...and in other news, the sky is blue. Read the original here.
GAO: $1.4 billion in stimulus credits went to tax cheats
Stimulus cash bought homes
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tax cheats were given $1.4 billion in government-backed mortgage loans under President Obama’s economic stimulus, and the government doled out at least an additional $27 million in tax credits to delinquents who took the first-time-homebuyer tax break, according to a government audit released Tuesday.
Under government rules, delinquent taxpayers are supposed to be ineligible for the mortgage insurance program unless they have reached a repayment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service. But theFederal Housing Administration didn’t have the right controls to weed out bad applications, said the Government Accountability Office, Congress‘ chief investigative arm.
That meant FHA insured $1.4 billion in mortgages for 6,327 borrowers who collectively owed $77.6 million in unpaid taxes, or an average of more than $12,000 each.
The auditors said that as a category, the tax cheats had foreclosure rates up to three times as high as other borrowers, which meant the delinquent taxpayers exposed the government to even greater risks.
“In the name of ‘stimulus,’ the federal government gave mortgage insurance to thousands of people we knew were tax cheats and had a bad track record paying their debts,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, who joined a bipartisan group of other lawmakers to request the investigation. “The federal government needlessly put taxpayers on the line to help tax cheats buy homes. Congress needs to ensure that tax cheats are no longer allowed to take advantage of FHA programs.”
In addition to the mortgages, the auditors found that more than half of the tax-delinquent borrowers claimed the first-time-homebuyers’ credit, worth up to $8,000.
GAO said there is no prohibition against someone claiming the credit, even though they still have unpaid tax bills. The credit is refundable, meaning taxpayers can get a check back from the government if the benefit exceeds their liability. IRS rules generally call for the agency to subtract any unpaid taxes from the refund, but in three of the nine cases that GAO analyzed in depth, it said the taxpayers had declared bankruptcy, meaning the IRS was prevented from docking the refunds.
The report was the GAO’s second study looking at tax cheats and the stimulus.
In the first report, GAO said thousands of contracts and grants were paid out under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to those with unpaid tax bills.
Mr. Obama pushed the $831 billion economic stimulus in early 2009 as a means of bolstering the faltering economy, and promised to use strict controls to cut fraud and abuse. At its peak in mid-2010, it was responsible for as many as 3.6 million jobs, but could have funded as few as 700,000, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Part of the Recovery Act was aimed at shoring up the housing market, which included the first-time-homebuyer tax credit and the mortgage assistance, which let the FHA insure loans at a higher rate in high-cost housing markets.
About 1.7 million individuals claimed the tax credit, while FHA insured more than $20 billion in mortgages for 87,000 homeowners, thanks to the Recovery Act provisions.
Under a White House policy, buyers who are delinquent on their federal taxes are not supposed to receive the mortgage assistance, unless they have worked out a repayment agreement with the IRS. But FHA rules don’t prod private lenders to ask for that information, and the FHAdoesn’t have a system to work with the IRS to get that information.
Mr. Coburn joined Sens. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat; Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican; and Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, to request a review of the program.
“The stimulus-spending program was ill-conceived, with far too little oversight,” Mr. Grassley said. “It shouldn’t surprise anyone, unfortunately, that tax dollars have gone to tax cheats. It’s another one of many negative consequences of writing checks without enough checks and balances.”
Compounding the matter, those with tax problems are more likely to end up in foreclosure. Nearly a third of mortgage holders with unpaid taxes were “seriously delinquent” on their payments, and 6.3 percent had been foreclosed - a rate nearly three times higher than homeowners who were paid up with the IRS.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development accepted the report and will work with the IRS to try to get access to information that would help it cull tax cheats, Carol J. Galante, an acting assistant secretary, said in the department’s official response.
She said they also will try to clarify FHA rules so lenders are clear about the eligibility requirements for loans.
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Anyone surprised
When you aren't playing with your own money, you have no sense of obligation to spend it wisely. When was the last time the government spent money efficiently and intelligently? Seriously, why is anyone surprised that so much of the money was wasted and didn't accomplish what they said it would? Not only are the people making these policies and spending this money government bureaucrats, but in this administration, many of them come from academia as well. So that's twice removed reality. Read the original here.
