking is whether Barack Obama is the electable presidential candidate most likely to do the best job advancing their interests. All other possibilities are either fantasies or would produce even greater disappointment.

Personally, Obama drives me nuts. He regularly makes decisions that are a sign of his inexperience or his impulse to premature compromise.  It is inexcusable that America regularly elects presidents with zero foreign policy experience even though it costs us dearly every time. He is nothing like the transformational figure that was advertised. He is a professional politician who has shown a pronounced bias for hiring other pols for top jobs in his administration, even for policy jobs where he would do better with advisors with deeper, different, policy and management experience. He is, in the end, more or less just like all other professional politicians in history, just a 21st century version, more in tune with the moment and, in all likelihood considerably smarter and of considerably better character than all but a tiny handful of the very best professional politicians we've ever elected.

The fear of hawkish critiques led to a wrong decision to deepen in Afghanistan. The desire to compromise led to an extension of the Bush tax cuts that is deeply fiscally damaging. The inexperience led to a mismanagement of the start of the Libya intervention and is likely to lead to big problems from Iran to Gaza to China in the months and years ahead. The healthcare deal was not too weak because it veered to the middle, it was too weak because it was a hopeless muddle. Wall Street has coopted our system of government and the reality is the president is as much a victim and an enabler as any other politician who doesn't stand up for real campaign finance reform.

None of these things make Obama a centrist. True centrists don't just calculate the difference between two extremes and take it. Historically they have picked and chosen, sometimes sticking to principles of the left, sometimes of the right, sometimes choosing an independent course. For example, "new Democrats" focused on striking a balance between fiscal responsibility, strong defense and social conscience. It wasn't big government or small government over-simplifications. It was government should do what only government can do and markets should do what markets do better. (And as one of them, I want to acknowledge that we "new Democrats" gave markets too much latitude back in the 1990s when we were advancing those policies. Markets need strong regulation to serve the interests of the public at large rather than just those of the few. Market Darwinism doesn't produce the social justice which is the highest and correct objective of any society.)

So the liberals need to re-think their critique on several levels. First, Obama is not a centrist, he is a pragmatist. Second, he's their pragmatist-of all the pragmatists in all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, he's pretty close to the best they're going to do right now. Finally and most importantly, a pragmatist in power is much better than an idealist on the sidelines in a swivet.

The federal government is no longer in danger of shutting down. Today Congress approved a bill to fund operations through fiscal year 2011, which ends on September 30. In the House of Representatives, the bill passed by 260 votes to 167 (roll call). The bill needed bipartisan support, because only 179 House Republicans voted yes, including Iowa's Tom Latham (IA-04). Steve King (IA-05) was among the 59 Republicans who voted against; that's about one-fourth of the House GOP caucus. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among the 81 House Democrats who voted for the budget bill; Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it.

After the bill passed, the House voted for two "corrections" to the bill, which passed on nearly party-line votes (roll calls here and here). One of those resolutions would defund the 2010 health care reform measure, the Affordable Care Act. The other would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Latham and King voted for both "corrections," while Boswell, Loebsack and Braley voted against them.

The Senate quickly took up the spending bill. The House measure to defund health care reform went down first; all 47 Republican senators voted yes, but all 53 senators who caucus with Democrats voted no. Then senators rejected the measure to defund Planned Parenthood. On that resolution, 42 Republicans, including Iowa's Chuck Grassley, voted yes, while a few GOP moderates and the whole Democratic caucus, including Tom Harkin, voted no. The Senate then voted 81 to 19 to pass the spending bill. Most of the no votes were Republicans. Both Grassley and Harkin voted for the compromise to fund the government through the current fiscal year.

After the jump I've posted statements from some members of the Iowa delegation. I will update those as more become available. I noticed that Leonard Boswell did not issue a statement on his vote today; he also didn't send out a press release Friday night about voting for the stopgap one-week spending measure. King's press release today glossed over his vote against the budget deal; instead, he emphasized the House vote on language to block funding for "Obamacare."

There's some confusion about how much federal spending will be cut in the current fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "while the agreement cuts almost $40 billion in budget authority, the near-term reduction in the federal deficit is only about $352 million." Philip Rucker explained some of the accounting gimmicks in this Washington Post article. Many of the cuts will hurt, however.

Of the $38 billion in overall reductions in the budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, about $20 billion would come from domestic discretionary programs, while $17.8 billion would be cut from mandatory programs. [...]

Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government - the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies - Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and "clean and drinking water state revolving funds" ($997 million cut from last year).

Democrats were able to beat back the most severe cuts originally proposed by House Republicans and protect funding for some cherished programs, such as Head Start, AmeriCorps and the implementation of the new health-care and food safety laws.

This pdf file lists the program cuts, grouped by department. There are basically no Defense Department cuts, although spending has been reduced on military construction and a few veterans' programs. In other areas of domestic spending, there are too many ill-advised cuts to list in this post. Some terms in this deal are merely short-sighted: reducing spending on various literacy and conservation programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and a big cut to high-speed rail projects. Other provisions are immoral, like slashing spending for community health care centers and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program's contingency fund. It depresses me that a Democratic president and Senate majority leader agreed to make the largest USDA spending reduction apply to the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.

The bill also contains provisions that have nothing to do with federal expenditures. For instance, it removes gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana so that farmers and ranchers can shoot them.

At the end of this post I've added reaction from the Iowa Congressional delegation to President Barack Obama's April 13 speech on bringing down the national debt. I didn't watch the speech, but I read through the full text, as prepared. It contained some nice words for liberals and some Republican-bashing. The trouble is, based on the president's handling of budget negotiations in the past few months, I believe Obama will end up agreeing to almost all the spending and entitlement cuts Republicans want. Despite his promises yesterday, I very much doubt he will block a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels.
Statement from Senator Tom Harkin, April 14:

"This bill makes some painful cuts. But it could have been a lot worse, especially when you compare it to the alternative from the tea party extremists in the House, which would have killed far more jobs and concentrated its funding cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. This bill protects community services for those most in need while providing funding for education, medical research, and other programs that are critical to our economic future.

"Now that this debate is over, Congress can refocus on the budget for the next fiscal year and the long term.  It remains my hope that the next proposal will include spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while making room for critical investments in education, job training, infrastructure, and research - things that are essential for jobs now and for economic expansion and job creation in the years ahead."

Statement from Bruce Braley, April 14:

"This job-killing spending bill is bad for Iowa, period. It kills jobs and threatens programs that are crucial to Iowa's economic growth. While I support some of the cuts in this legislation, and have previously voted for hundreds of billions in spending cuts, I have serious concerns with the increase in funding for unexplained military operations, while simultaneously cutting job-training programs. American taxpayers should not be forced to sacrifice important programs here at home while covering the bill for a third undefined, military conflict overseas."

Statement from Dave Loebsack, April 14:

"There is no doubt that putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path demands serious, bipartisan work.  I do believe that cutting spending is one part of the solution and I have already supported over $11 billion in difficult but necessary spending cuts from the FY 2011 budget. But, we must promote an economy that works for Iowa families, moves our economic recovery forward, and ensures an adequate safety net is in place for our most vulnerable.  Unfortunately the bill considered today did not meet those standards.

"I support many of the measures included in the bill, including funding for equipment for the National Guard and funding for Head Start. But, I cannot support cutting programs that are critical to Iowans in the Second District.

"The bill that passed today would make significant cuts to education and job training, which are critical to Iowa families' ability to prepare for and pursue good-paying jobs. It would also cut essential improvements to our nation's infrastructure that residents and businesses rely on and that are critical to economic development, including transit, highway funding and passenger rail.

"By eliminating access to year-round Pell grants and cutting funding for job training programs, this bill would make it harder for deserving students to afford the quality education Iowa colleges and universities provide and for Iowa workers to receive the education and training they need to compete in the 21st century.

"I have worked with many local Police Chiefs and Sheriffs in Southeast Iowa to help them get the equipment and hiring resources they need, and I very much oppose cuts to the grant programs that help them keep our communities safe.  

"Communities across Iowa are already struggling as a result of the economic downturn, and I have seen first-hand the benefit that Community Development Block Grants have had, especially for those areas ravaged by the Floods of 2008. This funding is critical for rehabilitation and development projects across Iowa and numerous cities have expressed strong concerns about further cuts to these programs.

"There is no question that getting our fiscal house in order is going to require tough choices and shared sacrifice. The time is long past due for Congress to come together to make thoughtful decisions that do not set back our economic recovery or put our children at a competitive disadvantage, but instead pave the way for ongoing economic growth and a strong future for our children."

Statement from Steve King, April 14:

House Passes King's Language to Defund ObamaCare

Washington, DC - Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed language he introduced to block the continued funding of ObamaCare. King's language blocks any funds contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on the implementation of ObamaCare, and it shuts off $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations for the law's implementation that were included in the ObamaCare legislation itself.

"The House has now gone on record in support of my efforts to eliminate $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations built into ObamaCare," said King. "The funding prohibition passed by the House today would not only block funding contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on ObamaCare, but it would also shut off $105.5 billion in automatic funding for its implementation that was contained in the law itself.

As I have long argued, blocking ObamaCare's automatic funding is necessary to prevent the Obama administration from putting the pieces of this unconstitutional law into place. It is important that the majority of Americans who support repealing and defunding ObamaCare know where their Member of Congress stands, and today's vote should make that clear."

As background, on February 14, the Washington Times published an op-ed by Congressman King in which he called for the inclusion of language in the continuing resolution to block all funding for ObamaCare. With today's vote, the House has gone on record in support of King's initiative to defund ObamaCare.

The vote on King's language took place as a result of the compromise that was struck last week by Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid and President Obama over legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, FY 2011. The agreement provided for an up or down vote on King's language as an "enrollment correction" to the FY 2011 continuing resolution that the House passed earlier in the day.

Statement from Steve King, April 9:

Washington D.C. - Congressman Steve King (R-IA) issued the following statement regarding the deal that was reached to fund the operations of the federal government through the remainder of the current federal fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2011.

"There is no question that the cuts offered in the forthcoming long-term CR are needed and are long overdue. We must get government spending under control and rein in our skyrocketing deficit. But, while $39 billion in cuts is better than the status quo, it's a long way from where we need to be," said King.

"Today the American people were given a $39 billion cut in federal spending in exchange for continued funding for ObamaCare. For months I have said that the CR would be the key leverage point in the effort to stop the implementation of ObamaCare. I am disappointed that we have surrendered this leverage without taking a stand to shut off the funding for this unconstitutional law. We have now ceded a significant amount of ground on this issue, and I fear that we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to regain it any time soon."

"More than $105 billion in automatic funding for ObamaCare is already on the books, and over $23 billion of this total is in the pipeline to be spent. Every day ObamaCare's roots reach deeper and deeper. In November, the American people charged us with stopping ObamaCare in its tracks, and today we made it much harder to do so."

REACTION TO OBAMA'S BUDGET SPEECH

Statement from Chuck Grassley, April 13:

"From World War II through 2009, every dollar of new federal tax revenue resulted in $1.17 in new spending.  Tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 resulted in more revenue to the federal Treasury.  The expanding economy spurred by this tax relief helped to reduce the annual budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $160.7 billion in 2007.  Even the most sincere argument that raising taxes will reduce the deficit and debt doesn't have history to back it up.  Outside of Washington, it's obvious that the  problem isn't that people are under-taxed, but that Washington over spends.  They said so loud and clear in the last election.  Government spending increased by 22 percent during the last two years.  If we follow the budget proposed this year by President Obama, we'll add another $13 trillion to our national debt over the next decade.  This debt gets in the way of the economic activity that creates jobs, and it's a terrible burden to leave future generations.  Washington needs to get behind policies that clamp down on spending and grow the economy.  Increased economic activity increases revenue to the federal Treasury, enabling deficit and debt reduction.  The answer is not defending ways to grow the government."    

Statement from Steve King, April 13:

"It should be clear that President Obama doesn't view the nation's debt crisis as a problem to be solved, but as a tool to be used to advance his own reelection hopes," said King. "In one speech, the President managed to hit all the notes that his demoralized liberal base wanted to hear: he played the class warfare card, he endorsed cutting defense spending, he demagogued Paul Ryan's 'Path to Prosperity,' he touted the unconstitutional ObamaCare law, and he even blamed Bush for the nation's current debt problems. While the speech may excite some on the far-left, it should be viewed with disappointment by Americans who were hoping that the President would put politics aside to work on behalf of cutting spending and lowering the nation's debt."

Statement from Tom Latham, April 13:

"I'm glad President Obama has joined the debate on how we can repair our country's fiscal standing.  We simply cannot continue to spend money we don't have, and it will take a truly bipartisan effort to cut spending, reduce the debt and improve the environment for job creation.  But raising taxes on anyone while the economy is in such a fragile condition will put us in an even deeper hole.  Congress must realize that the government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.

"I am fully committed to working with the White House and any of my colleagues in Congress - regardless of party affiliation - who are willing to boldly stand up and address our country's fiscal crisis and do the right thing for American families, farms and main streets."

Reaction from Iowa Democrats in Congress:

TOM HARKIN, Iowa's Democratic U.S. senator:

"One thing is clear: our country cannot continue down the economic path we are on. We must reduce our deficit. But that is not a call for Congress to pass budget proposals that are wholly unequal, forcing cuts upon the most vulnerable Americans while at the same time, continuing to given tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and special interests. That is why it was so refreshing to hear the President talk about the need for balance and shared fiscal responsibility in the framework unveiled today. This framework combines spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while still making investments that will expand our economy and will create jobs in the years ahead. I am especially encouraged that it builds on the down payment made to reduce health care spending and the deficit under the Affordable Care Act, and it rightly rejects the Ryan plan to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. In the coming days, my staff and I will fully examine this and other proposals. While I may not agree with every detail, I do agree that we need to make tough choices that move our country forward. This framework is on the right path."

DAVE LOEBSACK, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 2nd District:

"Over the last few weeks we have witnessed political games at their worst. This kind of brinksmanship and grandstanding is doing nothing to help Iowa families and businesses who are continuing to struggle and are worried about their children's future. While I may not agree with every proposal put forward, I strongly believe we must move forward. The days when our nation could afford Washington's political posturing are long since over. It's time to get to work. That is why I was disappointed last year when Republicans walked away from real accountability so they could preserve their strategy of privatizing Medicare. We need to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order and promote our economic recovery. We're not going to get there through proposals that make seniors, families, and students pay for what must be a shared sacrifice, and I hope that the President's speech today will mark the beginning of a national dialogue about the future of our nation."

BRUCE BRALEY, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 1st District, sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing concern over the proposed $157.8 billion in taxpayer funds for an "Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund" in the 2011 spending bill:

"Just earlier this week, the Defense Department announced that operations in Libya have cost taxpayers as much as $608 million to date, and it seems that this money came out of the 'Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund.' Now, taxpayers are being asked for even more money for this fund - presumably to fund additional operations in Libya. It's unacceptable for us to engage in yet another overseas mission without a clear understanding of how much we plan to spend, and I believe Americans deserve a clear answer from the President on what this fund will be used for and how much will be spent."

LEONARD BOSWELL, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa's 3rd District, commented on House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen's release of the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget and President Barack Obama's budget statement:

"I am encouraged that both Ranking Member Van Hollen and President Obama are tackling cuts to spending and ways to generate revenue by ending tax expenditures like oil and gas subsidies and mortgage deductions for vacation homes and yachts. Their plans reflect a desire to grow our country through wise investment in those programs and activities which generate income and reduce overall expenses, while balancing a freeze in discretionary spending. It is time we make smart spending cuts with revenue generating measures such as ending billions in tax giveaways to corporations and special interests. Prioritizing is critical in budgeting, and my vote will always be to preserve Medicare benefits for seniors, instead of extending tax cuts for millionaires. Ending Medicare as we know it by privatizing seniors' health care and doubling their premiums is just cost-shifting and it is the wrong solution to deficit reduction. We need a multi-pronged attack that cuts domestic spending, phases out the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends some of the tax subsidies that cost Americans $1 trillion a year.  My priority is to bring our budget back into balance with programs and strategies which protect our citizens, strengthen our country, and grow our economy."

I’m going to comment on the President’s budget speech in a minute, but first I want to highlight something happening on Capitol Hill today that really ties together the Republican governing philosophy.

There is a certain rich irony in Darrell Issa bringing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to the Capitol for a hearing on how Moody’s has boosted Wisconsin’s credit rating because of the union busting measures Walker has been pushing in the state. So in one sentence, you have a leader of the House Republicans that are trying to do away with Medicare and Medicaid, the governor who most personifies the attempt to crush collective bargaining in this country, and one of the principal companies at the dead center of the fraud on Wall Street that brought down the world economy. They should take their show on the road. You could entitle it “Cruelty, Arrogance, and Fraud: How to Dismantle the American Middle Class in Three Easy Steps.”

Issa, Walker, and Moody’s belong together. This is all one story — the story of a relentless assault on the working middle class and those desperately trying to gain a foothold on the ladder up to it.

Now there is nothing the least bit notable about two right-wing Republican politicians hanging out together — that happens at every exclusive country club in America. But touting the new ratings upgrade Moody’s just gave to NYC is like having a guy just convicted of murder as your character witness in the case over in the next courtroom; he might say nice things about you, but he doesn’t bring much credibility to the table. Moody’s is one of the least credible companies in America right now, condemned yesterday in a Congressional report for their pivotal role in the financial crisis. Their collusion with the biggest Wall Street firms in issuing thousands of AAA-bond ratings to sub-prime derivatives that were basically junk was, as much as any other factor, at the heart of the fraudulent bubble that caused the financial collapse of 2007 — a collapse that caused the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth to pension funds, foundation and church endowments, and individual stockholders. Remember, AAA-rated stocks are supposed to be the safest of the safe, as safe as sticking your money into a savings account in an FDIC-insured bank. Pension funds, church and foundation trustees, state and county treasurers are all looking for investments that are absolutely safe, completely reliable, and they depend on Moody’s to tell them what those investments are. They are fine with accepting a lower rate of return because they want their investments to be safe. But the culture or reliability and integrity and honest numbers crunching at Moody’s eroded badly in the late ’90s and early 2000s, and with the pressure of the big Wall Street banks pushing them to do it or lose business, they started ginning up the ratings of these junk bonds to assure getting more business from the big boys. As much as any other single thing, this line of corruption going from the big banks to Moody’s and the other bond ratings companies set the financial industry, the housing market, and all of us up for the big fall.

Now this same company is playing political footsie with politicians like Scott Walker and Darrell Issa. It’s financial fraud and political fraud all wrapped up in a nice little package. There is nothing about what Scott Walker is doing — giving huge tax cuts to big business while crushing unions and cancelling infrastructure projects — that will help make Wisconsin’s finances or economy stronger in the long run. If you destroy middle-class jobs, drive down working families’ pay, and give more tax breaks to your big business friends, all you end up with is a third-world economy. There is nothing about what House Republicans are doing that will give our federal budget more stability, because if you give $4.2 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and big business while taking away Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs that help support working middle-class families, you will have neither a balanced budget (the House Republican budget won’t come until balance until 2040, and that’s only if we have 2.8 percent unemployment, so it will never come into balance), nor a strong economy.

Which brings me to the president’s speech yesterday. Like I said, this is all one story.

Now the President didn’t make a budget proposal along the lines that I would have. Jan Schakowsky and the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget were more in keeping with what I would have proposed: more taxes on the wealthy and big, multinational corporate interests who can well afford it, more cuts in defense spending, and more investments in the working middle class and the young and poor people trying to work their way into it. I would have strongly preferred, for example, for the President to endorse a financial transactions tax that would both raise $125 billion a year and have the strong added bonus of some curb on the reckless trading and speculation on Wall Street. Most passionately of all, I wish the President would have made an investment in more middle-class jobs, and reframed the debate by making clear that the D.C. establishment’s single-minded obsession with long-term deficits when the unemployment rate is still close to 9 percent (and the real unemployment rate when you count the people who are too discouraged to look for work, or who are stuck in part-time or temp jobs when they want to be working fulltime, is still around 17 percent) is wrong. I wish he had said, “Yes, we need to worry about deficits, and I have a long-term plan for dealing with that, but our top priority right now needs to be producing more jobs.”

Having said all that, though, what the President’s speech did do was create a real debate about the budget between a Democratic position and a Republican one. Unfortunately for the country, it is a centrist Democratic position vs. a far, far right Republican position, but still: this speech laid out a plan that is more unifying than not for Democrats, and it sets up a strong, clear contrast going forward. In the House Republican plan, the guarantee of health coverage and nursing home coverage for seniors, people with disabilities, and poor children through Medicare and Medicaid is taken away; student loan programs have an axe taken to them; investments in green jobs and clean air and water are ended; investments for the future in public education and scientific research are obliterated. On all these things, Obama actually didn’t just advocate for them, he drew bright lines: while he is President, he said, Republican plans to take these things down will not happen. Even more importantly, he made a full-throated case for progressive tax increases as a major part of the solution on the budget.

The debate this sets up now is about as fundamental as a political debate can get, and unlike some of his above-it-all mushiness on past issues, the President has taken a side. These are very big, very important questions: are you for or against a guarantee of senior citizen health coverage in Medicare? Are you for or against a guarantee of nursing home coverage in Medicaid? Are you going to let those with disabilities and poor children fend for themselves? Are you going to try to cut the deficit while continuing to give more tax breaks to millionaires, or are you finally going to ask them to pay their fair share? This is the kind of debate we need to be having as a country, and I am thankful both that the Republicans have decided to go for it and lay out their true beliefs on these issues, and that Obama has come down clearly on the Democratic side.

For progressives, these are battles in which we should be eager to engage and happy to fight. This isn’t playing around at the edges, debating whether something should be cut 5 percent or 10 percent, debating whether the Medicaid matching formula for Title-whatever in the bill is lined up right. And whether we agree with Democratic Sen. X, Congressman Y or the administration on the exact specific subtitle of a policy doesn’t matter a lot either. We are at the most fundamental debate in terms of the future of the country since the 1930s. This is our time to organize together and the win the debate on behalf of the working middle class.

This is all one story, it is all one fight. It is about whether the most broad-based middle class in the history of the world survives in the 21st Century. It is about whether this country will continue to provide a safety net, or whether each of us is completely on our own to fend for ourselves. It is about whether government chooses to prioritize seniors, children, and the most vulnerable among us, or only those with lots of money and power. It is about whether the right to bargain collectively, which Ronald Reagan championed in the days of Lech Walesa, will still exist. It is about whether financial institutions like Moody’s and their client banks get to commit fraud and not get penalized for it, get to run roughshod over homeowners whose homes are underwater through no fault of their own, and get to pick the pockets of small businesspeople and consumers on things like swipe fees.

In spite of his speech’s flaws, Obama ultimately decided to align himself firmly and resolutely on the progressive side of the debate. Now he needs to be our leader and fight the good fight. If he does, I have little doubt we will win this debate.

Scotland's first minister promises a council tax freeze, jobs for the young and 100% renewable energy if SNP returns to power

Alex Salmond has promised to deliver a five-year council tax freeze, 100,000 new jobs for the young and 100% renewable energy by 2020 if the Scottish National party is returned to power in the Holyrood election.

Speaking as he unveiled the SNP's manifesto for May's poll, Salmond claimed that only his party had the ambition and vision to make Scotland a fairer and more just country.

He told several hundred party activists and candidates: "This manifesto is for the whole of the country, not a part of it, not a social group, not a section. This is a manifesto for the whole of Scotland."

The first minister sought to strike a very different tone to Labour's often aggressive attacks on the Conservatives by indirectly accusing his opponents – who remain narrowly ahead in the polls – of running a negative and downbeat campaign.

Salmond avoided naming and directly attacking any of his opponents, but he said: "Some people say when times are tough, the politics of vision is a luxury you can't afford.

"I take the opposite view. When times are tough and you're moving through hard times, and you're seeing the country and economy recover, it's precisely then that vision is at a premium. It's precisely then that vision is required in Scotland. And we have a vision for a free, just and independent country."

Even so, the SNP's manifesto offers far fewer of the extremely ambitious but undelivered pledges it made in 2007, including a £2bn promise to pay off all student debts and introduce a new local income tax.

Already attacked by its opponents for making scores of broken promises in 2007, the SNP is anxious to avoid the renewed charge of promising unachievable policies. Instead, Salmond said a second SNP government would build on its record of achievement.

That would include:

• Raising the Scottish target for renewable power for the third time in less than a year to 100% by 2020

• Freezing the council tax for the five-year lifetime of the next parliament, at a cost of £1bn, with a promise to reform local taxation for the following parliament in 2016

• Increasing NHS funding by £1bn over the next four years

• Guaranteeing free universities for Scottish students and repairing half of Scotland's "crumbling" schools

• Attracting £2.5bn of private investment in capital projects, such as the new Forth bridge, in a further move away from the SNP's 2007 pledge to abandon privately-funded public construction schemes

• A £250m Scottish Futures Fund to promote broadband investment, pre-school education, green transport and home energy efficiency.

Salmond's promise meet all of Scotland's domestic electricity needs with renewable energy will provoke a great deal of scepticism from energy companies and financiers.

He has already admitted that tens of billions of pounds of private and state investment would be needed within the decade to achieve his last target, unveiled last September, of 80% renewable generation by 2020.

How that money will be found remains unclear, but Salmond insisted that 130,000 green jobs would be created in Scotland, making the country a world leader in renewable and marine energy technologies. "We're going to engineer the 21st century, just as this country once engineered the 19th century," he said, to loud applause from party activists and candidates.

Unlike the last Holyrood campaign, when the SNP had enjoyed a clear lead in the opinion polls for months, party officials admit that Labour are still narrowly ahead with just three weeks to go before polling day. The SNP believes the gap is closing but Salmond is refusing to make any public predictions about winning.

The manifesto is also more muted about the SNP's goal of achieving full independence within the next parliament. It promises to hold the now delayed referendum on independence but does not set a date. Salmond did promise, however, that a new SNP government would press hard for its more realisable goal of increased fiscal freedom for Holyrood.

The first minister played down expectations that the SNP would seek a coalition with a smaller opposition party such as the Liberal Democrats. He said he would prefer to lead another minority government – a model which had proven highly successful in the last four years.

"We have the incalculable advantage of being able to point to our record of achievement for the past four years," he said.

Buried in the manifesto were other pledges, including proposals to increase state support for the poorest students to £7,000 a year; allowing local councils to levy special taxes on businesses to fund new building and infrastructure projects; and keeping the £2m a year Expo and Made in Scotland grants schemes for the Edinburgh festivals.

Concept cars often become a reality, but which are the cars from 2010 and 2011 that are most likely to make a production run in the near future?

Here we look at the cars you might just be seeing in a dealership near you.

Porsche 918

Few cars have left an audience as stunned as the Porsche 918 concept did at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. And while the Porsche was an engineering and aesthetically pleasing triumph, we didn’t know if the Bavarian marque would ever put it into production – turns out, they will. Praise the lord!

While the amazing power plant we saw at Geneva won’t make production, the design will – probably. As long as Porsche doesn’t mess about with the 918’s original design blueprint, everyone on the planet will be buying one – even if they’re as broke as MC Hammer.

Expect 200mph+, 0-62mph in way less than 3.8 seconds and a big grin on the driver’s face. Whenever the limited run hits the streets, it will be one of the rarest and most exclusive cars Porsche has ever made. Let’s hope they don’t mess this one up, eh?

[Image Credit: cmonville]

Ferrari Monza

Concepts are often intricate and are rarely simple, but when Ferrari unleashed the Monza concept, the whole world took note. What is it? Erm…well...

So, it’s a little odd, but could it ever hit production basis? Perhaps if Batman fancied getting wild one day in 2045, this could be the perfect car/thing for him. Apparently, the Monza’s shape is dictated by aerodynamics – which, as we all know, is what is necessary for ultimate performance and economy.

Ferrari and concepts can be a little jaded with regards to vision, but boldness isn’t an aspect the Italian marque struggles with.

[Image Credit: Autobizz]

Lotus Esprit Concept

Lotus are ambitions, and despite the Norfolk company’s Malaysian ownership with Proton, it has insisted its ethos is still ‘lightness is everything’. Whether or not that is true, Lotus has announced several cars that we’re expecting to hit production in the next few years – with the Lotus Esprit Concept being one of them.

Unveiled at last year’s Paris Motor Show, the Esprit looked as good as it gets. With performance figures that look more promising than any Lotus before it, everyone is getting excited about the prospect of a 21st Century Esprit.

If they pull it off, the Esprit will be an epic sports car and would mark a return to a name that was revered for so many years. But with such an ambitious project with several high-end cars, wil

[Image credit: Moto@club4AG]

View more at Business Insider

For the latest news, visit Business Insider. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

See Also:

• Kudos To Paul Ryan And The GOP For Acknowledging Our Budget Mess -- Shame On The Democrats For Just Stuffing Their Heads In The Sand
• Check Out Where Hosni Mubarak is Spending His "House Arrest"
• The 18 Smartest People In The World

In the Wall Street Journal:

An independent investigation is called for, if for no other reason than to clear the air and to recommend procedures to ensure such errors don't happen again. Just as many Wisconsin officials have ignored or downplayed evidence of vote fraud (see the Milwaukee Police Department's 2008 detailed investigation) so too have sloppy election procedures been allowed to fester in some counties.

If the mistake was innocent, it resulted from a lack of transparency.... [T]his should be a wake-up call for the state's election officials. It's time that Wisconsin update its election laws for the 21st century. Ideas from both major parties -- ranging from Democratic suggestions that county clerks not be elected as partisan officials to GOP objections to the practice of allowing voters to register and vote at the same time on Election Day -- should be on the table.

Translation: Republicans should embrace and leverage the Democrats' fears.

E.J. Dionne Jr. | Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Political moderates and on-the-fencers have had it easy up to now on budget issues. They could condemn "both sides," and insist on the need for "courage" in tackling the deficit.

Thanks to Rep. Paul Ryan's budget and the Republicans' maximalist stance in negotiations to avert a government shutdown, the days of straddling are over.

Ryan's truly outrageous proposal, built on heaping sacrifice onto the poor, slashing scholarship aid to college students, and bestowing benefits on the rich, ought to force middle-of-the-roaders to take sides. No one who is even remotely moderate can possibly support what Ryan has in mind.

And please, let's dispense with the idea that Ryan is courageous in offering his design. There is nothing courageous about asking for give-backs from the least advantaged and least powerful in our society. It takes no guts to demand a lot from groups that have little to give, and tend to vote against your party anyway.

And there is nothing daring about a conservative Republican delivering yet more benefits to the wealthiest people in our society, the sort who privately finance the big ad campaigns to elect conservatives to Congress.

Ryan gives the game away by including the repeal of financial reform in his "budget" plan. What does this have to do with fiscal balance? Welcome to the Wall Street Protection Act of 2011.

Oh, yes, and this budget has nothing to do with deficit reduction. Ryan would hack away at expenditures for the poor. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates he gets about two-thirds of his $4.3 trillion in actual cuts from programs for low-income Americans. Note that this $4.3 trillion almost exactly matches the $4.2 trillion he proposes in tax cuts over a decade. Welcome to the Bah Humbug Act of 2011.

But you'd expect a progressive to feel this way. What's striking is that Ryan is pushing moderates to stand up for a government that will have enough money to perform the functions now seen as basic in the 21st century. These notably include helping those who can't afford health insurance to get decent medical care, a goal Ryan would have the government abandon, slowly but surely.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the deficit commission and the heroes of the budget-cutting center, put out a statement saying some nice things about the idea of the Ryan budget. They called it "serious, honest, straightforward," even though there is much about its accounting that is none of those.

But then they got to the real point, declaring themselves "concerned that it falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach" needed for bipartisan accord because it "largely exempts defense spending from reductions and would not apply any of the savings from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures as part of tax reform to deficit reduction."

Ryan, they argued, "relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than does the commission proposal, while also calling for savings in some safety net programs -- cuts which would place a disproportionately adverse effect on certain disadvantaged populations."

This is much like what I said, with an added layer of diplomacy. When even deficit hawks begin choking, however politely, on a proposal whose main motivation is ideological, you know there is an opening for a coalition between moderates and progressives on behalf of sane, decent government.

The Republican approach to shutdown talks should reinforce this possibility. Democrats have nearly given away the store to avoid a crackup, yet Republican leaders, under pressure from their right wing, have continued to ask for more and more and more. My word, even President Obama has finally gotten impatient.

However the shutdown saga ends, the negotiating styles of the two sides ought to tell moderates that they can no longer pretend that the two ends of our politics are equally "extreme." No, conservatives are the ones who've been radicalized. The Ryan budget is definitive evidence of this.

It is conservatives who would transform our government from a very modestly compassionate instrument into a machine dedicated to expanding existing privileges while doing as little as possible for the marginalized and the aspiring -- those who, with a little help from government, might find it a bit easier to reach for better lives.

Moderation involves a balance between government and the private sector, between risk and security, between our respect for incentives and our desire for greater fairness. The war against moderation has begun. Will moderates join the battle?

E.J. Dionne's email address is ejdionne@washpost.com.

The interventionists cheering Obama on in Libya are distracting the U.S. from vital concerns in the Mideast—and here in America.

Humanitarian interventionists without a cause: that’s what they were until they found the fires of hell in Libya. Iraq, the old humanitarian banner, was worn out, Afghanistan never quite caught on, and somehow today’s humanitarians never flew into rages over the moral horrors in the Sudan and Ivory Coast.

But Libya and its outcast monster, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, who threatened to “massacre” Libyan rebels—that was red meat. America’s politicians and journalists could not resist either, especially when left and right united in its pursuit—President Obama's fiery aide Samantha Power and neoconservative defense expert Paul Wolfowitz, and star-crossed Senators John Kerry and John McCain.

And it looked so easy, didn’t it? A little antiseptic no-fly zone, and bye-bye colonel. But while all hoped for Gaddafi’s early departure, the price already has been very dear. Libya devoured leadership oxygen from what truly mattered: the upheavals in the rest of the Mideast (where, unlike in Libya, the United States has truly vital interests), and America itself, where future generations perish slowly in neglected public schools that offer no hope, where working Americans are thrown from their unaffordable homes into the streets, and where millions of Americans will never have jobs. Already, more than half a billion dollars they deserved for their survival has gone to Libya instead.

Frankly, I don’t feel my position is at all inhumane. From the outset, I favored Washington urging our Arab and European friends to take the military action they deemed necessary and to take it immediately, with the United States in a supporting role. They are Libya’s neighbors, and they each and all had the military capacity to start no-fly operations. But they, like our own humanitarian interventionists, insisted both that action be taken ASAP and that only America could lead the way. It went unmentioned, for example, that the Egyptian, French, Italian, and British air forces, which were right there geographically, were much superior to Gaddafi’s and could have done most of the job themselves. A bunch of con men, they all cried that they didn’t have enough military punch. They had enough, despite the fact that almost all of our European allies have slashed their military spending over the last decade, deeply and cynically, in the full and correct expectation that Washington would more than fully make up the difference.

But leave aside the cynical salesmanship of our Arab and European friends and their abject failure to maintain and use their full military capabilities. And set aside the opportunistic humanitarianism of America’s left and right. Let them think they won the argument about intervening in Libya but not elsewhere, with the moral ditty: “Because you can’t save all lives, doesn’t mean you don’t try to save some lives.” May we all meet the proponents of this convenient morality in heaven. (They know we could have done more in Sudan and Ivory Coast than we did.)

What troubles me in the first instance is that the rest of us become mummified by their arguments. And they made whatever arguments necessary to win the debate. If you said that the task in Libya would be too long and hard, they said not at all. Just a little no-fly zone. Then, they said, just shoot Gaddafi’s tanks on the ground. Just give the rebels arms. Just train them. And the best and most recent of all—Gaddafi’s allies will abandon him and his regime will soon collapse. (Let’s hope.) All those tribes that used to support Gaddafi? They’ve deserted him, too; besides, tribes don’t mean anything anymore. And the rebels are all professors and lawyers who love democracy (with which, of course, they’ve had enormous experience). Or if you made the mistake of saying the Libyan task should not be so difficult, they jumped on that, too. They said the people will need major help on a continuing basis, maybe including peace-keepers on the ground and certainly aid groups to help the impoverished rebels. (Whatever happened to the $32 billion of Gaddafi’s funds that President Obama impounded?)

Let me be clear: I don’t question the sincerity of the humanitarian interventionists’ motives. I question their moral superiority, their priorities, and their carelessness about facts. 

The humanitarian interventionists think their worries trump everyone else’s. They think their morality excuses their willful ignorance and carelessness—their unwillingness to address tough questions about what we know and don’t know in Libya. They say that if the U.S. doesn’t get rid of Col. Gaddafi, it would represent the death of America’s core values and beliefs. I think American values will survive. I think we are doing enough now in a supporting role. I believe we are facing but not addressing first-order problems in the Mideast and at home. To me, both Americans and Libyans will survive Col. Gaddafi, but Americans will not survive a failure of their leaders to devote top priority, attention, and resources to Mideastern turmoil and to America.

Inevitably, the Obama team has been spending far less time than it should on the Mideast as a whole and far too much time on Libya. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are the keys to peace in the region and, in Riyadh’s case, central to the flow of critical oil. Muslim extremists are moving to gain control in Egypt. Washington has to help the secular army and the street democrats do what they deem wise to prevent the religious radicalization of their country. Of equal importance, Washington has much to do to restore good relations with Saudi Arabia, given King Abdullah’s perception that Obama helped push longtime ally Mubarak overboard. The king isn’t going to democratize his country, whatever the humanitarians say, and Obama should leave matters alone there for the time being. More or less the same applies to the states of the Arabian Peninsula such as Kuwait, the U.A.E, and Qatar. They’re quiet and likely to remain so for different reasons. But Bahrain needs tending and Saudi opposition to democratization there needs to be softened. Wherever possible, the theme of U.S. policy should be to help guide Mideast governments toward the building of democratic institutions like a free press and a legal system, plus local elections. These changes, however, cannot be accomplished with a moral thunderclap. 

As for Syria, that is a particular hornet’s nest. President Assad is a weak dictator, and the Sunnis challenging him could be better or worse. New leaders must be found in Yemen—a country critical to anti-terrorist operations—who will be acceptable to Yemeni moderates and not open the door further to al Qaeda. Top U.S. officials have to pay attention to these matters and not let Libya swallow them up. Humanitarians have to accept the reality that the leaders of Arab lands are going to tend to their own interests as they see them, whatever happens in Libya. In no sense is Libya a moral or strategic domino. 

I'm for carefully planned humanitarian intervention abroad with America in a supporting role, and with other nations shouldering their long-forgotten responsibilities on this front. I’m for helping Arab states develop the institutions necessary for democracy rather than simply hoping the street democrats gain power and run governments democratically. Apparently, many of those committed to saving the world are not fully consumed by the plight of Americans and about the prospect of serious American decline economically and militarily. And so, above all, my passion is for humanitarian intervention in America.

Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This post originally appeared at The Daily Beast.

For the latest in politics, visit Politics. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• The Shores Of Tripoli: Our Latest Wilsonian War
• How A Government Shutdown Screws Paul Ryan
• Al Queda Smells Blood In Yemen, And The World Should Be Worried

SNP unveils plans for new investment - to be paid for from savings secured from reduced cost of new Forth bridge - ahead its manifesto launch next week

Alex Salmond has unveiled proposals for a new £250m "Scottish futures fund" for broadband, pre-school education and low-carbon vehicles, in a bid to match major spending pledges by his opponents.

The Scottish National party leader said the new fund would be paid for from savings secured from the reduced cost of the new Forth bridge – even though the new crossing has yet to be built or finally paid for – if the party was returned to power on 5 May.

Salmond said the Scottish government had originally budgeted £1.87bn for the Forth replacement crossing, but its cost had been reduced to £1.54bn.

That released money for the new futures fund, which would spend £50m on each of five priorities – a new "sure start" project for preschool education, a broadband upgrade programme, home energy efficiency, low carbon transport and a project for teenagers.

Despite stating that it was launching the "Scottish futures fund" on Thursday, the SNP only released details about the sure start project, which would target deprived children under five, with children and family centres offering childcare, family support and tackling poor parenting.

It said information about the other four strands would be released over the next few days; party officials denied they were misleading voters. Labour accused the SNP of appropriating a flagship project from Tony Blair's government on sure start. It released similar but uncosted proposals to expand a network of family centres and introduce new programmes for new mothers and under-3s.

John Park, Labour's election campaign co-ordinator, said: "It appears that the SNP are rattled after Labour's manifesto launch and have tried to create a story with no details, facts or real commitments.

"It really isn't even worthy of being described as all smoke and mirrors as it is transparently empty."

Earlier this week, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Tories unveiled major spending programmes covering broadband, pre-school education, energy efficiency and teenagers, costing hundreds of millions of pounds in their respective manifestos.

The Lib Dems predicted they could find £1.5bn by converting Scottish Water into a publicly-owned company and selling its debt; Labour has claimed it will find £2.2bn from public sector reforms and efficiencies; the Tories have promised to save £387m over four years.

The SNP is unveiling its manifesto next week but is releasing advance spending details of select programmes to avoid losing ground to its opponents.

"The Scottish Futures Fund is an initiative that will put all of Scotland – young and old, urban and rural – in the best possible position to benefit from the 21st century economy, so that we achieve our full potential as a nation and as a society," Salmond said.