$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job
By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas
June 20, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.
At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).
Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.
As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.
The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.
The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.
For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.
In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.
These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.
The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.
For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”
The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.
The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”
Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.
Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.
$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job
By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas
June 20, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.
At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).
Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.
As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.
The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.
The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.
For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.
In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.
These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.
The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.
For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”
The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.
The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”
Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.
Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.
Monday, April 9, 2012
This does not make me feel warm and fuzzy...
I don't like it when:
1. Government quietly diverts large sums of money.
2. They do it outside the normal appropriations process. It's the normal appropriations process for a reason.
3. They do it to enforce policies that, are at this very moment, up for debate on whether the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. At least wait until the Court decides whether it is valid or not.
Read the original here.
1. Government quietly diverts large sums of money.
2. They do it outside the normal appropriations process. It's the normal appropriations process for a reason.
3. They do it to enforce policies that, are at this very moment, up for debate on whether the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. At least wait until the Court decides whether it is valid or not.
Read the original here.
White House has diverted $500M to IRS to implement healthcare law
By Sam Baker - 04/09/12 05:15 AM ET
TheHill.com
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.
Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.
“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.
The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.
It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. And, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.
The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”
HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.
HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.
The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers are perfectly legal and consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past. The $1 billion fund was set aside for “federal” implementation activities, the GAO said, and can therefore be used by any agency — not just HHS, where the money is housed.
Still, significant transfers to the IRS and other agencies leave less money for HHS, and the department needs to draw on the $1 billion fund for some of its biggest tasks.
The healthcare law directs HHS to set up a federal insurance exchange — a new marketplace for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage — in any state that doesn’t establish its own. But it didn’t provide any money for the federal exchange, forcing HHS to cobble together funding by using some of the $1 billion fund and steering money away from other accounts.
The transfers also allow the IRS to make the healthcare law a smaller part of its public budget figures. For example, the tax agency requested $8 million next year to implement the individual mandate, and said the money would not pay for any new employees.
An IRS spokeswoman would not say how much money has been spent so far implementing the individual mandate.
Republicans charged during the legislative debate over healthcare that the IRS would be hiring hundreds of new agents to enforce the mandate and throwing people in jail because they don’t have insurance.
However, the mandate is just one part of the IRS’s responsibilities.
The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance policies.
The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of the new law — subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering the new subsidies.
The Republican-led House last year passed an amendment, 246-182, sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) that would have prevented the IRS from hiring new personnel or initiating any other measures to mandate that people purchase health insurance. The measure, strongly opposed by the Obama administration, was subsequently dropped from a larger bill that averted a government shutdown.
By Sam Baker - 04/09/12 05:15 AM ET
TheHill.com
The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.
The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.
Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.
“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.
The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.
It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. And, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.
The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”
HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.
HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.
The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers are perfectly legal and consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past. The $1 billion fund was set aside for “federal” implementation activities, the GAO said, and can therefore be used by any agency — not just HHS, where the money is housed.
Still, significant transfers to the IRS and other agencies leave less money for HHS, and the department needs to draw on the $1 billion fund for some of its biggest tasks.
The healthcare law directs HHS to set up a federal insurance exchange — a new marketplace for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage — in any state that doesn’t establish its own. But it didn’t provide any money for the federal exchange, forcing HHS to cobble together funding by using some of the $1 billion fund and steering money away from other accounts.
The transfers also allow the IRS to make the healthcare law a smaller part of its public budget figures. For example, the tax agency requested $8 million next year to implement the individual mandate, and said the money would not pay for any new employees.
An IRS spokeswoman would not say how much money has been spent so far implementing the individual mandate.
Republicans charged during the legislative debate over healthcare that the IRS would be hiring hundreds of new agents to enforce the mandate and throwing people in jail because they don’t have insurance.
However, the mandate is just one part of the IRS’s responsibilities.
The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance policies.
The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of the new law — subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering the new subsidies.
The Republican-led House last year passed an amendment, 246-182, sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) that would have prevented the IRS from hiring new personnel or initiating any other measures to mandate that people purchase health insurance. The measure, strongly opposed by the Obama administration, was subsequently dropped from a larger bill that averted a government shutdown.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Personal travel for politicians?