On Thursday, Labour promised it would reinstate a £750m rail project linking central Glasgow with Glasgow airport, a programme controversially scrapped by Salmond's administration.

The launch of Labour's press event was disrupted by anti-cuts protesters, who challenged the Labour leader, Iain Gray, not to impose spending cuts passed on by the UK government. The same group, Citizens United Against Public Sector Cuts, targeted a Tory event last month.

Earlier today I wrote this diary about the failure of large environmental lobbyist groups and Democrats to speak out about the dangers of climate change because they were told (by Frank "Fricking" Luntz for gawdsake) it wouldn't poll well.

Because the folks who took Luntz's advice looked at polls that said Americans' number one priority was jobs they stopped talking about the reality of the danger we all face from man made climate change. Instead, they talked about "green tech" and how many jobs it would create, and allowed the Republicans and the Kochs and "conservative think tanks" and Fox News to dominate of the debate over the reality of how climate change is devastating our world.

Since adopting that approach in 2009, the number of Americans concerned about climate change has dropped from a high of 2/3 of the population in 2008 to just a smidgen over 51% today.

By the way, that diary of mine at Dkos got 4 comments (three at BT). Four comments, for an issue that represents one of the most serious dangers to our future. But then again, who is talking much about climate among progressives at Dkos, or in Congress today. It's become another issue that has been essentially taken off the table and marginalized, like other issues such as increasing taxes on the wealthy, prosecuting the people who made America the land of torturers, infrastructure spending, etc.

I appreciate the few diaries on climate change or other neglected progressive issues that make the rec list at Dkos all the more because so few do these days. Instead we get constant and redundant diaries about whatever the topic of the day is. We are becoming not much better than old media in that respect.

You don't change the conversation if all you do is respond to the agenda of the other side. We need to start talking about our own agenda.

• Jobs, not deficit cutting.
• Ending our wasteful foreign wars not continuing them into the indefinite future.
• Income equality not income inequality.
• Taxes on the rich, not eliminating the social safety net.
• Climate Change and investment in renewable energy not an Energy policy that calls for more drilling for oil and gas in America and the mining of coal (which btw will never make us free from foreign oil, because we don't have enough reserves no matter how much we drill or where.)
• Regulating the Banks, not letting them off the hook for the experiment in disaster capitalism they foisted on us over the past decade that ended up making them even more powerful and funneling even more government dollars to keep them in business while we wait for the next shoe to drop.
• Promoting the right of privacy instead of government intrusion in all aspects of our lives.
• Defending Public Schools for all not backing hucksters who want to privatize our school systems.
• Making affordable health care a right not a privilege for the few.
• Creating new infrastructure for the 21st century rather than allowing our old infrastructure to crumble around us.

Are these things we can accomplish in this Congress right now? Hell no. But we should be talking about them loudly and consistently every day.

When Democrats did have control of Congress and the Republicans were in the minority they didn't stop pushing their crazed simplistic and divisive agenda. They didn't stop talking about their "issues."

Yet that has what the Democrats have done: given in and given up by reacting to polls and fearing to offend their big money contributors Fox News and the Beltway "opinion makers/pundits." The Dems have degenerated into a party of Hollow Men and Women (and no the few who are not do not make up for the majority who are). They have forgotten that no change comes without hard work. They have forgotten how to lead.

Everyday someone in or outside of the Democratic party should be going on a news show tor holding events or protests to push the progressive agenda and push our issues. Not respond to what the Republicans say. We know what their agenda is, and so does the public. We need instead to be pounding away at what our plan for America is, not reacting to the demeaning and ridiculous and failed vision of the GOP/Tea Party/Big Business/Fundies who now control our political discourse.

It may take years. It may be create frustration and anger, and even despair when the polls don't change immediately in our favor. However, by fighting our battles on a field chosen by the Republicans we will always lose. We can only win if we fight on our turf, for our ideals.

Look what happened in Wisconsin. A true grass roots movement arose to effect change, to say we're not going to take it anymore.

In America there our millions of people out there, many unemployed and in desperate straits, many without health care, many just scraping by, who have been waiting for the national leaders in the Democratic party to arise and fight as hard as the people who protested against Scott Walker. Waiting for someone like the Sheriff of Pima County (Tucson), Clarence Dupnik , who spoke the truth about what has happened in his state and standing up for liberal values. Waiting but not finding them, or not enough of them.

Because the Democratic party's national leadership (with rare exceptions) so often fails fail to try to push for the most rather than accepting the least, Democrats have become the party of "We kept your losses to a minimum (this time)" instead of the party of the working classes, the poor, the oppressed, and progress in the best sense of the word. Right now the Democratic party as a whole is only a vessel to propagate the careers of politicians who have no message other than "We're not as crazy as those guys over there."

Winning elections means nothing is nothing changes. We don't need a party that helps the banks while giving away the rights of the rest of us. We don't need a party that is afraid to stand up for progressive, liberal ideals. We don't need a party whose idea is to compromise before the bargaining even begins. And we sure don;t need a party that refuses to tell the truth about jobs, taxes, climate change, the need for government and so forth because it doesn't poll well.

Once upon a time the Whig Party fell apart because it had no consistent message, because it tried to be all things to all people and ended up being nothing to anyone. That is the path the the current Democrats are following. If the Dems want to be only a center right party doling out slightly less benefits to corporations than the far more extreme right-wing party that is now the Republican Party, what value do they provide? What reason is there for us to vote for them?

If they refuse to speak for the issues we as liberals and progressives care about, what benefit are they to the vast majority of Americans, people who the Republicans are trying to turn into wage slaves and a permanent underclass to be exploited by the Disaster Capitalists on Wall Street, in Big Oil, and in the Defense Industry (among others)?

No benefit. None.

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. They can fight for us or submit to the power of multinational corporations and accept their place as the least favored child of corporate America. If they choose the latter, their future as a viable political force is doomed. If they choose the former, well, isn't that better than selling out the country you supposedly love? Isn't that why Democratic politicians got into politics in the first place: to make America a better place?

Let's all hope they choose wisely.

Discuss

According to the New York City’s transportation commissioner the rate of bicycling in the Big Apple has doubled since 2007, and more riders require more bike lanes. As with many issues in New York City there are always those opposed, and the opposition has captured the spotlight.

According to a new poll that was conducted by Quinnipiac University some 54 percent of city residents approve of more bike lanes, whilst 39 percent actually think they are a bad idea.

“Most New Yorkers like bike lanes,” says Noah S. Budnick, deputy director of Transportation Alternatives, a group that is trying to reclaim New York City's streets from the automobile, and to advocate for bicycling, walking and public transit as the best transportation alternatives. “I don’t know anyone who’s pro-crash or wants to see more injuries and deaths on our roads. Streets with bike lanes in New York City are 40 percent safer than those without.”

So the question is who would be opposed to bike lanes and more importantly why? The most common answer is that those who tend to drive, and don’t ride bikes are the ones against the lanes. The bike lanes have taken more space that had been devoted to traffic and/or parking, thus resulting in slower traffic – the irony is that slower traffic is actually safer for those riding a bike.

Media spotlight

Some media reports have also suggested that this opinion on bike lanes was drawn on party lines, with Democrats favoring bike lanes and Republicans opposed, but closer inspection shows this isn’t really such a partisan issue.

A recent lawsuit filed by a group with close ties to the wife of Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, accuses the Transportation Department of misleading residents about the benefits of a bike lane on Prospect Park West in Brooklyn. Additionally, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, also a Democrat, has said the bike lane reduces room for cars to park while making it more difficult for drivers to see pedestrians.

The question here is whether these are even justified concerns. New York City is a crowded city with little space to widen streets, so any talk of reallocation is of valid concern — not so says Budnick. “New York’s surface transportation system hasn’t changed in over 50 years. If you ran a business like that you’d be broke. This is the 21^st Century, and that means replacing the 1950s car-based model with a modern system that makes the most efficient use of our limited public space. People want to live here, they want to do business here and they don’t want to sit in traffic or own a car.”

He adds that in a dense, busy city like New York, the goal should be to move people and goods safely and efficiently. He says it is, as the ridership suggests, increasingly a cycling city.

“Biking is the fast growing mode of transportation in the city,” says Budnick. “This is all a good thing because the city’s population is projected to increase by 1million in the next twenty years, which means it’s an absolute imperative for us to make even more efficient use of our streets.”

U.S. Presidents since Richard Nixon have expressed the need for U.S. energy independence. The balance of U.S. energy dependence has only gotten worse since then.

The current administration appears well-meaning in jump-starting the U.S. clean energy economy in the face of massive incumbent and infrastructure inertia.

Some tidbits from Obama's energy speech today:

• "We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security."
• "Presidents and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet."
• Find and produce more oil at home, and reduce our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
• Focus on biofuels and electric vehicles and natural gas from shale made safe.
• On the federal transportation fleet: "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." (Read GTM Research's recent report on EVs and the Smart Grid here.)
• Nuclear still remains a necessary part of the U.S. energy future.
• Obama's Clean Energy Standard would include nuclear: "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."

Here's the text of the President's 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.

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.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.

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.”






 

Aboard Air Force One
En Route New York, New York

2:00 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Thanks for flying with us today.  We'll just do a quick gaggle.  As you know, in addition to the event at the ceremony naming the new USUN Mission building, the President has interviews with three network news anchors, and a couple of other events.  But if you have questions, shoot.

Q    Can you give us just a little bit more about tomorrow, this energy policy speech?

MR. CARNEY:  I think there’s -- I'm not going to get ahead. I think there’s a call that -- with some senior administration officials that will have details on it.  So I would point you to that.

Q    That's going to be later today?

MR. CARNEY:  I believe so.  I think there was an email sent out about it.

Q    One of NATO’s military leaders testified on the Hill today that there had been signs of al Qaeda seen amongst Libyan rebels.  How does that affect the White House thinking on engaging with them?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what I would say is that, as you know, we spend a lot of time looking at the opposition and now meeting with opposition leaders.  And the folks who are in London, the people that -- and the leader that Secretary Clinton met in Paris, have made clear what their principles are and we believe that they’re meritorious -- their principles.  I think they had a statement today that had some very good language in it that we support. 

But that doesn’t mean, obviously, that everyone who opposes Moammar Qaddafi I Libya is someone whose ideals we can support.  But beyond that, I don't have any detail about individual members of the opposition.

Q    Does it concern you about how much you don't know about the opposition?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, what I would say is that we have met with opposition leaders and we're working with them, but as the President said, and as the opposition leaders who put out a statement today said, it’s up to them to decide who their leaders are going to be.  And we believe that at least the principles that were outlined today in London were certainly ones that we would support in terms of a democratic government, representative government, tolerance, and free and fair elections.

Q    Can you talk more about the speech last night?  There seemed to be some criticism that the President didn’t spell out enough of an endgame.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President was very clear about what our mission was, what we've accomplished in such a short period of time, the number of lives that have been saved, the remarkable effort to build a coalition and take action in just 31 days, and now make that transition from a U.S.-led military mission to a NATO-led mission with the U.S. in a support and assist role.

We understand that there are two parts to this.  There’s the military mission that was designed as requested by the Libyan opposition, as supported by the Arab League and supported by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which is designed to protect Libyan civilians. 

There is also the administration policy that Muammar Qaddafi is no longer fit to lead and should leave power.  And we are obviously pursuing a number of different means, non-lethal means, non-military means, to help bring that about, to pressure Qaddafi, to isolate him, and to create an environment where the Libyan people hopefully will be able to create their own future with the leaders that they deserve and that they pick.  And that's the endgame that we envision.      

Q    As far as the humanitarian mission is concerned, there have been some questions about what the NATO coalition is going to do in the event that civilians become at risk from rebel advances.  Have you guys made some sort of decision about what kind of posture NATO’s coalition would take when it comes to protecting civilians who might be in the line of fire from rebel advances in Libya?

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to venture an answer on that because I think the Department of Defense, NATO, and the State Department, USAID may have a better, more complete answer.  Obviously we -- our military mission that we are partnering with our allies on is designed to protect civilians, and we're doing everything we can in order to achieve that goal, and so we wouldn't want to take actions that would be counter to that goal. But in terms of that specific scenario or hypothetical, I think others may be better suited to answer.

Q    So when you talk about civilians and protecting civilians you're also talking about civilians who may be supporters of Qaddafi?

MR. CARNEY:  The mission of -- the military mission is quite clearly to protect the Libyan people from the brutal assault that Qaddafi’s forces have been perpetrating on them.  And so it is everyone except those forces who were carrying out the attacks.

Q    Talk more about the fundraisers tonight -- who they’re for and how much money they’re going to raise.

MR. CARNEY:  I’d refer you to the DNC.  They’re both DNC fundraisers.  They’ll have the details on them.

Q    -- about the budget.  There are some talks today that whatever is going on between Democrats and Republicans is really breaking down recently.  Is the President going to get more involved as the days go on, as we’re approaching this April 8th deadline, to make sure that these talks are back on track and we’re not facing a government shutdown?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we are -- we’ve been involved and engaged at a variety of levels, including the presidential and vice presidential level and the senior staff level, and we continue to do that.  Writing legislation to fund the government through any fiscal year is the work of Congress.  And we have been very much engaged in the process of negotiating with Republicans and Democrats to make that happen.  We have demonstrated with Democrats the fact that we’ve already come halfway and indicated that we’re willing to do more.  And we look forward to all sides being willing to reach common ground and move off their starting position so that we can get this work done for the American people and move on to some of the other big issues that face us.

Q    When you say “do more,” do you mean from the standpoint of actual dollars or on some of the riders that Republicans are looking to include?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we’ve made -- I mean in terms of -- that we will look at other ways to cut more within reason, while protecting the investments the President made are very clear that are essential to the economic growth that we need in the 21st century to create jobs and keep us competitive.  We have also said that this is a funding bill and a budget bill and it’s not the place for extraneous ideological or political policy to be addressed.  We think that the focus should be on funding of the government.

Q    At the event this afternoon at the U.N., do we expect anything Libya-related in the comments, in the remarks?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President’s expansive speech last night on Libya is really the place to look for his position.  I wouldn’t expect anything new on Libya today from him in those remarks.  Obviously he’s giving interviews today, three of them, and will be asked, I expect, about Libya and he’ll answer those questions.

Q    One more on the budget.  Is it your impression that the budget talks are breaking down or are they going well?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think this is always a complicated process, but that we remain confident that if everybody is willing to roll up their sleeves and work on behalf of the American people towards finding common ground that we can get this done.

It’s important that we’re able to do this and to be willing to, as I said, move off -- everybody has to be willing to move off their starting position in order to find that common ground. I don't think the American people would expect anything less.

Q    Any phone calls to any leaders or anything today?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't have anything on that for you.  I don't believe so, but I can check.

Q    Any reaction to the situation in Syria with the government?

MR. CARNEY:  We’re obviously -- we’ve heard reports of the cabinet resigning and other reports about changes that might be happening there.  We have also heard reports of more arrests of human rights activists and others, and we condemn that and urge the government and all sides to refrain from violence and to engage in political dialogue, and to respect -- and for the government to respect the universal values and rights that we apply to this situation in all these countries.

That work for you?

Q    Thank you.

MR. CARNEY:  Thanks, guys.

END
2:10 P.M. EDT

RALEIGH, N.C. – Empowered by last year's elections, Republican leaders in about half the states are pushing to require voters to show photo ID at the polls despite little evidence of fraud and already-substantial punishments for those who vote illegally. Democrats claim the moves will disenfranchise poor and minority voters — many of whom traditionally vote for their candidates. The measures will also increase spending and oversight in some states even as Republicans are focused on cutting budgets and decreasing regulations. Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett, a Republican, said he believes his state's proposed photo ID law will increase citizen confidence in the process and combat fraud that could be going undetected. "I can't figure out who it would disenfranchise," Hargett said. "The only people I can think it disenfranchises is those people who might be voting illegally." Hargett said the measure currently moving through Tennessee's legislature — now controlled by Republicans — would accommodate people who don't have IDs by having them sign oaths of identity, which provide more prominent warning to potential fakers than the standard name-signing. Party leaders advanced several ID proposals this week with successful votes in Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio and Texas. About half of states are considering measures to create or strengthen ID requirements this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many are considering stringent controls that would mirror laws in Georgia and Indiana, which require voters who don't have photo ID at the polls to return to election offices within days and produce that kind of identification in order to get their votes counted. In the South, the issue comes with a burden of history for black residents who recall past barriers to voting such as violence, literacy tests and other methods. The Voting Rights Act still requires a number of Southern states to get Justice Department approval of redistricting efforts to ensure that minorities' voting strength is upheld. William Barber, president of North Carolina's chapter of the NAACP, said the photo ID measure amounts to "nothing but nuanced, 21st Century Jim Crow." Henry Frye recalled the literacy test he failed in 1956, after he'd returned from serving in the Air Force and tried to register to vote. One of the questions asked him to name a U.S. president — the 13th, if he remembers correctly. Frye, who eventually became North Carolina's first black Supreme Court justice, spent 14 years as a lawmaker in the General Assembly and focused much of his time trying to make it easier for people to register and vote. He said the photo ID measure appears to be a first step back in the wrong direction. "I think we need to do what we can to encourage voting rather than discourage voting," Frye said. Elections officials in North Carolina said most of the voting fraud allegations they investigate turn out to be unfounded. Over the past five years, the state has referred about 350 cases to district attorneys for investigation, mostly in cases of felons who cast a ballot without first getting their voting rights restored. There are more than six million registered voters in the state. States already have ways to check the identity of voters when they register and when they go to cast a ballot. North Carolina's current law requires residents to provide documents proving their name and address in order to register to vote. Those who register improperly can be charged with a felony. At the polls, North Carolina voters must declare their valid name and address in order to get their ballot. Impersonating another registered voter is also a felony, as is voting more than once in an election. In Georgia, which has had a strict voter ID law on the books for years, Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp said he's not aware of anyone caught committing fraud. He argues that the rules help prevent people who try to file improper votes from having them counted. Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp said he's not aware of anyone caught committing fraud because of the law but argued that it has helped make elections more secure. Kemp said about two-thirds of people who cast provisional ballots because of missing photo IDs — there were about 1,200 during the 2008 presidential election — do not return to election offices. He suspects those people either knew the outcome of the election and didn't feel the need to confirm their vote, or they were trying to commit fraud. He doesn't see any signs that minorities or any other people are participating less because of the law. "I don't think it's created any kind of burden for our citizens," Kemp said. Estimated costs vary for states to implement the changes and provide picture IDs for those who don't already have a driver's license or other qualifying identification. North Carolina estimates a cost of more than $3 million in the first year and about $400,000 each year going forward. Missouri estimates that a proposal in that state could also cost millions. Texas would spend $2 million in the coming year to implement the law there. Tennessee's law wouldn't require the state to provide IDs, so Hargett believes the cost would be minimal. Many of the state efforts are coming due to increased GOP influence, as Republicans now control 25 state legislatures and 29 governor's offices. In Kansas, for example, the GOP-controlled Legislature approved a photo ID bill three years ago but then-Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed it. The state's new Republican governor, Sam Brownback, supports the photo ID rules, which are advancing through the Legislature now. South Carolina is moving forward to require photo IDs, strengthening a law which already requires voters to show either driver's licenses, voter registration cards or DMV-issued ID cards. The topic has been racially divisive in Mississippi for years and will now be on the ballot as an initiative after a petition authored by a Republican lawmaker got enough signatures. The new Republican majority in the Alabama Legislature is hoping to push a photo ID law through after years of discussing it. "I think most citizens think it's common sense," Kemp said. "I think it's important for people, not only from a fraud perspective, but to make sure that people have confidence in the system." Across country, GOP pushes photo ID at the polls - Yahoo! News

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality is the idea that an Internet service ought not to differentiate between the different websites, programs, and services that are distributed on its network.  This could be privately guaranteed, by means of a contract between a subscriber and their Internet Service Provider, or it could be enforced by the government.  Usually when “net neutrality” is spoken about, it refers to the idea of the government enforcing it.  The agency which has taken on the objective of guaranteeing net neutrality is the Federal Communications Commission.

FCC’s Recent Net Neutrality Order

On December 21, 2010, the FCC voted in favor of forcing Internet Service Providers to adopt net neutrality as a policy.  The press release’s title was “FCC Acts to Preserve Internet Freedom and Openness,” as only those who oppose freedom and openness could be opposed to net neutrality.  The FCC dedicated most of the second page of its press release to citing various statutory authorities in an attempt to explain why it ought to be able to implement this order—not exactly the appearance of confidence in the legality of what they are doing.

The most significant portion of the FCC’s Report and Order on net neutrality was “Rule 2: No Blocking”:

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.

The effect of this law is to restrict ISPs from determining when they may or may not restrict traffic.  The term “reasonable network management” has its own definition listed in the Report and Order, but it is so broad that it will inevitably permit the FCC to crack down on ISPs whenever it feels like doing so.  If they engage in the most common Administrative Law practice, they are likely to litigate against smaller ISPs who have a lesser chance of defending themselves.

Legality of Net Neutrality

Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission

Net neutrality is not a new concept for the FCC.  It previously attempted to regulate the network management practices of Comcast—specifically Comcast’s regulation of peer-to-peer file-sharing on its network.  The FCC attempted to justify its actions by stating that it had an “ancillary authority” granted by the broadly worded Communications Act of 1934, which states that the FCC is authorized to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions” (47 U.S.C. § 154(i)).  Comcast subsequently launched a court challenge against the FCC, and in April 2010 the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia sided with Comcast and granted its order for review of the FCC’s decision.

In granting the order for review, the Court cited another case that it had previously decided, stating that “the allowance of wide latitude in the exercise of delegated powers is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer ... Commission authority.”

Bipartisan Criticism of Net Neutrality

Not only have the courts been critical of the FCC’s net neutrality laws, but members of the Senate and House of Representatives from both the Democrats and the Republicans have come out in criticism of them with letters addressed to the Chairman of the FCC.  The letters said that, “The uncertainty this proposal creates will jeopardize jobs and deter needed investment for years to come,” and that, “There is scant evidence that the broadband market lacks competition or that consumers have been harmed in a manner that would warrant the heavy-handed 19th century regulations that you seek to impose on a highly competitive 21st century communications marketplace.”

Conclusion

There are numerous economic and constitutional issues with the recent net neutrality legislation from the FCC.  Aside from the fact that an administrative agency is taking seemingly even greater liberties than those which were struck down in the Comcast case earlier this year, and extinguishing Congress’ wish to debate the law, the businesses which are affected are going to suffer.  By preventing businesses from deciding which traffic may be limited, the FCC is going to give them two choices:

1) Suffer major network slowdowns due to the increase use of bandwidth without the associated ability to pay for it or;

2) Increase the aggregate network bandwidth but distribute costs evenly so that those who may use the Internet for only basic browsing and e-mail have to pay for the iTunes downloads of someone else.

Either way, it does not look good for ISPs or their clients who use less bandwidth than their fellow subscribers.  It’s going to be interesting to watch the coming court cases over the next year or so, which ISPs and possibly affected consumers will no doubt want to launch.  Congress will likely join in the fray, too.

If you would like to learn more about how the new net neutrality law affects you, or would like assistance in considering possible legal options regarding the law, please contact a qualified Internet law attorney.

SOURCES

47 U.S.C. § 154(i)

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F. 3d 642 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2010

FCC Press Release About Net Neutrality

Letter to Chairman Genachowski from House Democrats

Letter to Chairman Genachowski from Senate Republicans

Remarks of Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker

WASHINGTON -- The two senators from Illinois were split on a nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia that the Senate ratified today in the waning hours of the 111th Congress.

Democrat Dick Durbin voted for it and Republican Mark Kirk was opposed.

The measure passed 71-26. All 58 Democrats in the Senate favored the pact, as did 13 Republicans.

It was the first major foreign-policy vote in the Senate for Kirk, 51, from Highland Park, who was elected Nov. 2 and took the oath of office Nov. 29.

Kirk is a commander in the Navy Reserve who calls himself a national-security hawk. He served in the House for almost 10 years before entering the Senate.

He made lengthy remarks before the vote, saying the nuclear threat in the 21st century had moved beyond Russia to include Iran and North Korea. He said the two smaller nations soon will have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

Kirk said the START treaty, while laudable in its goals, "went awry at the negotiating table" and weakened the "future defense of our nation." He said he was concerned the treaty's preamble would limit or block efforts by Congress to upgrade missile defense systems.

He concluded by urging the administration to "devote the time and effort of our able diplomats to ending the Iranian nuclear program."

Durbin, though, has quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates in disputing the pact would impose limits on missile defense. Durbin said reducing the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons not only makes the world safer but persuades other nations to "halt their destabilizing practices."

-- Katherine Skiba

Top Stories

Census reapportioning is shifting seats West, reports Alexander Burns: "For Democrats and Republicans alike, the U.S. Census data unveiled Tuesday had an unmistakable and familiar political message: Go West. All five of the country’s fastest-growing states -- Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Texas and Utah -- are located in the Sun Belt and Rocky Mountain regions, according to the once-in-a-decade population count...At least in the immediate term, Republicans are expected to have the advantage. In 2008, the Republican presidential ticket won three-quarters of the states gaining seats next year, and because of changes in population, Sen. John McCain would have won six more electoral votes from the post-census map...Over the long run, the picture is less clear. In some Western states, population growth has come as a result of Hispanic immigration and the expansion of suburbs — trends that already have made states like Nevada and Colorado more hospitable to Democrats.

Here's a great interactive graphic charting Census changes over time: http://wapo.st/hUAL1V

The Senate has passed a stopgap budget without money for health-care reform or financial regulation's implementation], reports Felicia Sonmez: "Facing a midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown, Congress passed a bill Tuesday that will fund the federal government through March 4. The bill, which also will freeze federal salaries for two years, narrowly passed the House, 193 to 165, several hours after it easily cleared the Senate on an 79 to 16 vote. President Obama was standing by at the White House to sign the measure. The last-minute scramble was required after the Senate last week withdrew a $1.2 trillion omnibus appropriations bill that included more than $8 billion in earmarks."

The FCC has passed net neutrality rules, reports Cecilia Kang: "The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to approve its first ever Internet access regulation, which ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users. The FCC's three Democratic members made up a majority of votes in favor of the so-called net neutrality regulation, which was introduced more than a year ago by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The rules have sparked intense debate and lobbying over whether such legislation is needed, and are likely to face a legal challenge. Genachowski has argued that Internet access rules would protect companies just starting out on the Web, as well as consumers who are increasingly relying on the Internet for news, entertainment and communications."

The House has passed food safety legislation on to Obama, reports Lyndsey Layton: "The House passed a measure to overhaul the nation's food safety laws by a vote of 215 to 144 Tuesday afternoon, and President Obama is expected to sign it into law as soon as Wednesday. The vote marked the final hurdle for a bill that cleared an unusual number of obstacles, despite enjoying bipartisan support and backing from a wide array of groups across the political spectrum, from Consumers Union to the Chamber of Commerce. "This is a big victory for consumers that finally brings food-safety laws into the 21st century," said Jean Halloran of Consumers Union."

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Dirty South interlude: Lil Wayne plays "6 Foot 7 Foot" on Saturday Night Live.

Still to come: The recession is growing the ranks of low-income families; new HHS rules will limit health insurance rate hikes; the FCC has passed new "net neutrality" rules; the EPA is doubling down on climate regulations; and Shaq conducts the Boston Pops.

Economy

The recession is increasing the number of low-income families, reports Michael Fletcher: "The share of working families earning less than double the official poverty threshold - $43,512 for a family of four - increased from 28 to 30 percent between 2007 and 2009, according to a report released Tuesday by the Working Families Project, a nonprofit group that advocates on behalf of the working poor. Overall, the report said, the number of people living in low-income working families increased by 1.7 million to 45 million between 2008 and 2009. In November, the jobless rate rose to 9.8 percent, and has hovered near 10 percent for more than a year. 'Clearly, we are going in the wrong direction,' said Brandon Roberts, a co-author of the report, derived from an analysis of Census Bureau data."

The Federal Reserve is extending swap lines to foreign central banks: http://on.wsj.com/hPmwuU

The Business Roundtable's new leader is a former Republican governor, reports Dan Eggen: "The Business Roundtable, which has served as one of the Obama administration's few allies in the business community in the past, signaled a possible change of course Tuesday by naming a well-known Republican as its president. Former Michigan governor John Engler (R), who has headed the National Association of Manufacturers for the past six years, will begin leading the Business Roundtable in January, officials said. He takes over from John Castellani, who was recently named to head another powerful lobbying group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The roundtable, one of Washington's most influential business groups, has spent more than $18 million on lobbying since the start of the Obama administration."

The National Labor Review Board will require employers to let employees know they can form a union: http://on.wsj.com/hif9dY

Republicans are now opposing conservative economic policies, writes Jonathan Chait: "Of all the strange things that Republicans have freaked out over during the last two years--a federal version of Mitt Romney’s health care plan, a continuation of George W. Bush’s bank bailout, a failed attempt to implement John McCain’s climate bill--perhaps the strangest target is Milton Friedman’s monetary policies. Yet here we are... Inflation-phobia does hold a cherished place in the conservative canon. Inflation is a tax on wealth, while unemployment penalizes labor. Naturally, conservatives cherish price stability. What’s new is the sudden ascendance of radical, hard-money beliefs."

Steven Pearlstein celebrates companies that "give back": http://wapo.st/fY99Ju

Unwrapping interlude: This kid will not stand for receiving books for Christmas.

Health Care

New health care rules will limit rate hikes, reports N.C. Aizenman: "The Obama administration announced proposed rules Tuesday aimed at curbing large, unwarranted rate hikes by health insurers by subjecting them to mandatory public scrutiny. Under the proposed regulation, which spells out the details of a key provision in the new federal health-care law, next year any insurer seeking a rate increase of 10 percent or more for an individual or small group plan would be required to file financial information justifying the raise with federal and state officials. (Beginning in 2012, the percentage rate increase that triggers the review will be adjusted for each state to reflect its particular market trends.) State authorities would then analyze the data submitted by the insurer to determine if the increase is 'unreasonable.'"

House and Senate leaders are still trying to pass medical aid to 9/11 relief workers: http://bit.ly/hpOBML

Democratic Senators want the EPA to investigate a carcinogen in water supplies, reports Noaki Schwartz: "U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have called on the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public from hexavalent chromium following a report that found the carcinogen in the tap water of 31 cities across the country...Boxer, who chairs the Senate environment and public works committee, said she plans to introduce legislation with California colleague Feinstein that would set a deadline for the EPA to establish an enforceable standard for the chemical also known as chromium 6. The committee will also hold a hearing on the issue in February. The letter was sent after the release of a study by the Environmental Working Group that analyzed drinking water in 35 cities across the country."

Domestic Policy

Congressional staffer salaries haven't increased in 20 years: http://politi.co/h3ezJm

Obama vows to push for comprehensive immigration reform in the next Congress, reports Carrie Budoff Brown: "President Barack Obama told Congressional Hispanic Caucus members Tuesday that he’ll renew his push for comprehensive immigration reform in 2011 -- even though such an effort would face even longer odds in a Congress where Republicans control the House. Obama made the pledge after the defeat last weekend of a more narrowly tailored reform measure, which cleared the Democratic House by a slim margin but failed in the Senate on Saturday.' It was to reassure us that he wasn't giving up,' Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), chairman of the caucus, told POLITICO. 'What he said was we would still be looking at reforming the immigration laws and it would be comprehensive.'"

A new study suggests better teachers result in much higher wages for students, writes Catherine Rampell: "A teacher one standard deviation above the mean effectiveness annually generates marginal gains of over $400,000 in present value of student future earnings with a class size of 20 and proportionately higher with larger class sizes. Alternatively, replacing the bottom 5-8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings with a present value of $100 trillion...Unfortunately, we know little about the supply function for teacher quality. Thus, it is not possible to predict what kinds of pay changes would be needed to ensure any given quality of teacher force."

Polymath interlude: Shaq conducts the Boston Pops.

Energy

The EPA is doubling down on climate regulations, reports Robin Bravender: "The Obama administration is expected to roll out a major greenhouse gas policy for power plants and refineries as soon as Wednesday, signaling it won’t back off its push to fight climate change in the face of mounting opposition on Capitol Hill. The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to a schedule for setting greenhouse gas emission limits, known as 'performance standards,' for the nation’s two biggest carbon-emitting industries, POLITICO has learned. Under the schedule agreed to by EPA, states and environmental groups, the agency will issue a draft greenhouse gas performance standard for power plants by July 2011 and a final rule by May 2012."

Harry Reid has given up on passing an omnibus lands bill, reports Andrew Restuccia: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has abandoned plans to pass omnibus lands legislation consisting of more than 110 land and water bills. But Reid is working to pass certain pieces of the bill before the end of the session. Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle blamed the decision on Republicans, who opposed parts of the legislation, the America’s Great Outdoors Act of 2010. She said Reid was working with lawmakers to pass parts of the legislation this year...By packaging the bills together, Reid had hoped to overcome a Republican filibuster."

T. Boone Pickens is abandoning wind energy for natural gas, writes Robert Bryce: "Two years ago, natural gas prices were spiking and Mr. Pickens figured they'd stay high. He placed a $2 billion order for wind turbines with General Electric. Shortly afterward, he began selling the Pickens Plan. The United States, he claimed, is 'the Saudi Arabia of wind,' and wind energy is an essential part of the cure for the curse of imported oil...Alas, market forces ruined the Pickens Plan. Mr. Pickens should have shorted wind. Instead, he went long and now he's stuck holding a slew of turbines he can't use because low natural gas prices have made wind energy uneconomic in the U.S., despite federal subsidies that amount to $6.44 for every 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) produced by wind turbines."

EIA projections suggest catastrophic climate change is coming, writes Brad Johnson: "This pathway would almost certainly commit the world to catastrophic climate change, including rapid sea level rise, extreme famine, desertification, and ecological collapse on land and sea... The impact of existing global warming on oceans, extreme weather, agriculture, polar ice, and ecosystems is at or exceeding the highest range of past projections...As climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows write in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 'the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change.'"

Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews, Mike Shepard, and Michelle Williams.

How does the American Indian improve his life today?  If he's not completely strapped down by the terrible conditions of most of our reservations he or she would get involved with politics.

That's how we change things.

It was good for us that groups like INDN's List existed to help elect American Indians to public office. Today we received the news that INDN's List is going to shut down.

Native American Netroots is deeply saddened to lose this important group.

More below:
My email notification:

In 2005, many of you joined in my dream and vision of building an organization to recruit, train, support and elect American Indians to public office across America.  Some of you volunteered countless hours, some gave thousands of dollars and others the proverbial widow's mite, some shared your expertise at our INDN Campaign Camps, one made a quilt while others generously bid on it, and hundreds of you sent encouraging words of inspiration and prayed for our candidates and staff.

As we say goodbye to another year, we also say goodbye to INDN's List.  I am deeply saddened to tell you that INDN's List is closing our doors.  In 2009 and 2010, I personally financially supported INDN's List and paid most of our overhead and salaries.  Regrettably, we have simply been unable to expand our donor base beyond a handful of visionary tribes, unions and individuals.  And, the tribes who supported us in our first four years just did not come through these last two years.

Because of you, in the last six years, INDN's List has achieved tremendous success.  We helped American Indians win 63 elections.  Prior to this election cycle, we won 70% of our races.  We helped an American Indian woman win statewide office in Montana, helped Indians win office in several chambers where they had never served, helped bring more Indians into office than at any point in history and were instrumental in holding caucuses on reservations for the first time in a presidential primary in Nevada.

Equally as important, INDN's List trained hundreds of volunteers, staff and candidates and cast a bright spotlight on the dearth of Indians serving in public office.  I have always said, "Little Indian boys and girls cannot be what they cannot see."  I am most proud that INDN's List played a role in giving future generations of Indian children concrete examples of what they can be.

The Republican onslaught took out so many of our excellent office holders and candidates.  Sadly, INDN's List will not be around to help Indians regain the ground we have lost.  Even with our major losses, Indians are more represented today than we were six years ago.

This would not be true without the generous support of several tribes, labor unions, organizations and individuals. Among the most faithful of our supporters are:

Governor Howard Dean * Congressman Mike Honda * Senator Al Franken * Senator Michael Brown * Chairman Gus Franks * Vice Chairman Glynn Crooks * Chairman Robert Martin * Councilwoman Mary Ann Andreas * Chief Jim Gray * Chairman Ron Allen * Councilman Bill John Baker * Councilwoman Cara Cowan Watts

Jim Adelman * Sam Alexander * Sandra Beasley * Richard Bell * Lorene Bishop * Carma Lee Brock * Steve Bruner * Jessa Bush * Lori Cain * Anne Caprara * Rob Capriccioso * Lawrence Crooks * Brian Daffron * Ada Deer * Lindsay Earls * Tom Farris * Susan Filbert * Peggy Flanagan * Jim and Sally Frasier * Andy Frye * John Gaines * Todd Goodman * Lisa Gover * Louis Gray * Faye Hadley * Dennis Hall * Willie Hardacker * LaDonna Harris * Laura Harris * David Harrison * Joan and Ken Hilterbrand * Robert Holden * Adam Holmes * Gordon Holmes * Representative Chuck and Stephanie Hoskin * Megan Hull * Patricia Ireland * Somelea Jackson * John Jameson * Marlene Jones * Dana Jim * Woody Kaplan * Micah Kordsmeier * George Krumme * Celinda Lake * Frank Lamere * Barbara Lee * Bob Lemon * Representative Al McAffrey * Jason McCarty * Luckie McClintock * Tammy McCullar * Dorthy McGill * Theresa McMillan * Brad Miller * David Ocamb * Dave Parker * Jodi Rave * Bill and Rose Ann Risenhoover * Joan Rogin * Susan Rowe * Courtney Ruark * Laura Sanders * Charles Siegel * Marty Smith * Dane Strother * Ronda Talley * Andy Tobias * Mark Trahant * Frosty Troy * Jennifer Vanderheide  * Merv Wampold * Mary Beth Williams * Vickie Winpisinger * Sherilyn Wright

Forest County Potawatomi * Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community * San Manuel Band of Mission Indians * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe * Tulalip Tribes * Chickasaw Nation * Cherokee Nation

IBEW  * NEA  *  UAPP  *  TWU  * USW  * IBT * SEIU * AFL-CIO * Democracy for America * EMILY's List * Native American Times * Indian Country Today * 21st Century Democrats * Wellstone Action

The past six years have been extremely challenging and deeply rewarding.  I will always cherish the memories of watching Claudia Kauffman take her oath of office to become the only Indian woman serving in the Washington Senate, and Al McAffrey become the first openly gay man elected to the Oklahoma House, and Chuck Hoskin be the standard bearer for Indian Country both in Oklahoma and across the nation, and helping elect Denise Juneau as the first Indian woman to hold statewide office in Montana and Barbara McIlvaine Smith as the first Indian in the Pennsylvania House.

My dream of seeing the first Indian woman in Congress, an Indian Governor and ultimately an Indian President lives on.  They are all out there, somewhere.  And maybe, just maybe, INDN's List has helped show them the way.  

I have been deeply blessed and honored to have your support throughout these last six years.

In deepest gratitude and admiration,

    Yakoke, *

Kalyn Free

   Kalyn Free

   President, INDN's List

* "Thank You," in Choctaw.

PS: If you need to contact any of us, here is our new contact information:

Kalyn Free

[emphasis mine]

We needed this group, now what are we going to do?

This is terrible.

UPDATED: Amidst criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, the FCC today adopted new rules designed to ensure that broadband service remains open to all. The five-member commission's 3-2 vote went down along party lines, with the 3 Democrats supporting and the 2 Republicans opposing the measures that will prohibit broadband providers from blocking access to lawful content and discriminating against sites, giving priority to some over others. Offenders will face fines and injunctions. "Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. "These rules will increase certainty in the marketplace; spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st century job-creation engine in the United States." Under the new rules, Internet providers will still have room to manage their traffic but have to disclose their practices to the consumers. Also, they are stricter for wired Internet providers while giving leeway to wireless providers. In a statement, the Motion Picture Association of America applauded today's ruling while stressing the need for protection of intellectual property on the Internet. "Combating IP theft is especially critical in an online world," MPAA president and interim CEO  Bob Pisano said. "Consistent with statements by the Obama Administration and recent law enforcement initiatives, the Commission understands that stemming the rising tide of online theft requires active participation by Internet ... Read More »

Our group has a genuine belief that the cuts could be stopped if sufficient protest was amassed locally and nationally

Across the country, small but determined groups are spontaneously forming to oppose the ongoing cuts – and I joined my local one last November. I'm a retired maths teacher living in Nottingham and was an active member of the Labour party for decades; I first joined as a young socialist in 1964. Before the 1997 election, I had creeping suspicions about Tony Blair. I finally left the party on the Saturday the Guardian front page led with Blair's education secretary, David Blunkett, keeping Chris Woodhead on as the chief inspector of schools.

Throughout the New Labour years, I felt increasingly alienated and impotent. Not that they didn't do some good things and put money into services, but the ideology of the market invaded our public services further – worst of all in the health service. When the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats took power and began to implement their programme of cuts, I felt very angry. Above all, I thought it was tragic that so many people seemed to be swallowing the line that it was entirely caused by the last government, that there was no choice about the cuts and that "we're all in this together". I felt I was going to have to parade around the market square on my own, with a placard saying something in rhyming slang about bankers.