What do you think? Should politicians and government officials be required to foot more of the bill? Or since the Secretary of Defense is required to fly by secure military transport, should this be a taxpayer expense? What do you think the policy should be? Read the original here.
Panetta has paid $17,000 for commuting to Calif.
Apr 5, 6:59 PM (ET)
LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has commuted on military aircraft to his home in northern California more than two dozen times since he took over the Pentagon in July, paying about $630 per trip for a roundtrip flight that costs the Pentagon about $32,000.
The totals detailed by defense officials lay out his reimbursements for the first time, showing he paid the Treasury about $17,000 for the 27 personal trips. Based on fuel and other operating expenses for his Air Force plane, those same trips cost the government as much as $860,000.
As Pentagon chief, Panetta is required to travel on military planes because they have the secure communications equipment he needs to stay in contact with the president and other top civilian and military leaders.
His bill for the travel is calculated according to reimbursement formulas dictated by longstanding federal policies using what a full-fare coach trip would cost. And the Pentagon says it costs about $3,200 per flight hour to operate the small plane he usually uses for the 10-hour round trip.
When he took the job, Panetta made it clear that he would continue to return home to his family on the weekends as he had done as CIA director for the previous two years, and as a member of Congress from 1977-1993.
The cost of the flights is a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's proposed $614 billion budget. But Panetta comes to the defense job at a particularly difficult financial time for the department. If Congress can't reach an agreement on savings or additional revenues elsewhere in the federal budget by next January, officials could be forced to cut nearly $1 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.
When Panetta took the post it was noted that he came with budget skills honed during his time as chairman of the House Budget Committee, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget and White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
"No one understands the budget pressures on the Pentagon better than Secretary Panetta, who is responsible for identifying nearly $1 billion per week in defense cuts - or roughly $140 million per day - over the next 10 years," Pentagon press secretary George Little said. "As a required-use traveler, he must use government aircraft for all travel."
Little said Panetta values his time with his wife and family, and "spending time away from Washington, in fact, helps him focus on the job and recharge."
White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor added that, "Secretary Panetta has done an exceptional job in both his role at the CIA and as secretary of defense. He has been on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has always been reachable through secure channels whenever necessary, wherever he is."
Panetta's two predecessors didn't make such frequent, long trips home. Robert Gates spent most weekends in the nation's capital, but traveled occasionally to his family home in Washington state. Donald H. Rumsfeld also lived in the D.C. area, but often spent weekends at his house in St. Michaels on Maryland's Eastern shore.
Panetta's wife, Sylvia, works full time at the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which they established in Monterey, Calif., in 1997.
As a result, Panetta, 73, routinely works, makes phone calls and, when necessary, travels a short distance for secure video conferences while he is at home at his family's walnut farm.
Occasionally he's been there when tragedy has struck.
On March 10, he was at home when he got the call that a U.S. soldier allegedly had gone on a rampage and shot Afghan villagers - including women and children - at point-blank range while they slept in their beds. Over the next hours and day, he spoke with U.S. military and national security officials, participated in discussions about what the U.S. response should be, and called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to express his condolences and promise that the perpetrator would be held accountable.
Panetta usually flies out to California on Friday evening and comes back Sunday night. For those personal trips, according to the federal Office of Management and Budget, he is required to reimburse the Treasury for the equivalent "full coach fare" that would be available to the public for the same flight.
But on nine occasions so far, official domestic trips have been scheduled for Thursdays and Fridays, allowing the secretary to travel part way across the country for business, then fly the rest of the way to California for the weekend.
In those cases, which included visits to Fort Campbell, Ky., Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Fort Bliss, Texas, he pays only part of the trip.
According to the formula, he essentially reimburses the government for the difference between the cost of the full trip minus the cost of flying directly to the base or official event location and back to Washington.
Those trips sometimes incur additional costs because a few staff members traveling with Panetta have had to return to Washington separately, either on a military plane, if available, or on a commercial flight.
Little said the Friday trips are not planned to mesh with Panetta's travel to California. Instead, he said, travel on Fridays or Mondays allow Panetta to "maximize his time in light of regularly scheduled meetings in Washington," including congressional testimony and White House and National Security Council sessions that are usually mid-week.
Typically Panetta flies on an Air Force C-37 - somewhat comparable to a Gulfstream jet - which is the lowest-cost aircraft that can carry the necessary communications equipment. In contrast, the Air Force E-4B, the "doomsday plane" Panetta uses for overseas travel because it can refuel in flight, accommodate secure video conferences and serve as an airborne command post, costs about $70,000 per flight hour to operate.
The requirement that all travel - official and personal - by a defense secretary be conducted on military aircraft was instituted during the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
When Panetta took over as defense chief he asked for a legal review to insure all regulations were being followed. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Jeh Johnson, the department's general counsel, laid out the reimbursement rules, including for trips that include both official and personal travel.
Panetta has paid $17,000 for commuting to Calif.
Apr 5, 6:59 PM (ET)
LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has commuted on military aircraft to his home in northern California more than two dozen times since he took over the Pentagon in July, paying about $630 per trip for a roundtrip flight that costs the Pentagon about $32,000.
The totals detailed by defense officials lay out his reimbursements for the first time, showing he paid the Treasury about $17,000 for the 27 personal trips. Based on fuel and other operating expenses for his Air Force plane, those same trips cost the government as much as $860,000.
As Pentagon chief, Panetta is required to travel on military planes because they have the secure communications equipment he needs to stay in contact with the president and other top civilian and military leaders.
His bill for the travel is calculated according to reimbursement formulas dictated by longstanding federal policies using what a full-fare coach trip would cost. And the Pentagon says it costs about $3,200 per flight hour to operate the small plane he usually uses for the 10-hour round trip.
When he took the job, Panetta made it clear that he would continue to return home to his family on the weekends as he had done as CIA director for the previous two years, and as a member of Congress from 1977-1993.
The cost of the flights is a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's proposed $614 billion budget. But Panetta comes to the defense job at a particularly difficult financial time for the department. If Congress can't reach an agreement on savings or additional revenues elsewhere in the federal budget by next January, officials could be forced to cut nearly $1 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.
When Panetta took the post it was noted that he came with budget skills honed during his time as chairman of the House Budget Committee, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget and White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
"No one understands the budget pressures on the Pentagon better than Secretary Panetta, who is responsible for identifying nearly $1 billion per week in defense cuts - or roughly $140 million per day - over the next 10 years," Pentagon press secretary George Little said. "As a required-use traveler, he must use government aircraft for all travel."
Little said Panetta values his time with his wife and family, and "spending time away from Washington, in fact, helps him focus on the job and recharge."
White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor added that, "Secretary Panetta has done an exceptional job in both his role at the CIA and as secretary of defense. He has been on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has always been reachable through secure channels whenever necessary, wherever he is."
Panetta's two predecessors didn't make such frequent, long trips home. Robert Gates spent most weekends in the nation's capital, but traveled occasionally to his family home in Washington state. Donald H. Rumsfeld also lived in the D.C. area, but often spent weekends at his house in St. Michaels on Maryland's Eastern shore.
Panetta's wife, Sylvia, works full time at the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which they established in Monterey, Calif., in 1997.
As a result, Panetta, 73, routinely works, makes phone calls and, when necessary, travels a short distance for secure video conferences while he is at home at his family's walnut farm.
Occasionally he's been there when tragedy has struck.
On March 10, he was at home when he got the call that a U.S. soldier allegedly had gone on a rampage and shot Afghan villagers - including women and children - at point-blank range while they slept in their beds. Over the next hours and day, he spoke with U.S. military and national security officials, participated in discussions about what the U.S. response should be, and called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to express his condolences and promise that the perpetrator would be held accountable.
Panetta usually flies out to California on Friday evening and comes back Sunday night. For those personal trips, according to the federal Office of Management and Budget, he is required to reimburse the Treasury for the equivalent "full coach fare" that would be available to the public for the same flight.
But on nine occasions so far, official domestic trips have been scheduled for Thursdays and Fridays, allowing the secretary to travel part way across the country for business, then fly the rest of the way to California for the weekend.
In those cases, which included visits to Fort Campbell, Ky., Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Fort Bliss, Texas, he pays only part of the trip.
According to the formula, he essentially reimburses the government for the difference between the cost of the full trip minus the cost of flying directly to the base or official event location and back to Washington.