I'm doing a part-time course at the university and I received a round-robin email from one of the lecturers about a group that had been formed to fight the cuts. I went along to a meeting, prepared to find a bunch of hard-left activists mouthing the usual mantras and indulging in internecine squabbling. But although a majority of the group has got political activism experience, the atmosphere was co-operative. At that point, thay had already organised a demonstration in the city centre.

Since then, we have had a march to the market square, and a rally attended by 1,200 people. This has been our major event so far, but members have also participated in three protests against tax-avoiding corporations; supported several activities on behalf of a local school facing closure; held stalls and delivered leaflets. And today, we are supporting a Unison protest against rises in charges for day centres. We are also planning an event in the New Year, to which we are inviting anyone who is involved with providing services, working with the vulnerable, or themselves threatened by proposed cuts.

Meetings are held weekly or fortnightly and someone different chairs each time; if you come along and help then you've joined the group. We have that most essential volunteer – an IT expert who manages the website and the email, and others practiced in producing newsletters and press releases. However, no single party or affiliation is running the show.

The group line is that all cuts are to be resisted. The "Notts" in our name means Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire. These are two very different authorities: Nottingham city remained Labour controlled last May; Nottinghamshire went to the Conservatives and is in the hands of an administration whose ideology is not far short of that of Suffolk. So far we have little contact or reach into the county, where arguably things will be far worse because the council wishes to reduce and privatise services. But the city is nonetheless going to make an conservatively estimated £29.5m in cuts, which will have an enormous impact on multiple services.

Already Framework, which works for the homeless in the city, has seen its grant reduced to a point where it will be unable to function adequately – and the cuts have barely started. Nottinghamshire county council, which runs the city libraries, is proposing almost half its 60 libraries open for only 8-10 hours a week.

Our group has a genuine belief that the cuts could be stopped if sufficient protest was amassed locally and nationally. I would like to believe this, and am certainly prepared to act as though I believe it and move towards that end. But sometimes you just have to fight for things even if you don't think you'll get them. My own pragmatic and more realistic hope is that during what is to come in the next few years, sufficient noise will be made by groups like ours for people to realise what is going on: that this is a bad and unfair way to run things – and that we are not all in this together.

Capitalism – as it has evolved by the 21st century – has caused this. There could be better ways of controlling and regulating it if only there was a party with the will and the ability to do it, and a people sufficiently engaged and aware to vote them into power.

In Europe and elsewhere, there is a growing awareness of the social need for government policies and business practices to be grounded in a true understanding of human well-being. The scale of the change that this will entail was anticipated in the young John Stuart Mill's struggle with utilitarianism.

Mill’s fearsome father was the secretary and disciple of the architect of the modern utilitarian idea, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832); in 1826, at the age of 20, the young Mill suffered a nervous breakdown as the apparent implications of the philosophy began to unravel in his mind.

“The end had ceased to charm”, he was to describe the moment in his autobiography, “and how could there ever be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for.”

John Stuart Mill (1806-73) went on to rescue utilitarianism from the puritanical abyss to which Bentham’s guiding principle - the greatest happiness of the greatest number - seemed to lead if pushed too far. But the idea’s two originating flaws remained: it developed a reductionist view of the human spirit, and its pioneers (the “statists” of the 1820s-1830s) linked the measurement of happiness exclusively to that of money.

This quantifying approach has trapped official thinking in Britain ever since, never more so than during the first decade of the 21st century when utilitarianism became the beating heart of the New Labour government. Two minor examples make the point: the government’s ambition to “make Britain the (world) leader in online gambling”, and its rejection of the architect Richard Rogers’s use of the word ‘beautiful’ in his report on future cities in place of the (measurable) phrase “good design”. 

There are signs that the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed after the election in May 2010 is seeking a different philosophy. Its decision to include human well-being and quality of life (and not just economic growth) as key criteria when looking at the impact of policy is welcome and could even be revolutionary - but only if the government means what it says.

Here, the Coalition’s approach to university funding casts doubt on its intentions. The Browne report which guides its policy is possibly the most utilitarian take on the subject ever written; it views higher education as solely an investment that must be recouped. But education cannot be just an investment, even if it is that as well. This depressing and even dehumanising view misses the fact that a university training (perhaps especially in the humanities) can be greatly enriching on many levels, for both the people involved and the wider society.

The report’s thinking is - as Charles Seaford, my colleague at the New Economics Foundation (nef), argues - that it is inefficient for graduates to work in low-paid jobs, even if these are more socially useful; rather, they will serve the nation better by spending years chained to an economic treadmill to pay off the loans they incurred while studying.

The logic of this kind of extreme utilitarianism is to reduce the value of communities to only what can appear on a balance-sheet - and eliminate everything else, including the intrinsic value of the people who compose them.

“There is a risk of turning a university degree into an object”, says Deborah Bowman, a director of studies in Cambridge. “It should be OK to say that we are not just economic entities. Do we want a country in which we are all trying to earn as much as we possibly can - or having rich, fulfilling lives? We are in danger of creating a higher-education system in which these are seen as the same thing - and they aren't.”

An official decision to measure well-being is a move in the right direction. The commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress appointed by France’s president in 2008 with the involvement of (among others) Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz reflects the same positive fusion of politics and ideas. But fine words are not enough. The idea of being guided by people’s well-being rather than money and growth is too important to take lightly, far less betray.

Sideboxes

'Read On' Sidebox: 

New Economics Foundation (nef)

David Boyle

UCL - Bentham Project

Richard Layard, Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (Penguin, 2006)

Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

Centre for Economic Performance, LSE

Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (Browne report), 9 November 2009

David Boyle & Andrew Simms, Eminent Corporations: The Rise and Fall of the Great British Corporation (Constable & Robinson, 2010)

Sidebox: 

David Boyle is a fellow of the New Economics Foundation. His books include Funny Money: In Search of Alternative Cash (HarperCollins, 1999); Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life; (HarperCollins, 2003); (with Andrew Simms) The New Economics: A Bigger Picture (Earthscan, 2009); The Tyranny of Numbers: Why Counting Can't Make Us Happy (HarperCollins, 2010); and (with Andrew Simms) Eminent Corporations: The Rise and Fall of the Great British Corporation (Constable & Robinson, 2010). His website is here

Also by David Boyle in openDemocracy:

"Strip-mining communities" (26 June 2006)

"Anita, and the future of business" (12 September 2007)

By: Lenny McAllister

There is the familiar theme: "We oppose the president on his latest legislative initiative." There is the familiar rhetoric: "The president is spineless and needs to take a stand." Then there is the face of the opposition: the Republicans on Capitol Hill. But not in this instance. Not with Democrats reversing roles with congressional Republicans in staunchly opposing and -- perhaps controversially -- criticizing Barack Obama.

The explosive expressions of disgust and disunity with the president -- from Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D-Ohio) obvious anguish over Obama's tax-compromise framework to the left's media base calling him spineless -- has been evident since Obama announced the proposal last week to maintain the Bush tax cuts in return for extending unemployment benefits.

The groundswell of opposing voices is a familiar phenomenon for the president as he takes on a tough economy in the midst of geopolitical turbulence. However, the character of the heated debate between Obama and his fellow Democrats has taken on a different tone.

Since the onslaught of the Tea Party movement in 2009, descriptions of much of the conservative opposition to Obama -- of those critiques that fall short of using imagery of a "boy president" or a "witch doctor" but that rip Obama on perceived policy gaffes and international mistakes -- have often ranged from racist to evil. Any arguments that Republicans make about the fundamental differences between themselves and Obama in philosophy and political approach to the economy, the military and society at large are promptly batted away.

Now, however, many are overlooking the disrespectful dynamic coming from the lot of ungrateful Democrats. Imagine if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had held a major press conference at the same time Obama was having a press conference announcing a breakthrough, bipartisan effort. And what if Sean Hannity went on television and continually called Obama spineless for brokering a deal that brings a sense of economic stability to a wide range of Americans regardless of socioeconomic background, especially during these hard times?

When similar incidents did occur among Republicans, the response of many Americans was that these conservatives constituted the "party of no," a coalition of self-serving politicos out to defeat the first black president of the United States because of their racist tendencies.

Is the same true now that the shoe is on the other (i.e., left) foot? The tone of disagreement on the political left, coupled with their recent practice of distancing themselves from Obama on the campaign trail, is problematic. There's the report that at least one congressional Democrat used the f-word in describing Obama during a closed-door discussion about the tax compromise. Then there's the way Democrats disregarded the president by ignoring his direction to incorporate Republican ideas (e.g., insurance portability) during the health care debate in 2009. Clearly, there has been a growing separation between the far left and Obama.

And although many would state that the divide is merely about policy differences -- the same reasons that keep the hard right and President Obama frosty in their interactions -- more congressional Democrats are showing questionable methodology in criticizing and addressing Obama. From a societal standpoint, it increasingly resembles the sentiment that most Democrats express toward black Republicans: that the power players within the party will use a charismatic and influential African-American politician for selfish gain, but will toss him away once the last ounce of usefulness is gone.

Considering that noted Democrats such as Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid (famed for his "Negro dialect" comment) and former President Bill Clinton (you'll recall his comment to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy about Obama serving coffee) have made rather disrespectful comments about the president in recent times, we should not wonder much about why the level of angst and condescending tone is now rising after key Democrat losses in November and the president's much-needed compromise, particularly since Democrats do not have the votes to pass legislation without Republican cooperation.

Although the 2008 presidential primary is a distant memory, it was not that long ago that key Democratic partisans were unpleasantly surprised by a young, educated black newcomer who came onto the scene to steal a nomination from consensus choice Hillary Clinton and went on to win the White House. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that those lingering feelings from 2008 -- some racial, some not -- are playing a part in the rhetoric we are hearing from the left today?

And why are we so willing to chalk up Democratic frustration to differences of opinion, even when we have evidence that suggests other factors? If Democrats are capable of having philosophical differences with Obama, then why is it so hard to believe that Republicans can do the same without race being a factor?

Or, perhaps, is race an issue -- at some level -- with both parties? After all, there has never been a black U.S. president before, and since racism knows no boundaries, maybe the underlying frustrations permeate -- and eventually rear their ugly heads on -- both sides of the aisle, even if others are unwilling to admit it.

If this is true, then the racism of "the New Jim Crow" is stronger than some would like to believe in the 21st century, and furthermore, it can supersede even partisan politics. If so, it is a lesson that President Obama is learning the hard way in Washington.

Lenny McAllister is a syndicated political commentator and the host of the morning radio show Launching Chicago With Lenny McAllister on WVON, The Talk of Chicago 1690 AM. He is the author of an upcoming edition of the book The Obama Era, Part I (2008-2010): Diary of a Mad Black PYC (Proud Young Conservative). Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.

Think the Republicans lost big in the tax cut deal? Think again.

There is no continuation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Fund (TANF EF) from the stimulus bill in the tax cut compromise. Regular TANF was created as part of the Clinton-era welfare reform to get people off assistance by getting them back to work. This approach becomes problematic when unemployment is high due to faults in monetary and fiscal policy, not because people choose not to work. In a Great Recession, TANF runs out of both money and conceptual scope very quickly. So this Emergency Fund, at the low cost of five billion dollars distributed to states, allowed locals on the ground to expand and continue TANF to meet the needs of fighting poverty and putting people to work.

Annie Lowrey wrote this Washington Independent story about the expiration of TANF EF near the end of 2010. It’s considered to be one of the most successful parts of the stimulus programs, bringing employment to 250,000 people, and it will not be continued under this deal. Instead, the Democrats are claiming victory over depreciating equipment and R&D tax loopholes.

Who really got what in this deal? You’ve probably seen this graph circulated by the White House on the Hill:

I want to argue the chart should look like this:

This involves moving two items. The first is the Child Tax Credit. In the Republican Pledge To America (pdf), they both take credit for its creation and note the damage that will happen if it isn’t extended: “During the 1990s, a Republican Congress enacted pro-family policies such as marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit. Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies.” Regardless of whether or not Democrats should support this credit, this is a “get” for the GOP.

The second is more interesting: Should the payroll tax cut be a “get” for the Republican Party?  Republicans are somewhat worried about high unemployment, but they believe it has to do with the need to placate business and focus on supply-side “structural” employment issues, rather than restoring demand to the economy.  To the extent that a moderate GOP member would think of demand problems, something like a payroll tax cut is right up their alley. And I’m going to argue that the payroll tax cut should be considered a GOP “get.”

What They Wanted In the spirit of ‘if you want to know what the GOP wants to get the economy jump-started, ask them,’ by all accounts these kinds of payroll taxes are what the GOP wanted. From whitehouse.gov (h/t Jed Lewison at DailyKos):

Q: So the only reason that the payroll tax holiday will provide more stimulus is because it’s twice as large. Making Work Pay was capped. Why didn’t you preserve Making Work Pay? Is it because, as the President said some months ago, it’s just a kind of invisible tax cut and didn’t provide any political benefit for the White House?

MR. SUMMERS: No, it came out of the process of compromise with the Republicans who were more attracted to the payroll tax holiday concept, and that was a proposal that, as had been coming out of here, we had been giving considerable thought to in the context of the President’s budget.

Weakest Stimulus And that isn’t a mistake. This takes the weakest part of the stimulus, tax cuts, makes it weaker, and puts it in front of the stimulus package. According to Mark Zandi’s estimates, it has a worse multiplier than the anemic Making Work Pay tax credit multiplier it replaces. It turns away from the idea of investing in public goods and infrastructure, laying out the groundwork of the 21st century economy, and instead mails checks to people. That’s the GOP response to any problem — tax cuts! — and now it is branded as the Democratic stimulus response.

Lucky Duckies My audience is mixed, and many of my readers are conservative financial types. I want you to tap into the most conservative parts of your brain and fixate on the lucky duckies of the United States:

Think about them. The liberal government tries to make sure they don’t starve to death in elderly poverty through Social Security. The liberal government tries to provide health care to make sure lucky duckies don’t go bankrupt if they break their legs. But without the threat of going bankrupt, lucky duckies will be out there moral hazarding it up and breaking their limbs for giggles! And so on.

If you think lucky duckies get too good of a deal, then this payroll tax is pretty sweet. Rather than expanding welfare through successful items like the TANF EF, it actually raises taxes on a third of workers. A Social Security payroll tax cut is biased towards middle and upper-middle class workers, as opposed to the Making Work Pay tax cut. As the New York Times points out today in In Tax Benefits to the Middle, Political Lift for Obama, “a hefty portion of the $858 billion tax package will benefit middle- and upper-middle-income Americans.”

No Benefit For Government Workers A quarter of the 20 million state and local workers pay no payroll tax because they don’t get Social Security and instead get a separate pension plan. If you believe that government workers already receive too much money and could stand a decent pay cut, as the GOP and apparently the Obama administration believes, then this payroll tax cut is for you.

Solvency In Question Dean Baker is officially worried about Social Security as a result of this payroll tax. The GOP, from what we can tell from Ryan Grim’s reporting, looks to take advantage of the confusion this payroll tax cut will create and call into question how solid and safe Social Security is. This primes the pump for a debate about how to “fix” Social Security in 2011 and 2012.

Viewed through this lens, this is the Moderate Republican Stimulus Package 2.0. I wonder how it is going to work.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Join the conversation about this story »

After seven years of Arnold Schwarzenegger imposing a right-wing shock doctrine on us - creating a crisis through bad management of the state's budget, including a refusal to raise taxes during a boom, then using that crisis to push through radical solutions that the public would otherwise never have supported - Jerry Brown may be planning a shock doctrine of his own. But this time, it would be more progressive, and would be designed to produce better government instead of to destroy it.

That's what I take from this LA Times article on Brown's possible budget plans:

California voters could be presented with a tough choice by summer under a proposal that Gov.-elect Jerry Brown is considering: Approve new taxes or other revenue in a special election, or live with far fewer government services.

Brown is holding talks with small groups of lawmakers and influential interest groups about how to put that decision before the public. He won't discuss his plans publicly, but people involved in the private discussions expect him to propose a special election after enacting a dire austerity budget in the spring.

This is probably the only way to resolve what I called the California Impasse - the fact that the public wants good government services, and is generally willing to pay for it with higher taxes, but hasn't yet been willing to actually pull the trigger - partly because nobody has ever actually asked them to do it, not since 1978.

By showing Californians exactly what their future will look like without new revenues, Brown offers the best chance to win voter approval of the funding we need to keep our schools open, to enable our kids to attend college, to ensure people get the health care they need, and to provide the public services that are necessary to enable job creation.

I cannot recall a moment in at least the last 32 years when that choice, which is the choice at the heart of what it means to govern California today, was ever put directly to the voters. In the aftermath of Prop 13, Democrats became skittish of proposing new revenues, afraid that the voters would destroy their political fortunes if they did. So for three decades, Democrats preferred to stoke asset bubbles to provide the job creation and tax revenues that had been undercut by Prop 13's passage.

Now, as Jerry Brown laid out at yesterday's budget meeting, there is no avoiding this central question any longer. Either we go all-in on right-wing policy, destroying the government services that enabled our 20th century prosperity, or we embrace a progressive future that can rebuild the California Dream for the 21st century.

Some wonder if the May 2009 special election result bodes ill for a June 2011 special election:

In 2009, the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger placed six budget-related measures on a special-election ballot. They included extending temporary tax hikes as well as proposed limits on future state spending. Voters overwhelmingly rejected them.

The problem here was that progressives were asked to support a truly reckless right-wing proposal, a spending cap, as the price of extending the temporary tax increases. Progressives were given the same kind of arguments that President Barack Obama is giving now to defend a similarly crappy tax deal - that we have to appease Republicans or else mass suffering will result. Progressives rejected that argument in May 2009, and have rejected it again in December 2010.

If we get a clean proposal - a truly progressive solution to the state's budget crisis that finally closes the structural revenue shortfall and helps fund our services and programs that are essential to 21st century prosperity - then progressives will work our ass off to get them passed in June.

Let's hope Jerry Brown understands that, and proceeds accordingly. In June 1978, the right succeeded in destroying the California Dream. In June 2011, the left will finally have a chance to restore it.

Top Stories

Senate debate on the tax cut deal begins tomorrow, report Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray: "Senate leaders are planning to begin debate on a far-reaching tax package as soon as Thursday as rank-and-file Democrats warm to an agreement between the White House and Republicans to extend a host of expiring tax cuts and pump fresh cash into the economy...Lawmakers said the magnitude of the concessions Obama won came into sharper focus Wednesday as the White House highlighted independent forecasts predicting that the package could create as many as 2.2 million jobs next year...White House budget director Jacob Lew and senior Treasury adviser Gene Sperling held an afternoon session to field questions from Senate Democrats, who were more accepting of the package than they were a day earlier in a meeting with Biden, participants said."

CHART - How the tax deal will affect you: http://wapo.st/aJ3A9n

Mark Zandi says the deal could increase growth by as much as one percentage point; Macroeconomic Advisers says one-half of one percentage point: http://wapo.st/eHP4Rq

The DREAM Act has passed the House, reports Shankar Vendatam: "The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a measure to legalize undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children. The measure, known as the DREAM Act, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 216 to 198 Wednesday night. But it faces an uphill climb in the Senate, where advocates need - and do not seem to have - 60 votes to push the measure through Senate procedures. The DREAM Act seeks to confer legalized status on undocumented immigrants brought to the United States by their parents, after they attend two years of college or sign up for the military."

Congressional Republicans have blocked a cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security, reports Jim Abrams: "House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday thwarted Democratic efforts to award $250 checks to Social Security recipients facing a second consecutive year without a cost-of-living increase. President Barack Obama and Democrats have urged approval of the one-time payment, saying seniors barely getting by on their Social Security checks face undue hardships without the COLA increase. But most Republicans contended that the nation couldn't afford the estimated $14 billion cost of the payment, and that the COLA freezes in 2010 and 2011 come after seniors received a significant boost in 2009."

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device? Subscribe!

'60s retro pop interlude: The Like's "He's Not a Boy".

Still to come: The Fed is likely to stay the course on quantitative easing; the Senate passed a Medicare "doc fix"; the Supreme Court is split on an Arizona immigration law; the Cancun climate negotiations are heating up; and two penguins who are really afraid of water.

Economy

The Fed is likely to keep monetary policy constant, reports Jon Hilsenrath: "The Federal Reserve is likely to leave monetary policy unchanged next week at its final meeting this year as it assesses the impact of its bond-buying program and the unfolding tax debate in Washington. The central bank has been buffeted by criticism of its plan to buy $600 billion of Treasury bonds since unveiling it in early November. Internal and external critics say the program, aimed at keeping long-term interest rates low, could spur inflation or another asset bubble, stirring doubts about the Fed's commitment to the program and likely muting its impact. But top Fed officials haven't expressed any inclination to veer from their course or to alter significantly their message to the public about the plan."