Those trips sometimes incur additional costs because a few staff members traveling with Panetta have had to return to Washington separately, either on a military plane, if available, or on a commercial flight.
Little said the Friday trips are not planned to mesh with Panetta's travel to California. Instead, he said, travel on Fridays or Mondays allow Panetta to "maximize his time in light of regularly scheduled meetings in Washington," including congressional testimony and White House and National Security Council sessions that are usually mid-week.
Typically Panetta flies on an Air Force C-37 - somewhat comparable to a Gulfstream jet - which is the lowest-cost aircraft that can carry the necessary communications equipment. In contrast, the Air Force E-4B, the "doomsday plane" Panetta uses for overseas travel because it can refuel in flight, accommodate secure video conferences and serve as an airborne command post, costs about $70,000 per flight hour to operate.
The requirement that all travel - official and personal - by a defense secretary be conducted on military aircraft was instituted during the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
When Panetta took over as defense chief he asked for a legal review to insure all regulations were being followed. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Jeh Johnson, the department's general counsel, laid out the reimbursement rules, including for trips that include both official and personal travel.
Friday, March 23, 2012
POTUS claims Solyndra collapse not administration's fault; blames anyone else he can
Seriously, man up and take responsibility for your administration. This just sounds whiny and like he's trying to get out of the responsibility. Also, my opinion on a side note. This is $500 million of federal money just gone down the wishing well. All in all, not that significant for their $14 trillion budget. And he's whining this much. Yet Joe Biden wants us to believe that if the operation to get Osama went bad, he would step up and take responsibility? You don't think he'd throw Congress and Admiral McRaven and the Navy under the bus politically? I have no evidence that he would, but I believe that his past actions and statements tilt the argument that he would. Read the original here.
OBAMA ON SOLYNDRA LOAN: ‘THIS WAS NOT OUR PROGRAM’
BLAMES 'CONGRESS' AND 'THE CHINESE' FOR FIRM’S FAILURE
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 22, 2012 11:08 am
President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.
The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.
“Understand, this was not our program per se,” Obama said. “Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program…to help start-up companies get to scale.”
APM: With all respect, it was a gutsy move I think to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology, green jobs – the biggest item most people know about that strategy is, of course, a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, then went bankrupt and has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your ‘all of the above’ strategy right if that’s what we have to show for it, Solyndra?
OBAMA: We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.
Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale. And the understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies are going to do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy. Do I wish that Solyndra had gone bankrupt? Absolutely not. And obviously it’s heartbreaking it happened for the workers who were there.
Obama has previously argued that the Department of Energy program used to finance a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra “predates” his presidency.
That’s an exaggeration of the truth, according to FactCheck.org: “Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.’”
This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Video and tagged Solyndra. Bookmark thepermalink.
OBAMA ON SOLYNDRA LOAN: ‘THIS WAS NOT OUR PROGRAM’
BLAMES 'CONGRESS' AND 'THE CHINESE' FOR FIRM’S FAILURE
BY: Andrew Stiles - March 22, 2012 11:08 am
President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.
The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.
“Understand, this was not our program per se,” Obama said. “Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program…to help start-up companies get to scale.”
APM: With all respect, it was a gutsy move I think to come to a solar facility. Your administration has staked a lot on clean technology, green jobs – the biggest item most people know about that strategy is, of course, a company named Solyndra, which your administration gave loan guarantees to, then went bankrupt and has been the subject of many investigations. Are you doing your ‘all of the above’ strategy right if that’s what we have to show for it, Solyndra?
OBAMA: We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se.
Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries–it’s easy to raise money for start-ups, but if you want to take them to scale sometimes there’s a lot of risk involved, and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale. And the understanding is that some companies are not going to succeed, some companies are going to do very well, but the portfolio as a whole ends up supporting the kind of innovation that helps make America successful in this innovative 21st century economy. Do I wish that Solyndra had gone bankrupt? Absolutely not. And obviously it’s heartbreaking it happened for the workers who were there.
Obama has previously argued that the Department of Energy program used to finance a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra “predates” his presidency.
That’s an exaggeration of the truth, according to FactCheck.org: “Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.’”