US and European economic policies are diverging sharply, reports Howard Schneider: "Concerned that a weakened Europe could undermine the health of the world economy, the Obama administration dispatched Lael Brainard, Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, to Europe last week to consult with leaders there. U.S. officials have consistently urged Europe to act more quickly to address the threat of insolvency facing weaker countries...By contrast, even some of those who have been wary of U.S. policies agree that the U.S. recovery is central to the world's economic health and needs to be kept on track, even if it means running larger deficits. As the world's largest economy, there is little short-term risk that the U.S. will be unable to borrow what it needs."

The top House appropriator's pork-filled past worries conservatives: http://on.wsj.com/h5Z3qe

The stimulus failed, write John Cogan and John Taylor: "Recently released Commerce Department data show that of the $862 billion stimulus package, the change in government purchases at the federal level has, thus far, been extremely small. From the first quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2010, government purchases have increased by only 3% of the $862 billion ($24 billion). Infrastructure spending increased by an even smaller amount: $4 billion. In a $14 trillion economy, these amounts are immaterial. The Commerce Department also provides data on ARRA grants to state and local governments and the amount of purchases by these governments. According to these data, state and local government purchases of goods and services did not increase at all."

Tim Fernholz offers four concessions the White House could give liberals on taxes: http://bit.ly/fcBrsq

The American voter loves stimulus but hates "stimulus", writes Annie Lowrey: "She barely liked the 2009 stimulus when Congress passed it, and she certainly does not like it now. (The financial regulatory reform bill? She's made her peace with that.) Yet, in an enduring example of the polled American's propensity for containing multitudes, she likes virtually all of the elements of stimulus, such as the tax breaks, unemployment insurance, infrastructure investment, and bolstered food stamps--a case of the parts besting the sum, apparently. And she thinks the country needs more of those provisions. She also supports an increase in the minimum wage."

'Tis the season interlude: Holiday songs played on iPads.

Health Care

The Senate passed a Medicare doc fix, reports Jennifer Haberkorn: "The Senate -- helped by a push from the White House -- passed a one-year 'doc-fix' late Wednesday, preventing a 25 percent cut to Medicare payments that would kick in on Jan. 1. The $19.2 billion bill, which passed by unanimous consent as expected, still has to be approved by the House before congress recesses for the holidays. It is paid for by a tweak to the new health reform law... Low- and middle-income consumers will be eligible for tax subsidies to help pay for their coverage. The bill changes how much money they would have to repay if they misreport their income or their income grows mid-year."

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Ca) wants to cut funding for expensive medical procedures: http://on.wsj.com/dN9kTV

The co-author of the Stupak amendment will head a House health panel, reports Patrick O'Connor: "Social conservatives weren’t able to deny Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) the chairmanship of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, but they did get a key ally on the subcommittee that oversees health care: Rep. Joe Pitts (R., Pa.). Rep. Pitts was named chairman of the health panel, giving the fervent abortion opponent a key role in any move to repeal the president’s health care bill. Mr. Pitts helped write a controversial ban that prohibited recipients of federal subsidies from purchasing insurance that covered elective abortions. The language was eventually stripped from the final bill and replaced with an executive order from President Barack Obama."

Domestic Policy

The Supreme Court is split on upholding an Arizona immigration law, reports Robert Barnes: "The Supreme Court sounded conflicted Wednesday about whether Arizona's attempt to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants intrudes on federal law or complements it. The case pits Arizona against an unusual coalition of challengers that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, civil rights groups, labor unions and the Obama administration. But that high-powered group faced a barrage of skeptical questions from the court's conservatives, which bodes well for Arizona to see its law upheld."

Congressional Republicans who ran against lobbyists are now hiring them: http://wapo.st/hxjPJd

The tax deal will hurt public workers, reports David Kocieniewski: "The deal would end the Making Work Pay credit, which gave a tax reduction of up to $400 to workers with low and middle incomes. That credit will be replaced by a 2 percent decrease in the payroll tax for Social Security for people of all incomes. But more than six million federal, state and local government employees do not pay into Social Security at all. Instead, they pay into public pension systems. So if the agreed proposal becomes law, such employees will lose the $400 credit and would not reap any benefit from the payroll tax cut."

The House has passed a federal salary freeze: http://wapo.st/eLZqhR

Funds being spent on tax cuts should be devoted to education, writes Matt Miller: "Math (and science) achievement today predicts technological leadership and economic strength tomorrow. So these results should shock us. And they're related to the tax debate. We'll never attract enough talented young Americans to teach subjects such as math and science when average starting teacher salaries in the United States are $39,000 and rise (over decades) to an average maximum of $67,000. That tax benefit of $120 billion might have endowed a hefty federal effort to remake the teaching profession for the 21st century."

Adorable animals afraid of water interlude: Two penguins who don't want to get their feet wet.

Energy

Cancun climate negotiations are underway, report William Booth and Juliet Eilperin: "The developed countries are pushing language for a climate fund that would commit them 'to the goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020.' There is a lot of wiggle room in such words as 'goal' and 'jointly.' The least-developed countries want the document to read that wealthy countries such as the United States would "commit to provide 1.5 percent of GDP per year by 2020," a global price tag approaching $600 billion a year... The negotiators for China and the United States are brawling over how much transparency the Chinese will allow. Pershing insists that China permit outsiders to look over its shoulder and verify that its carbon cuts are not tricks of creative accounting."

Ethanol and other energy subsidies may make it into the tax compromise bill: http://politi.co/f2hJ5l

The EPA will delay a rule on reducing smog, reports Robin Bravender: "The Obama administration will delay issuing a new smog reduction plan, the second controversial air pollution rule the Environmental Protection Agency has punted in the past two days. EPA was facing a court deadline to finalize its national air quality rule for ozone, or smog, by Dec. 31, but the agency is now planning to delay the rule until next July, spokesman Brendan Gilfillan confirmed Wednesday. On Tuesday, EPA announced it would delay a major air toxics rule for industrial boilers, such as those used at oil refineries and paper mills, after coming under fire from myriad industry groups and lawmakers claiming it would cripple the economy."

An attempt to transfer energy jurisdiction from the House Energy and Commerce committee to the Natural Resources committee is failing, report Darren Samuelsohn and Darren Goode: "Rep. Doc Hastings appears to be falling short in his bid to snag jurisdiction on energy issues away from the Energy and Commerce Committee. The incoming chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee hasn't been able to motivate GOP leaders to go along with his controversial power grab that pits top Republican lawmakers against one another, according to several lawmakers and aides...Republicans are moving forward Thursday in handing out 'A' committee assignments -- which includes the Energy and Commerce Committee but not the Natural Resources panel -- as if jurisdictions will remain the same as this year."

Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews, Mike Shepard, and Michelle Williams. Photo credit: Alex Wong Photo

Are you a high-energy person? Are you persuasive?
Then we think you could be great at this job and we want to train you!

Call Now
310-693-2829

start work this week!

Make a difference: for you, for your family, and for our planet. Earn money telephone fundraising for causes you believe in. Paid Training.

Recent campaigns include:
Green America, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, DNC, 21st Century Democrats, GLADD, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Amnesty International


We need YOU if you are:

• Someone who has never done this kind of work, but think it sounds interesting
• Passionate about helping the types of clients we work for
• Friendly, outgoing, a people person, and like to talk
•

This is permanent work. 20+ hours a week.
Call 310-693-2829.
New training class starts this week– call now!
Classes are Thursday and Friday 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. & Saturday and Monday 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.

Protect your future!

Protect our environment!

• Learn a new set of skills!
• Covered parking is provided.
• We’ll train you!
• Good callers make $75 to $150 a week in bonuses.
• Great callers can earn over $200 in bonuses!

SD&A; Teleservices, Inc. is a dynamic, highly-respected professional fundraising company that works on behalf of our nation’s museums, PBS stations, political advocacy groups, environmental organizations, and other prestigious clients. This is your opportunity to make money and to make a difference at the same time! For more information on this rewarding position as a professional telefundraiser and to browse a list of our clients, please visit us on the web at www.sdats.com. Call 310-693-2829!

SD&A; is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.


Inspired by Eurabia by Bat Ye’or, the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is Defeating Eurabia, part of which is available online in German. For Scandinavian readers, I have contributed a chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet (“The Suicide Paradigm”), published in 2010 by Ole J. Anfindsen, who runs the website Honest Thinking. Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide, and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. His main emphasis is not on Islam but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of Western oligarchs. The same is true of my contribution to his book.

The following quotes with page references are taken from the recent book The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature by Byron M. Roth, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology from the USA. He argues that the debate over immigration policy in the Western world is critically uninformed by the sciences of evolutionary biology and psychology. In his work he examines the intersection between culture, genetics, IQ and society. Prominent among the fundamental features of human nature is a natural bias toward one’s own kind, making harmony in multi-ethnic societies problematic at best. All historical evidence indicates that “diversity” is not a strength, and that blood is thicker than water. Ignoring such biological realities leads to failed social experiments that may cause great human suffering.

Roth addresses the disturbingly undemocratic nature of the regime of mass immigration imposed by authorities on the citizens of all Western nations in defiance of their expressed wishes, and shows that the chasm between elite views and public opinion is so deep that current policies can only be maintained by an increasingly totalitarian suppression of dissent.

There is a consensus of opinion accepted by the vast majority of leaders in business, industry and academia. Billionaire George Soros has established and funded the Open Society Institute (OSI), which operates over thirty branches worldwide and promotes Multiculturalism. Soros was also a major financial backer of Barack Obama for US President. There are numerous organizations, academic programs, religious groups and labor organizations that support our current immigration policies. Many business and industry organizations spend vast sums in lobbying efforts to oppose any limitation of immigration, legal or illegal. Combined, these groups have created a convergence of opinion among Western elites, a consensus that popular resistance to mass immigration is caused by ignorant xenophobia that should be ignored in setting public policy. Opposing all these powerful forces are the average citizens of all Western countries.

Francis Fukuyama explains that “Postmodern elites, particularly in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place.” Esteemed English philosopher Roger Scruton observes that such elites dominate European national parliaments and the bureaucracy of the European Union. A typical member of this elite class repudiates national loyalties, defines his goals and ideals against his own nation and sees himself “as a defender of enlightened universalism” against local chauvinism.

Byron M. Roth, page 52:

“Not surprisingly, the multicultural program these elites promote is, by its very nature, profoundly undemocratic, in that it imposes changes on society that citizens most assuredly do not want and which they resist when given the opportunity to do so. Hence the extraordinary repression of dissent in the immigration debate and the totalitarian imposition of political correctness wherever elites have power, such as in American universities and in most European political parties. Nobel Prize winning novelist Doris Lessing, no enemy of the left, argued in a 1992 article that political correctness is ‘immediately evident as a legacy of Communism… a continuation of that old bully, the Party line.’ She argues: ‘millions of people, the rug of Communism pulled out from under them, are searching frantically, and perhaps not even knowing it, for another dogma.’ They are rabble-rousers are using the ‘most dirty and often cruel tactics’ and are ‘no less rabble-rousers because they see themselves as anti-racists or feminists or whatever.’ It is difficult to disagree with Lessing that the totalitarian methods and utopian ambitions of multiculturalism clearly have their roots in Communist ideology. The multicultural program is, to be sure, spectacularly utopian.”

The ruling oligarchs of the West seem unwilling to ask what the consequences will be if their vision is flawed. Many left-leaning Western intellectuals defended the barbarities of Communism for years because they viewed its end goals as noble. The same intellectuals now excuse the excesses of their governments in promoting large-scale immigration. After all, the goal of world harmony and universal justice is as noble as the goal of economic equality.

Page 53:

“Many today call the tactics of European multiculturalists a ‘soft’ totalitarianism. However, the willingness of governments to put people in jail or deprive them of their livelihoods for disagreeing with government policies can hardly be characterized as soft. It should be recalled that in its last years, the Soviet Union rarely murdered opponents, but used tactics similar to the ones being used today in Europe. A world without borders would be one without refuge from despotic rule. Despotic governance was the rule throughout most of recorded history, and it is still the rule for the majority of the world’s citizens… Whether people would be better off without independent nation states, living under the rule of a world government, or in large supernational blocs such as the EU is by no means clear. In fact, history and reason suggest that just the opposite would be the case. Most utopian dreams when implemented have, in fact, been real-life nightmares for the vast majority. One is hard-pressed to think of an exception.”

Serge Trifkovic, the Serbian-American author of the book Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves, agrees with this analysis. The ruling elite insist that Western countries belong to the whole world and that our societies should be “colorblind.” These ideas have become tools of European demographic suicide. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.” The permitted consensus opinion promotes de facto open borders. The West is hamstrung by guilt-ridden haters and appeasers “whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene.” Trifkovic describes the “treason” of the elite class or traitor class, who despite their self-image as enlightened and rational are rootless, arrogant and cynically manipulative fifth columnists:

“By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist ‘in its current form’ in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood — here and throughout the world — will have been rendered obsolete… The ideological foundation for Talbott’s beliefs was stated bluntly: ‘All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.’ To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one’s life for its sake is absurd. The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history… Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil.”

Roth again, page 439:

“The elimination of border and passport checks within Europe meant that EU residents and authorized visitors could freely move between EU countries unimpeded. But it also meant that illegal entrants could also move about without hindrance. This meant that securing the external borders of the EU was critical for immigration and security purposes. However, the EU member states have not agreed on EU-wide measures to do so. As a consequence, countries bordering on the Mediterranean — and especially those with island possessions close to Africa, such as Spain and Italy — became magnets for African migrants seeking illegal entrance into the EU. Once a migrant gains access to an island of an EU nation, he cannot be simply sent home, but has to be individually processed for deportation, a time-consuming and costly process. In many cases individuals simply leave shelters and detention centers and spread out into the countryside, and many travel to the mainland of other European states.”

Byron M. Roth further believes (page 31) that “Immigration policy is remarkably similar in all Western countries in its encouragement of large-scale Third-World immigration, while at the same time, in all countries, the native population, by wide majorities, opposes those policies.” He speaks about a convergence of the so-called political Left and Right when it comes to promoting non-European mass immigration, which has essentially crippled the democratic system and rendered it nearly meaningless in these and other crucial issues. Those on the Left are international Socialists while those on the Right channel the business lobby, with its desire for unlimited access to markets as well as cheap labor. These two groups, allegedly adversaries, are in fact allies in the project of breaking down Western nation-states.

Page 38:

“In the case of the doctrine of multiculturalism and mass immigration, however, the political leaders of both the left and the right, and virtually all academicians, are unanimous in their support. The consequence is that the members of the general public, who are most affected by immigration, have no parties to represent their interests and are left with a powerful sense of disenfranchisement for the simple reason that on issues of immigration they are, in fact, disenfranchised. A case in point is the 2008 United States Presidential elections, where both nominees favored even more liberalized immigration policies than those then in existence, and this in spite of the overwhelming opposition to these policies by the electorate.”

He claims (page 440) that “On both sides of the Atlantic, public officials, no matter what they say to their electorates, are quite simply unwilling to stem the flow of immigration. That the vast majority of EU citizens oppose this massive migration seems beside the point. As Craig Parsons and Timothy Smeeding aptly put it, this result was the product of ‘non-majoritarian institutions — constitutional guarantees of human rights and courts — that protected this movement against restrictions by elected officials.’ But this begs the question why the elected officials of all European countries who, after all, design and implement EU policies and who still control the scope of the EU, have acquiesced in these widely unpopular developments. Given the above findings and the data dealing with education, employment, welfare dependency, and crime, it is hardly surprising that large majorities of Europeans have grave misgivings about the current level of immigration from Third World countries. Migration Watch, a United Kingdom policy think tank, commissioned a poll conducted in 2007 by the international organization YouGov to sample the attitudes of the British Public. Overall, 81% thought immigration should be substantially reduced, with 57% agreeing ‘strongly’ and 24% tending to agree. Only 14% disagreed.”

The gap between rich and poor in the USA is wider than ever and the middle class is slowly disappearing. While 90 percent of Americans have seen only modest gains in their incomes since 1973, incomes have almost tripled for people at the upper end of the scale. In 1979, one third of the profits the country produced went to the richest 1 percent of society. In 2010 it was almost 60 percent. In 1950, the average corporate CEO earned 30 times as much as an ordinary worker. Sixty years later it was 300 times as much. These figures indicate that the wealthy elites are not being irrational. So far, globalization has indeed been beneficial — for them personally in the short run, but not necessarily for the country as a whole in the long run.

As I’ve indicated before, there is only one major party in the West today: the Transnational Post-European Party for Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration. You retain, for the time being, the privilege of voting for who should be its figurehead at any given moment, but you do not get to have a say about which policy the Party should follow. That is reserved for the oligarchs. The peasants — that means you — can be distracted by breasts, football and reality TV. Those who still protest can be labeled “Nazis” and dragged in front of a court of law. The establishment Right is little different from the Left, rendering these terms nearly meaningless.


All Leftist parties are in favor of dismantling the West in its traditional form; Socialists have always been opposed to nation-states. Whatever opposition there is can be found on the political Right, but it is fragmented, and those who pose a genuine challenge to the oligarchs and the status quo will be ruthlessly demonized; assassinated like Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, put on trial like Geert Wilders, banned by law as was the Vlaams Blok when it was the largest party in Belgium, or assaulted in their private homes by thugs with the quiet approval of the authorities, as is the case with the Sweden Democrats. Individuals are legally prosecuted for telling the truth about Third World immigration in general and Islamic immigration in particular, among them Jussi Halla-aho in Finland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria. All of this takes place in the supposedly “free and democratic West.”

The modern West has become an ideological dictatorship, a “one-idea society” where a self-appointed elite of Multicultural oligarchs impose censorship from above. The same basic mechanisms exist in North America, too, but they have become formalized in the EU. I would personally estimate that “the Left” in the widest possible sense is the cause of 65% of our current troubles. The “Right,” including its Big Business backers, is responsible for 30% through their support of globalization and mass immigration, and an additional 5% just for general cowardice and uselessness in confronting Leftist aggression.

Neither side of the spectrum views a nation as an organic unit of related people with a shared history, mythology and mentality. Marxists want to get rid of all nation-states, starting with Western ones. Big Business interests see the nation-state as no different from a multinational corporation, a tool for maximizing short-term profits, where one employs people to do a job for a limited period of time, and after that leave them to their own devices. Those Europeans who view their nation as a natural unit of historically and biologically related people are branded “right-wing extremists” by both these groups, who together largely control Western politics. Nobody supports the interests of the white middle class, who are being bled dry financially.

Western oligarchs reacted in the same manner to the democratic rejection of minarets in Switzerland: They immediately, from Washington to London, attacked the Swiss and issued thinly veiled threats, apparently fearful that “dangerous” ideas might spread to their own countries. We often hear talk about “cultural suicide,” but in this case the Swiss people clearly did not want to commit national suicide; the transnational Western Multicultural elite wanted to force them to do so. This Globalist agenda is deliberate and well-organized, not accidental.

Mass immigration is being forced down the throats of Westerners even when they don’t want it. They are victims of an evil policy; perhaps victims who don’t put up enough resistance, but victims nonetheless. Eurabia, the deliberate merger of Europe with the Middle East, is not a “conspiracy theory” but a well-documented fact, despite what the media might tell you. This is being done on such a grand scale that it is difficult for the ordinary person, certainly if he relies only on the heavily censored mainstream media, to fully grasp the magnitude of what’s going on. If he is at the same time culturally broken down and constantly harassed with “anti-racism”, then the average European citizen can to a large extent be neutralized as potential opposition to the oligarchs and their schemes, which was no doubt the intention to begin with.

Byron M. Roth mentions that rising crime has become a serious problem in recent years, very often committed by non-European minorities. He documents a vastly disproportionate representation of Muslims and blacks in Western European prisons. Riots and gang rape by young Muslim men have been and are still being purposefully downplayed by Western authorities and mass media in order to hide the real truth about “cultural diversity.” He also mentions that low IQ correlates very highly with rates of criminality and antisocial behavior, and wonders what consequences the mass importation of low-IQ peoples to the West will have. Is a certain minimum average IQ necessary to develop and maintain a complex society?

The Perils of Diversity again, page 60-61:

“Are the autocratic societies of North Africa the natural byproduct of societies where an insufficient fraction of the population has the intellectual wherewithal to deal with political and economic complexity? If people from North Africa and Southwest Asia replace European people, will European civilization, including its democracy and wealth, be replaced by some new civilization with very different dynamics and values? Will America be the same if it becomes a confederation of different ethnic groups with different values and aptitudes? Given current immigration policies these are the most important questions the Western world must attempt to assess. Such a demographic realignment would be epochal in nature and would have ramifications in every corner of the globe. When coupled with the rise of China and India as world superpowers, it heralds a new chapter in world history that will shape the destiny of mankind for centuries to come. Thoughtful people would not hesitate to consider what these epochal changes portend for their progeny. Neither would they hesitate to openly consider the full consequences of the current immigration policies which, if left on their present course, will prove to be irreversible and quite possibly tragic.”

Roth speculates whether what may emerge from these demographic patterns is that the USA will move in the direction of countries such as Mexico, dysfunctional states with oligarchic politics. A primary thesis of his book is that societies are mainly the product of the genetic nature of the human beings who make them up, not geography as Jared Diamond claims.

Page 468:

“Put another way, a people living in an environment rich in natural resources may not be able to exploit those resources if they lack the human capital to do so. On the other hand, societies with greater human capital can prosper in places with only meager natural resources. An important element of this thesis is the recognition that culture-gene interaction is a two-way street; genes affect cultures, but cultures, in turn, affect genes. It is important, however, to recognize that the effect of genes on culture is likely to operate quite quickly, while the effects of culture on genes require a much longer time to take place. In other words, changes in the demographic makeup of a population will have almost immediate effects, whereas the evolutionary impact of a society on its inhabitants will take centuries, at the least, to take effect… it follows that current immigration patterns are likely to change quite quickly the societies to which immigrants go. It will also change those countries, especially those with small populations, from which immigrants come. The nature of these changes is likely to be wide-ranging and is, without exaggeration, of world-historical significance that will affect future generations for centuries to come.”

Roth talks quite candidly about the significance of IQ. The population of the USA is expected to reach at least 400 million by 2050. By then China’s more homogeneous population may be about 1.4 billion while India’s population is expected to reach 1.6 billion.

The Perils of Diversity, page 473:

“In China, with an average estimated IQ of 105, approximately 37% of population will exceed the IQ threshold of 110, as compared to about 16% of the population in the U. S. Based on the current population estimates, this means that 520 million Chinese will be college-capable compared to 64 million Americans, or a ratio of about 8 to 1. Even if we use Lynn and Vanhanen’s lowest sample IQ from the 10 samples reported for the Chinese, which was an IQ of 102, some 30% of China’s population, or about 420 million people, will exceed the 110 threshold, or about 6.5 times the number of Americans exceeding that threshold. Put another way, China will have more people in this high IQ group, even using the lowest estimate of China’s IQ, than the total projected population of the entire United States. Of course, China may not be able to provide advanced training for those many millions in the next four decades, but they will certainly be able to provide it in ever greater numbers, especially if they make it a high state priority, as appears to be the case.”

The mean IQ of India is much lower than that of China which, coupled with its large Muslim population, means that India probably won’t be able to compete with China in the long run. However, with a projected population of 1600 million people, this would give a total of about 50 million people exceeding the 110 threshold, not much fewer than the number in the USA.

The elites in all Western societies have wholeheartedly adopted an extreme form of Multiculturalism. Page 444:

“It denies historical and scientific evidence that people differ in important biological and cultural ways that makes their assimilation into host countries problematic. It is also extreme in the viciousness with which it attacks those who differ on this issue. These attacks are accompanied by a very generalized and one-sided denigration of Western traditions and Western accomplishments, and claims that a collective guilt should be assumed by all Europeans (whites) for the sins of their forebears. In the United States those sins include the displacement and destruction of the indigenous cultures of the Americas, the evils of American slavery, and its continued discrimination against blacks and other minority groups. In Europe those sins include the excesses of colonialism and, perhaps even more, the acquiescence of Europeans in the Holocaust. In the semireligious formulation of this view, expiation of these sins can only come through an absolute benevolence toward the poor of the world whose suffering is claimed to be the result of the white race and its depredations. In practical terms this can only be accomplished through aid to Third World peoples and generous immigration policies that allow large numbers of people to escape the poverty of the Third World.”

As Roth says on page 445, if current trends continue much longer, the final outcome of these policies is predictable, and “by the end of the 21st century, in virtually all Western societies, white Europeans will find themselves minorities in their ancestral homelands. The motivations that drive these ideas and policies will be examined in the concluding section, but there can be no doubt as to the power of this elite ideology. This multicultural ideology is based on a huge distortion of history and is alien to the vast majority of citizens. It can only be maintained by ignoring the wishes of the majority and by increasingly coercive means to silence dissent. This coercion takes the form of insult and social ostracism in the United States, and in Europe it is supplemented by civil and criminal sanction against dissenters. This distinction may well evaporate if the United States Supreme Court comes to be dominated by people who accept the multicultural doctrine, an outcome that seems likely given the near unanimous liberal ideology of the major law schools and of the profession in general.”

He comments on how the EU suffers from a democratic deficit, since much of EU policy is determined by unelected bodies such as the Council of Ministers or the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, none of which are directly elected by the populace.

If the growing and perfectly legitimate demands for autonomy and the preservation of national cultures among European natives are not met, the alternative will be withdrawal from the EU, presaging the dissolution of the EU itself. One possibility is that Fascist-type movements may come to power, especially in those nations where Muslims make increasing demands for autonomy or indeed supremacy. The result may be the sort of ethnic civil strife that took place in Yugoslavia when the multiethnic society there broke down in the 1990s, only this time across much of the European continent. Why do European political leaders fail to anticipate these potentially catastrophic possibilities and respond by limiting immigration?

The Perils of Diversity, page 494-495:

“One possible explanation for these perverse policies that has been put forward by highly regarded scholars, such as Samuel Huntington, is that the current leadership of the EU is composed of left-wing authoritarians who are enemies of the Western liberal tradition. According to Huntington, ‘Multiculturalism is in its essence anti-European…’ and opposes its civilization. The official repression of dissent and pursuance of unpopular policies by undemocratic means suggests that such ideologues wish to turn the EU into a centrally controlled empire similar to the Soviet Union. If that is the case, then their current policies make a good deal of sense, in that they flood the continent with people who have lived under autocratic regimes and never lived in democratic republics. Such people may well be willing to tolerate repressive regimes provided they can maintain a moderate standard of living and their own traditional religious practices. As Huntington points out, imperial regimes often promote ethnic conflict among their minority citizens to strengthen the power of the central authority, with the not unrealistic claim that a powerful central authority is essential to maintain civil order.”

If this trend continues, much of Europe could be “transformed into an authoritarian and illiberal multiethnic empire, undemocratic, economically crippled and culturally retrograde.”

The Flemish journalist Paul Belien in 2006 interviewed the Russian-born intellectual Vladimir Bukovksy for the online magazine The Brussels Journal. Belien is also the author of A Throne in Brussels, in which he argues that the artificial state called Belgium has served as an inspiration for the EU itself. Bukovksy, a former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, the Communist dictatorship that enslaved half of Europe before it imploded. In a speech he called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed before it develops into a totalitarian state. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent twelve years in Soviet jails and labor camps.

The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new people and a new man. The same is true of the EU. Bukovksy states that “those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes.” When such artificial entities invariably collapse under the weight of their flawed, Utopian ideas, suppressed feelings of national identity may come bouncing back with a vengeance. “You can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.”

In the EU, the European Parliament reminds Bukovksy of the Supreme Soviet, the largely powerless “parliament” which functioned as a rubber stamp for the Politburo. He thinks it looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, the European Commission looks like the Politburo, the unaccountable and unelected government that held the real power in the Soviet Union. In the EU the Commission — which, despite its boring and bureaucratic-sounding name, is an immensely powerful entity and the de facto government for half a billion people — is also unaccountable to anyone. EU corruption, in the same manner as its Soviet counterpart, flows from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

Bukovksy warns that “There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.”

I could add here that as bad as the Communist countries were — and to get a glimpse of how bad it was there one can read The Gulag Archipelago by the Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn from the 1960s — they didn’t normally promote mass immigration of culturally alien peoples such as Africans or Muslims to their countries. The concept of championing non-European mass immigration as a matter of ideological principle first became official state policy in the USA in 1965, before the same thing happened in Western Europe. Many Multicultural ideas of “whiteness studies” or “white privilege,” where people of European origins are indoctrinated to hate themselves, or busing of non-whites to white schools, were initially developed in North America and then exported from there to Europe and Australia.

The phrase “Political Correctness” first came into use under Communism and meant simply that all ideas must conform to and support the agenda of the Communist movement. History and philosophy were the first to be forced into line, but as is clear from the career of the biologist Trofim Lysenko, science was also made to conform. Those who dissented from the ideas of the Communist doctrine were judged to be psychologically imbalanced and confined to mental institutions. Today the ruling ideology of the intellectuals is an absolute egalitarianism which recognizes no idea, art or historical analysis as better than any other.

Roth again, page 507:

“It argues that all histories are narratives fabricated for some class or race advantage. Many argue that even science is corrupted by its patriarchal and European roots and serves to justify the subjugation of one group by another. This all-encompassing egalitarianism gives rise to a nihilistic relativism in which no cultural value or practice is better or worse than any other, and to suggest otherwise is to be intolerant of human difference and demonstrate an unwillingness to show due respect to the other, to illegitimately privilege certain groups, ideas, and artistic works above others… The greatest sin in this prevailing orthodoxy is to question the absolute equality of all humans and human groups. From the noble idea that all men are equal in the eyes of God and should therefore be treated as equals under the laws of man, the modern multiculturalist insists that all men are, in fact, equal in all ways, and all cultures equally worthy in all respects. This, of course, was the fatal error that Aristotle saw would undermine democracy, namely: that since men are equal in some regard, they are therefore equal in all regards.”

This prevailing extreme egalitarianism also induces a profound nihilism; if all things are equal then no value, moral code or standard of behavior is better than any other. Page 508:

“This is, of course, the foundation upon which the cult of multiculturalism is based. It explains the paralyzing ambivalence of Western societies about immigrant assimilation and tolerance of the maintenance of alien traditions. A specific problem for Europe is that it welcomes Muslim immigrants, and Muslims categorically reject this view, correctly recognizing its nihilism, and see it as far inferior to their own faith and the way of life it prescribes. Whether Western elites really believe these things is less important than the benefit they gain from its promulgation. The primary benefit is that it paralyses the popular preferences for national preservation by characterizing opposition to elite doctrines as immoral, indecent, and inhumane. It allows unelected elites to aggrandize their own power by obliterating national sovereignty and nullifying democratic accountability. Many are, without exaggeration, true totalitarians that have no regard for the well-being of those they control, since the only way they can consolidate their dystopian plans is through brute state power. While there is no doubt that many well-meaning individuals join their efforts, they are the sort of ‘useful idiots’ who excused and covered up Communist atrocities during most of the 20th century.”

In the author’s view, the only possible way to avoid the extremely negative outcomes outlined above is an immediate and complete moratorium on any further mass immigration to the West, yet he thinks that this currently constitutes a remote possibility. It would not be remote if modern democracies truly reflected the wishes of their citizens regarding immigration, since such a change of policy would be supported by overwhelming majorities in Western nations. It would also be extremely beneficial in both economic and cultural terms. Roth, page 509:

“However, a major limitation of immigration is a remote possibility because the elites and the special interests that control all the major institutions in Western societies would strongly resist any such change. The history of the past three decades makes it clear that they will not be moved by popular sentiment unless faced by a very unlikely set of circumstances which threaten their own positions of power. It would require a popular revolt of enormous proportions against the existing order. Under present circumstances the problems outlined above are unlikely to create such a revolt, for the simple reason that the population is intentionally denied, by the government and all the major media, the knowledge and information that would enable them to fully comprehend the inevitable long-term consequence of current policies. This ignorance is reinforced by the legal and social repression of any individual willing to voice opposition to those policies. The only way the public could be moved to a major reaction against current policies would be events of such a catastrophic nature that they would force an increase in the saliency of the costs of current policies to almost everyone and demonstrate the need for immediate action.”

Perhaps the most likely threat to the elites’ grip on power would be a serious financial meltdown causing a severe economic depression throughout the Western world. The near-panicked response between 2008 and 2010 of most governments in the West to the financial crisis indicates to Byron M. Roth that many of them recognize the dangers they face if this situation should grow much worse than it is today. “The massive spending and government intervention in response to the 2008 downturn is unprecedented and suggests that the characterization of governmental responses as panicked is not unreasonable.” Page 512:

“That such a nightmare might be necessary to reverse Western immigration policies that, in the long run, promise the demise of Western civilization, is a great tragedy. All of which would be unnecessary if elites adopted more sensible approaches to immigration and more prudent fiscal policies. It is difficult to decide, on reflection, whether the enormous human pain of such a depression would be worth the advantage of a reversal of current policies. The dilemma is moot, since such a nightmare scenario seems very unlikely, and the current downturn will probably be turned around without major unrest. In that case, things will continue on their current course with all the negative consequences outlined above. Sometime during the last half of the 21st century the world will be very different from it is today. China will undoubtedly be the world’s dominant power and will likely bring all of Asia into its orbit. Islam will become the most common religion in the world with considerably more adherents than Christianity or any other religion. Relations between Europe and the Muslim Middle East may be one of fairly constant low-level conflict, especially, as is likely, if Muslim countries develop nuclear arms and mass immigration to Europe continues.”

This is one of the few instances where I seriously disagree with Mr. Roth. The French writer Guillaume Faye predicts a real collapse at some point between 2010 and 2020. I am tempted to agree with him. I don’t think the current political and economic order in the Western world is stable at all. On the contrary, I suspect we are fast approaching a serious historical discontinuity that will sweep aside today’s suicidal liberalism. It’s a house of cards that will collapse as soon as the geopolitical tectonic plates make a sudden shift, which they will.

My personal opinion is that the euro as a currency probably won’t exist a few years from now, and may well take the European Union down with it. I view this as a desirable outcome since the EU constitutes a primary engine behind the ongoing destruction of European civilization and the peoples who created it. I also cannot see how the escalating debt crisis in the USA can be resolved without social unrest of some kind. Frankly, I will not be surprised at all if the rising tensions we are witnessing, and episodes such as the Muhammad cartoon Jihad in 2006, will by future historians be viewed as early skirmishes in an impending world war, triggered by the implosion of the Western world order. If we are lucky, out of the ashes will emerge a new generation of European civilization, with a different mythology and concept of morality.

After three years of recession - it's safe to call it a Depression now, don't you think? - forecasters are beginning to project a slow recovery in 2011:

The state is still stuck with a stubbornly high unemployment rate and few job openings, but things may be looking up for California in the year ahead.

That's the conclusion of two forecasts released this week by UCLA and Chapman University in Orange. Both predict that California's economy will expand at a faster pace than the nation's, thanks in part to improvement in global trade and the technology sector.

"The growth sectors in manufacturing are computers and electronics, medical devices and aerospace components," said Jerry Nickelsburg, senior economist of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. "Those are proportionally California export items."

In other words, these forecasters expect California's recovery to be driven by exports. By making things people want to buy, we can recreate jobs and prosperity. Shocking, I know! It's what progressives have been saying for years now, that a financialized economy based on people extracting wealth instead of creating value is no way to produce prosperity.

However, there's still a very long way to go. California needs a recovery built on broadly-shared prosperity, not on a few high-end jobs. The UCLA Anderson forecast cited in the LA Times article above doesn't project unemployment in CA to fall below 10% until mid-2012 at best.

While we might see some export-led job growth, there remain very serious threats to our overall prosperity. Three years of austerity have made California's crisis worse, increasing unemployment, taking more money out of the pockets of families, and reducing the services that people need to use as a basis for recovery.

2011 may see this get worse, not better. Democrats can now pass a budget on their own and get a Democratic governor to sign it. But a 2/3rds vote is still required to raise taxes or fees, and with the expiration next year of the temporary 2009 taxes, the already-large budget deficit facing Sacramento will simply grow worse, creating more pressure for greater austerity that would further weaken the state's economy.

Those three years of austerity, coming on top of 30 years of increasing inequality, have produced soaring poverty in California:

n September the state of California hit a new high in food stamp benefits, crossing the 6 billion dollar mark on an annualized basis. Over the past year in California alone the total number recipients of the federal SNAP program (supplemental nutritional assistance program) rose by 16.3%. In many of the big counties of California however, food stamp usage rose even faster.

That analysis comes from Gregor Macdonald, whose focus is on the economic dislocations caused by dependence on a peaking oil supply. It's a view I've often articulated here, and his assessment of what oil-fueled inflation means for the most car-dependent areas of the state, such as the Inland Empire, is dire:

Also, while US exports are recovering very strongly and California is a powerful exporter, this will not be enough to rescue California's economy which is still largely pegged to previous credit-bubble price levels. High priced homes, vast automobile and highway architecture, sunk-cost decision making in government and services-all these artifacts of the excess capital economy are now burdens in the shrinking economy....

At best, unfolding now in the US economy is a recovery largely tied to exports that's creating some moderate new job growth, but at much lower wage levels. The United States, like the rest of the OECD, is now succumbing to the global wage deflation that was masked by last decade's credit bubble. As a result, and on many measures, poverty is soaring in America and in California especially as increased food and energy costs collide with new, lower payscales. Worst of all however is that the meager public assistance that millions of Americans now collect-the billions in food stamps and unemployment checks-are no match for rising prices of gasoline, bread, milk, coffee, sugar, and meat.

These underlying problems facing the state of California are extremely serious, and so far no real proposals have been offered by our once and future governor to solve them. Jerry Brown does understand the need for green jobs and a more sustainable energy system, but California requires something much greater.

What we need is a comprehensive system to provide new public benefits to California's workers, to help them innovate our way out of the 20th century sprawl and oil-dependent trap. This ranges from single-payer health care, freeing small businesses and entrepreneurs from ever having to worry about paying for health care again, to an California version of the German mittelstand, particularly the Gr?ndungszuschuss, a fund that helps unemployed people start new businesses.

There's a lot more to it than just that, but the core point is that California has a long way to go in rebuilding our economy along sustainable, democratic lines so that we can have broadly shared 21st century prosperity. That needs to be the top priority of California progressives.

Howard Flight who helped to raise millions for Tories, suggested welfare changes would encourage poor to have more children

David Cameron was under pressure tonight to evict a new Tory peer from the party after he suggested that welfare changes would encourage "breeding" among the less well-off.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats denounced the "shameful" remarks by Howard Flight, who was rewarded with a peerage by the prime minister last week after helping to raise millions for the Conservative party in the runup to the election.

Downing Street was forced to distance itself from a second Tory peer in a week after Flight warned that plans to remove child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers would deter the middle classes from having children.

His remarks followed the claim last week by a former Thatcherite cabinet minister that most people were better off in the recession. Lord Young of Graffham was forced to resign as Cameron's enterprise adviser after suggesting that most voters had never had it so good as during the "so-called recession".

Flight told today's London Evening Standard: "We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive … But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that's not very sensible."

This is the second time Flight, a former Tory deputy chairman, has fallen foul of the party leadership. He was barred from standing as a parliamentary candidate by Michael Howard in 2005 after suggesting that Tory spending cuts did not go far enough.

Douglas Alexander, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said of Flight's interview: "These shameful but revealing comments cast serious doubt over David Cameron's judgment in personally appointing Howard Flight to the House of Lords only a few days ago. Last week one of the prime minister's senior advisers told us we'd never had it so good, and now his latest hand-picked peer comes out with these comments. Instead of dithering for hours, as he did with Lord Young, David Cameron should take swift action."

Flight initially claimed that his remarks had been taken out of context. But he later issued an unreserved apology and withdrew them after Downing Street warned him that they were totally unacceptable. "I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused and would like to withdraw the remarks," Flight said in a statement issued by the Conservative party.

Cameron refused to remove Flight from the House of Lords, though some Tories said that would be possible because he has yet to take his seat. "I don't agree with what he said and I am sure that he will want to apologise for what he has said, and I think we can probably leave it at that," the prime minister said at a Downing Street press conference with his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The remarks by Flight, an outspoken figure popular in Tory circles, echo an infamous warning 36 years ago by the late Sir Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher's intellectual guru. Joseph said in 1974: "The balance of our population, our human stock, is threatened." A recent study, Joseph added, had shown "a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up".

Flight was appointed to the Lords as a reward for his role as president and founder of the Conservative City Circle, which he set up to improve links with the City and to encourage donations to the party. Cameron also thought that Flight was treated unfairly by Michael Howard, who removed the Tory whip from him in the runup to the 2005 general election. This meant that Flight was disqualified from defending his Arundel and South Downs seat as the Tory candidate.

The former shadow Treasury minister was also critical in his Evening Standard interview of the government's plans to raise university tuition fees. The millionaire financier said: "Two of my nieces and nephews, both of them very bright, gave up university halfway through because they didn't want the financial burden."

Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, said: "Howard Flight has shown himself to be an insensitive throwback to the worst of 1980s politics within days of being made a peer by the prime minister."

Bob Russell, the Lib Dem MP, said: "His comments are offensive and unacceptable. They are not appropriate for the 21st century, especially when the gap between rich and poor is growing and when the poorest still have lower life expectancies."

2:00 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Hello, folks, how are you?  (Applause.) Good to see you all.  Good to be back in an automobile plant, making things.  (Applause.)  Hey, thank you all very much.  We’re delighted to be here and I expect as delighted as you are to be able to be here.  (Laughter.) 