This entry was posted in Obama Administration, Video and tagged Solyndra. Bookmark thepermalink.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Planning ahead or Political kickback?
Read the original here.
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal
A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.
By David Willman, Los Angeles Times
November 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington— Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Partydonor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.
Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.
Once feared for its grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.
If there were an attack, the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to inoculate the entire U.S. population and quickly treat people exposed to the virus. The vaccine, which costs the government $3 per dose, can reliably prevent death when given within four days of exposure.
Siga's drug, an antiviral pill called ST-246, would be used to treat people who were diagnosed with smallpox too late for the vaccine to help. Yet the new drug cannot be tested for effectiveness in people because of ethical constraints — and no one knows whether animal testing could prove it would work in humans.
The government's pursuit of Siga's product raises the question: Should the U.S. buy an unproven drug for such a nebulous threat?
"We've got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use — how much more do we need?" said Dr. Donald A. "D.A." Henderson, the epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox for the World Health Organization and later helped organize U.S. biodefense efforts under President George W. Bush. "The bottom line is, we've got a limited amount of money."
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
The Obama administration official who has overseen the buying of Siga's drug says she is trying to strengthen the nation's preparedness. Dr. Nicole Lurie, a presidential appointee who heads biodefense planning at Health and Human Services, cited a 2004 finding by the Bush administration that there was a "material threat" smallpox could be used as a biological weapon.
Smallpox is one of 12 pathogens for which such determinations have been made.
"I don't put probabilities around anything in terms of imminent or not," said Lurie, a physician whose experience in public health includes government service and work with the Rand Corp. "Because what I can tell you is, in the two-plus years I've been in this job, it's the unexpected that always happens."
Negotiations over the price of the drug and Siga's profit margin were contentious. In an internal memo in March, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, chief medical officer for HHS' biodefense preparedness unit, said Siga's projected profit at that point was 180%, which he called "outrageous."
In an email earlier the same day, a department colleague told Hatchett that no government contracting officer "would sign a 3 digit profit percentage."
In April, after Siga's chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, complained in writing about the department's "approach to profit," Lurie assured him that the "most senior procurement official" would be taking over the negotiations.
"I trust this will be satisfactory to you," Lurie wrote Rose in a letter.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal
A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.
By David Willman, Los Angeles Times
November 13, 2011
Reporting from Washington— Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Partydonor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.
Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.
Once feared for its grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.
If there were an attack, the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to inoculate the entire U.S. population and quickly treat people exposed to the virus. The vaccine, which costs the government $3 per dose, can reliably prevent death when given within four days of exposure.
Siga's drug, an antiviral pill called ST-246, would be used to treat people who were diagnosed with smallpox too late for the vaccine to help. Yet the new drug cannot be tested for effectiveness in people because of ethical constraints — and no one knows whether animal testing could prove it would work in humans.
The government's pursuit of Siga's product raises the question: Should the U.S. buy an unproven drug for such a nebulous threat?
"We've got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use — how much more do we need?" said Dr. Donald A. "D.A." Henderson, the epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox for the World Health Organization and later helped organize U.S. biodefense efforts under President George W. Bush. "The bottom line is, we've got a limited amount of money."
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
The Obama administration official who has overseen the buying of Siga's drug says she is trying to strengthen the nation's preparedness. Dr. Nicole Lurie, a presidential appointee who heads biodefense planning at Health and Human Services, cited a 2004 finding by the Bush administration that there was a "material threat" smallpox could be used as a biological weapon.
Smallpox is one of 12 pathogens for which such determinations have been made.
"I don't put probabilities around anything in terms of imminent or not," said Lurie, a physician whose experience in public health includes government service and work with the Rand Corp. "Because what I can tell you is, in the two-plus years I've been in this job, it's the unexpected that always happens."
Negotiations over the price of the drug and Siga's profit margin were contentious. In an internal memo in March, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, chief medical officer for HHS' biodefense preparedness unit, said Siga's projected profit at that point was 180%, which he called "outrageous."
In an email earlier the same day, a department colleague told Hatchett that no government contracting officer "would sign a 3 digit profit percentage."
In April, after Siga's chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, complained in writing about the department's "approach to profit," Lurie assured him that the "most senior procurement official" would be taking over the negotiations.