     Look, when the President and I got elected we knew we had a heavy load to carry.  The country was in some real tough shape.  And we stepped up, and with the help of some of -- all the congressmen, the senators here, we passed the Recovery Act just after taking office, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

And we had three clear goals, led by the President.  One is help communities and people who were hit the hardest, hit the hardest by this awful recession.  Save and create jobs today, but also lay a foundation for long-term prosperity in the future.  Because more than -- a year after implementing this act, I can say proudly that not only have we helped millions of people, but -- not only have we created millions of jobs, not only have we spurred growth in new industries, but we have completely transformed, with the great leadership of the local and state leadership here, communities like this one here in Kokomo.  (Applause.)

Look, I’m the son of an automobile man, and I want to tell you he managed automobile facilities for my entire life.  And Kokomo, anybody in the automobile business has already known, was one of the great auto towns in America -- not only making Chrysler automobiles but Delphi, supplying parts and so many other suppliers, and all the related jobs that go with that. 

To bring Kokomo back, to bring the automobile industry back, we knew we had to change things.  We couldn’t just keep doing the things the way we did.  We knew the auto industry had to get leaner, had to get tougher, had to be more competitive.  And we insisted that they did.  And now you see the result -- an old industry adapting to a whole new era, competing again, leading again, and most importantly, hiring again.  Hiring again.  (Applause.)
 
Mr. President, I know you know this, but the last year of the last outfit we succeeded, they lost 461,000 automobile-related jobs.  And so far we’ve created almost 75,000 new jobs, and a lot more to come.

And, folks, look, the government didn’t do this.  The government didn’t do this alone.  The government did was it was supposed to do.  With the leadership of a President and leadership from the President, we had investment from the private sector brought onboard because the government was able to get back in the game and said we’re part of it.  The auto industry has roared back in America.   

Now, I was telling the boss over here that the thing I like most about everything -- again, being the son of an automobile man -- is that my dad would be happy.  For the first time in 24 years -- Americans like your product better than they like foreign products that are made here.  (Applause.)  That's a big deal.  That's a big deal.  (Applause.)

Look around here.  Look around here.  For every one guy working here in the assembly line, there’s five more doing exactly what you’re doing.  Everybody thinks it’s only the assembly plants.  Well, there's five people working at plants like this for every single job in the automobile assembly line.  It’s a big, big process.  People working in places like here and Delphi Suppliers, making parts was a major part of this recovery.

     And then when you guys have jobs, guess what happens.  The coffee shop stays open.  The barbershop stays open.  The restaurant stays open.  People open new businesses downtown.  People sell jackets and shoes and hats.  People, in fact, have jobs.  This has an effect all the way through the economy.

     And that's what’s happening here in Kokomo, as your mayor can tell you.  The lunch counter needs a few more waitresses and servers to feed them.  The remodeled plant can reinvigorate an entire community and give people who don't work here hope.  The people who don't work here.  We were just in town.  People were saying, thank you.  They don't work here.  They're saying thank you for this facility. 

But we can’t just build a new economy by revitalizing and modernizing an old industry.  We can’t stop at creating new jobs in old industries.  We need to create whole new industries, as well.  And that's what the President did.  A great example is over in Tipton, AboundSolar -- whole new industry.  There’s no reason why you can’t build the best automobiles in the world and also be a leader in what the new industries -- the new green industries in the world are going to be.

     The President did what every great President has done in the past.  He’s looked to the future.  We used the Recovery Act to provide seed money that sparked private investment -- private investment in new industries like solar and wind, advanced batteries, high-efficiency lighting, high-speed rail.

     Folks, some of our friends forget, that's what all great Presidents did.  Lincoln did it when he built the Transcontinental Railroad by putting down seed money to the railroads to go build it.  That's -- we’re doing the same thing here again. 

     Every great President has a vision.  And now we’re doing it here.  We’re doing it here with the renewable energy investments that are being made outside the city, with the new industries of the future.  And in a sense, there’s a whole new automobile industry building a different kind of automobile.

     Mr. President, my dad used to have a saying when he was -- ran automobile dealerships of almost four decades.  He said, Joey, all they got to do is give me product.  Give me product.  Give me product, I can sell it.  I can -- you’re giving them the best product in the world again.

     We also believe we can’t have a strong economy without strong communities.  And that's why the President in the Recovery Act made sure we helped hard-hit towns like Kokomo.  We now -- we were just at the fire station.  There’s 13 firefighters still on the job because of the Recovery Act and because of the SAFER Act. Teachers, law enforcement officers on the job.

     When I tell you an international recession hits and a worldwide recession, guess what.  A town like Kokomo and other towns of 50,000 all across America, they can't do it on their own.  You got to help them stand up a little bit.  And that's why we helped with infrastructure and roads, to bring improvements, to bring back Main Street, to bring it back to life.

     Kokomo is in the forefront of it all.  And nowhere is it written that Kokomo can't be the hub of innovation in emerging industries of the 21st century -- like it was in the 20th century.  (Applause.)  Nowhere is that written.

     Look, nobody knows better than this man that our work certainly isn’t done yet.  We're just starting.  But it’s important we recognize success stories like Kokomo as signs that we are definitely moving in the right direction.  This town and its people are a model for others looking to do the same thing over and over again in this country.  You guys here have been the embodiment of the limitless potential when we put government and the private sector and the community all together, working toward the same end -- a community built -- this community -- this community is built on grit and determination, a willingness for you all to fight hard, to pick yourself back up off the mat and to march toward what you all believe now -- I believe, I hope you do -- is a better day, a brighter future, a new start.

     We know it’s a long road back.  But we know we're on the road.  And the one most important thing we've got to communicate to the nation and to everyone listening is we can't stop now.  We can't turn around.  We're heading in the right direction. 

Kokomo is coming back.  America is coming back.  And it couldn't have happened without the vision of the man sitting behind me. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  (Applause.) 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Everybody have a seat.  Thank you so much.  Thank you, Joe.  Thank you, Kokomo.  I have to just say, by the way, Joe is not only one of the best Vice Presidents in history. He’s also one of the best introducers in history.  (Laughter.)  I try to take him wherever I can. 

I want to thank your plant manager, Jeremy Keating, for the great tour and the great work that he’s doing here.  (Applause.) He is proud of the work that's being done at this plant.  I want to thank your local UAW president, Richie Boruff, who’s here --  (applause) -- thank them for showing me around. 

A couple other hotshots -- U.S. Senator Evan Bayh is here.  (Applause.)  Congressman Joe Donnelly is in the house.  (Applause.)  Congressman Andre Carson is here.  (Applause.)  Congressman Baron Hill is here.  (Applause.)  By the way, Congressman Baron Hill is in the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame. Now, that's pretty cool.  Being a congressman is cool; being in the Basketball Hall of Fame in Indiana -- that's something.

Mayor of Kokomo, Greg Goodnight, is here, doing outstanding work.  (Applause.)  The CEO of Chrysler Group, Sergio Marchionne, is here.  (Applause.)  President of UAW, Bob King, is in the house.  (Applause.) 

We've got some of the best workers in the United States of America right here at this plant.  (Applause.)  And I had a chance to meet some of you as we were going around seeing these amazing transmissions that you’re building.  And I was very happy to hear that after a couple of tough years, this plant is now running at full capacity.  And that’s why I’m here today.  (Applause.)  That's why I'm here today. 

Now, we all know that one plant by itself doesn’t mean that there aren't people in Kokomo who are still hurting.  I had lunch with the mayor and some firefighters, and there's still a long way to go.  The mayor has got all kinds of great plans, and there are businesses that are looking to start expanding.  But the fact is there are millions of people around the country who are still looking for work in the wake of the worst recession in our lifetimes.  I don’t have to tell you that.  Many of you still have friends or neighbors, a husband or a wife who is still struggling.

     And I know that before this plant started rehiring, a lot of you were in the same position, so you remember that it is a tough, tough thing when you’re out of work, especially when you’ve taken a lifetime of pride in working and supporting a family and making great products.

But even as we continue to face serious challenges, what’s happening here at this plant -– the changes we’re seeing throughout Kokomo -– are signs of hope and confidence in the future -- in our future, together.  You’re showing us the way forward.  You’re living up to that spirit of optimism and determination -– that grit –- that’s always been at the heart of who we are as a people, at the heart of America.

I remember coming to Kokomo a little over two years ago.  Joe will remember this.  Some of you might have been here.  What was happening here reflected what was happening all over the country, all over this region.  For a decade or more, families had felt a growing sense of economic insecurity.  A lot of manufacturing had left the area.  And then a recession started taking hold, and folks were seeing job losses and facing new hardships. 

That was before anybody knew how devastating the recession was going to be.  So by the time I took office, just a few months later, the financial crisis had hit, the auto industry teetered on the brink, and we were losing millions of jobs.

And that left Joe and I with some tough choices.  One was to help the auto industry restructure.  And that wasn’t an easy call.  I understood that there were some reservations of those who said that the industry should pay a price for some poor decisions by the part of management.  But we also knew that millions of jobs hung in the balance.  We also knew that the very survival of places like Kokomo were on the line.  And we knew that the collapse of the American auto industry would lead to an even deeper disaster for our economy.

And you know what, we also believed that America, which popularized the automobile, whose middle class was made on the basis of manufacturing -- that we couldn’t just give up.  We couldn’t throw in the towel.  That was not an option.

     There were those who were prepared to give up on Kokomo and our auto industry.  There were those who said it was going to be too difficult, or that it was bad politics, or it was throwing good money after bad.  You remember the voices arguing for us to do nothing.  They were pretty loud, suggesting we should just step back and watch an entire sector of our economy fall apart. 

     But we knew that the auto industry was not built, and this country was not built, by doing the easy thing.  It wasn’t built by doing nothing.  It was built by doing what was necessary even when it’s difficult.  So we made the decision to stand behind the auto industry -- if automakers, if CEOs like Sergio were willing to do what was necessary to make themselves competitive in the 21st century, and if they have the cooperation of workers who were taking pride in the products that they made.

     We made the decision to stand with you because we had confidence in the American worker, more than anything.  And today we know that was the right decision.  (Applause.)  We know that was the right decision.

     Today each of the Big Three automakers has increased their market share -- each of them.  For the first time in over a decade, Americans are buying a larger share of Chryslers, Fords and G.M. cars, and a smaller share of their foreign counterparts -- for the first time in decades.  (Applause.)

     We’re coming back.  We’re on the move.  All three American companies are profitable, and they are growing.  Some of you read last week, G.M.’s stock offering exceeded expectations as investors expressed their confidence in a future that seemed so dim just 18 months ago.  And as a result, the Treasury was able to sell half of its G.M. stock.

     So here’s the lesson:  Don't bet against America.  (Applause.)  Don't bet against the American auto industry.  Don't bet against American ingenuity.  Don't bet against the American worker.  Don't bet against us.  (Applause.)  Don't bet against us.  (Applause.) 

Don't bet against us.  This plant is a shining example of why you shouldn’t.  Two years ago, production here was plummeting.  A lot of folks had lost their jobs.   Today, this plant is coming back.  The company has invested more than $300 million in this factory to retool.  (Applause.) 

But it gets better.  Sergio just told me today Chrysler is announcing an additional investment of more than $800 million in its Kokomo facilities -- $800 million.  (Applause.)   That's good.  That's good news.  (Applause.)  That's real money, $800 million.  (Laughter.)  See, the mayor has got a big grin on his face.  (Laughter.)  You're pretty happy about that.  (Laughter.)  
Over the next few years, folks here expect to manufacture more transmissions than ever before.  And as a result, hundreds of workers are back on the job.  Jeremy said we’re going to be hiring more.  (Applause.) 

This includes -- I’m going to name a couple of people just to embarrass them a little bit.  Where is Sharon Ybarra?  Is Sharon here?  Right here.  (Applause.)  Sharon lost her job of 20 years at a paper mill.  She was only able to find work that paid her far less than her old job -– until she was hired by Chrysler. And now she is doing a great job right here at Chrysler.  We’re proud of you.  (Applause.)

Jim Faurote is here.  Where’s Jim?  Jim’s right next to her. (Applause.)  Jim worked for Chrysler for a decade -- right?  Then he lost his job when the plant he worked at in New Castle shut down.  Over the next few years, he could only find intermittent work on and off.  It wasn’t until after the restructuring that he was able to have a job he could count on.  He’s been back at work now for more than a year doing an outstanding job, making great products here at Chrysler.  (Applause.)

At a plant down the road, workers are manufacturing parts for hybrid vehicles.  That’s already led to dozens of jobs, and will lead to nearly 200 jobs over the next few years.  A few miles outside of Kokomo, in Tipton, a clean energy company called Abound is going to be able to hire 900 workers -– taking over a plant that had to shut down a few years ago.

So a factory that was empty and dark will come back to life. And when people have a paycheck, as Joe said, they can go to the store, they’re able to spend.  That helps the economy grow.  And so on Main Street in Kokomo we’re seeing a revival, with new businesses opening downtown.

So, for anybody who says our country’s best days are behind us, anybody who would doubt our prospects for the future, anybody who doesn’t believe in the Midwest, anybody who doesn’t believe in manufacturing -- have them come to Kokomo.  Have them come to Kokomo.  (Applause.)  Come here.  Meet these workers.  Visit these plants.  Come back to this city that's fighting block by block, business by business, job by job.  (Applause.)

This is a reminder of what we do as Americans.  What we can do as Americans when we come together, when we’re not divided; we’re not spending all our time bickering, but instead focusing on getting the job done.  We don’t give up.  We don’t turn back. We fight for our future.

No, we’re not out of the woods yet.  It took a lot of years to get us into this mess.  It will take longer than anybody would like to get us out.  But I want everybody to be absolutely clear, we are moving in the right direction.  (Applause.)  We learned that the economy -- we learned today that the economy is growing at a faster pace than we previously thought.  That's welcome news.  But we’re going to keep on making it grow faster.  We’re going to keep on creating more jobs.  We need to do everything we can to make that happen. 

That’s why in the coming days it is so important, the coming months it’s so important, that Democrats and Republicans work together to speed up our recovery.  We’ve got to put aside our differences.  The election is over.  We’ve got to find places where we can agree.  We’ve got to remember the most important contest we face, it’s not between Democrats and Republicans.  It’s between America and our economic competitors.  Other nations are already making investments -- (applause) -- other nations are making investments in education, energy and infrastructure, technology, because they know that’s how they’re going to be able to attract the new jobs of the future.  And throughout our history, Democrats and Republicans have agreed on making these investments. 

If we don’t want to cede our economic leadership to nations like China, we’ve got to do the same today.  We’ve got to make sure our workers have the skills and the training to compete with any workers in the world.  We should give our businesses more incentive to invest in research and innovation that leads to new jobs and new products and new industries like the ones we’re seeing here in Kokomo.  We should make it easier, not harder, for middle-class families to get ahead. 

I'll give you an example -- on taxes.  Next year, taxes are set to go up for middle-class families unless Congress acts.  If we don’t act by the end of the year, a typical middle-class family will wake up on January 1st to a tax increase of $3,000 per year.
 
So, in the next few weeks, I’m asking Congress to take up this issue.  The last thing we can afford to do right now is raise taxes on middle-class families.  (Applause.)  If we allow these taxes to go up, the result would be that a lot of people most likely would spend less, and that means that the economy would grow less.  So we ought to resolve this issue in the next couple of weeks so you’ve got the assurance that your taxes won’t go up when that clock strikes midnight.

Now, this is actually an area where Democrats and Republicans agree.  The only place where we disagree is whether we can afford to also borrow $700 billion to pay for an extra tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, for millionaires and billionaires.  I don’t think we can afford it right now –- not when we are going to have to make some tough decisions to rein in our deficits.  That's going to require sacrifice from all Americans, including those who can most afford it. 

So I’m eager to sit down with leaders from both parties next week and to hammer this out.  But we need to hammer it out.

You know, long before transmissions were coming off the line at this plant -– and by the way, you look at these transmissions today and somebody 20 years ago or 10 years ago might not recognize them -- they’re amazing.  Before Henry Ford built the Model T or Walter Chrysler took up the reins at a start-up called Buick, a man by the name of Elwood Haynes decided to do a little experiment right in Kokomo.  (Applause.) 

He set up a one-horsepower boat engine on his kitchen; he bolted it to the ground.  His idea was that he might be able to rig the motor to a carriage.  So he starts it up -- and the engine worked great.  In fact, it worked so well that it came loose from the bolts and destroyed the kitchen floor.  And after a brief and what I imagine was a difficult conversation with his wife -- (laughter) -- Elwood decided to continue his tests in his machine shop.  And he toiled for months.  But when he was finished, he had completed one of the earliest working automobiles ever built in America.  And he named it the Pioneer.

So Kokomo has a storied place in our history.  This is a city where people came to invent things and to build things, to make things here in America; to work hard in the hopes of producing something of value and something that people could be proud of. 

That’s the legacy of all of you.  You are all heirs to that tradition right here at this plant.  That’s the legacy that has made this country the envy of the world.  (Applause.)  And I am absolutely convinced this legacy is one you will continue to uphold for years and decades to come. 

Congratulations, Chrysler.  Congratulations, Kokomo.  Proud of you.  (Applause.)

END
2:27 P.M. EST

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama called ratifying New START this year “fundamental” to America’s national security.  Failure to ratify the treaty this year not only would mean losing our nuclear inspectors in Russia, but also it would undermine the international coalition pressuring Iran, put to risk the transit routes used to equip our troops in Afghanistan, and undo decades of American leadership and bipartisanship on nuclear security.  After six months, 18 hearings, and nearly one thousand questions answered and with the support of several Republicans including Colin Powell, George Schultz, Jim Baker, and Henry Kissinger, it is time for the Senate to act.

A fact sheet documenting widespread, bipartisan support for New START is attached.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 20, 2010

Today, I’d like to speak with you about an issue that is fundamental to America’s national security: the need for the Senate to approve the New START Treaty this year.

This Treaty is rooted in a practice that dates back to Ronald Reagan. The idea is simple – as the two nations with over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia have a responsibility to work together to reduce our arsenals. And to ensure that our national security is protected, the United States has an interest in tracking Russia’s nuclear arsenal through a verification effort that puts U.S. inspectors on the ground. As President Reagan said when he signed a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union in 1987, “Trust, but verify.”

That is precisely what the New START Treaty does. After nearly a full year of negotiations, we completed an agreement earlier this year that cuts by a third the number of long-range nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that the United States and Russia can deploy, while ensuring that America retains a strong nuclear deterrent, and can put inspectors back on the ground in Russia.

The Treaty also helped us reset our relations with Russia, which led to concrete benefits. For instance, Russia has been indispensable to our efforts to enforce strong sanctions on Iran, to secure loose nuclear material from terrorists, and to equip our troops in Afghanistan.

All of this will be put to risk if the Senate does not pass the New START Treaty.

Without ratification this year, the United States will have no inspectors on the ground, and no ability to verify Russian nuclear activities. So those who would block this treaty are breaking President Reagan’s rule – they want to trust, but not verify.

Without ratification, we put at risk the coalition that we have built to put pressure on Iran, and the transit route through Russia that we use to equip our troops in Afghanistan. And without ratification, we risk undoing decades of American leadership on nuclear security, and decades of bipartisanship on this issue. Our security and our position in the world are at stake.

Indeed, since the Reagan years, every President has pursued a negotiated, verified, arms reduction treaty. And every time that these treaties have been reviewed by the Senate, they have passed with over 85 votes. Bipartisan support for New START could not be stronger. It has been endorsed by Republicans from the Reagan Administration and both Bush Administrations – including Colin Powell, George Shultz, Jim Baker, and Henry Kissinger. And it was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a strong bipartisan vote of 14-4.

Over the last several months, several questions have been asked about New START, and we have answered every single one. Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense – it will not. Some, including Senator Jon Kyl, have asked that we modernize our nuclear infrastructure for the 21st century – we are doing so, and plan to invest at least $85 billion in that effort over the next ten years – a significant increase from the Bush Administration.

Finally, some make no argument against the Treaty – they just ask for more time. But remember this: it has already been 11 months since we’ve had inspectors in Russia, and every day that goes by without ratification is a day that we lose confidence in our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons. If the Senate doesn’t act this year – after six months, 18 hearings, and nearly a thousand questions answered – it would have to start over from scratch in January.

The choice is clear: a failure to ratify New START would be a dangerous gamble with America’s national security, setting back our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons, as well as our leadership in the world. That is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do.

There is enough gridlock, enough bickering. If there is one issue that should unite us – as Republicans and Democrats – it should be our national security.

Some things are bigger than politics. As Republican Dick Lugar said the other day, “Every Senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty.”

Senator Lugar is right. And if the Senate passes this treaty, it will not be an achievement for Democrats or Republicans – it will be a win for America.

Thanks.