"I trust this will be satisfactory to you," Lurie wrote Rose in a letter.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
That's probably not so good...
Read the original here.
Last Updated: November 14. 2011 7:22PM
U.S. boosts estimate of auto bailout losses to $23.6B
David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau
The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.’s steep stock decline.
In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.
The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.
The big increase is a reflection of the sharp decline in the value of GM’s share price.
The current estimate of losses is based on GM’s Sept. 30 closing price of $20.18, down one-third over the previous quarterly price.
GM’s stock closed Monday at $22.99, up 2 percent. The government won’t reassess the estimate of the costs until Dec. 30.
The government has recovered $23.2 billion of its $49.5 billion GM bailout, and cut its stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent. But it has been forced to put on hold the sale of its remaining 500 million shares of stock.
The new estimate also hikes the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. TARP is the emergency program approved by Congress in late 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.
In total, the government used $425 billion to bailout banks,insurance companies and automakers, and provided $45 billion in housing program assistance.
The government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the full cost of the housing program, up from $36.7 billion. The new estimate means the government doesn’t believe it will make an overall profit on its bailouts.
Republican presidential candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have seized on the auto bailout losses estimates, as evidence that the Bush and Obama administrations “wasted” money.
Matt Anderson, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said, “Both TARP and the auto industry rescue are still on track to cost a fraction of what was originally expected during the dark days of the financial crisis.”
In 2009, the government initially forecast it would lose $44 billion on its auto industry bailout. It revised it down to $30 billion, and later to as low as $13.9 billion earlier this year.The administration and President Barack Obama have argued that any losses on the auto bailout were worth the hundreds of thousands of jobs saved.
“The investment paid off. The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it,” he said at an appearance last month at GM’s Orion Assembly plant. “I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City’s history.”
The new bailout forecast also represents an increase in the government’s forecast in its losses from its $17.2 billion bailout of Detroit-based auto and mortgage lender Ally Financial Inc. The government holds a 74 percent stake in Ally, which has been forced to put its planned initial public offering on hold because of market conditions.
dshepardson@detnews.com
(202) 662-8735
Last Updated: November 14. 2011 7:22PM
U.S. boosts estimate of auto bailout losses to $23.6B
David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau
The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion in the face of General Motors Co.’s steep stock decline.
In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.
The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. It no longer includes $5 billion it set aside to guarantee payments to auto suppliers in 2009.
The big increase is a reflection of the sharp decline in the value of GM’s share price.
The current estimate of losses is based on GM’s Sept. 30 closing price of $20.18, down one-third over the previous quarterly price.
GM’s stock closed Monday at $22.99, up 2 percent. The government won’t reassess the estimate of the costs until Dec. 30.
The government has recovered $23.2 billion of its $49.5 billion GM bailout, and cut its stake in the company from 61 percent to 26.5 percent. But it has been forced to put on hold the sale of its remaining 500 million shares of stock.
The new estimate also hikes the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. TARP is the emergency program approved by Congress in late 2008 at the height of the financial crisis.
In total, the government used $425 billion to bailout banks,insurance companies and automakers, and provided $45 billion in housing program assistance.
The government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the full cost of the housing program, up from $36.7 billion. The new estimate means the government doesn’t believe it will make an overall profit on its bailouts.
Republican presidential candidates, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have seized on the auto bailout losses estimates, as evidence that the Bush and Obama administrations “wasted” money.
Matt Anderson, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said, “Both TARP and the auto industry rescue are still on track to cost a fraction of what was originally expected during the dark days of the financial crisis.”
In 2009, the government initially forecast it would lose $44 billion on its auto industry bailout. It revised it down to $30 billion, and later to as low as $13.9 billion earlier this year.The administration and President Barack Obama have argued that any losses on the auto bailout were worth the hundreds of thousands of jobs saved.
“The investment paid off. The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it,” he said at an appearance last month at GM’s Orion Assembly plant. “I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City’s history.”
The new bailout forecast also represents an increase in the government’s forecast in its losses from its $17.2 billion bailout of Detroit-based auto and mortgage lender Ally Financial Inc. The government holds a 74 percent stake in Ally, which has been forced to put its planned initial public offering on hold because of market conditions.
dshepardson@detnews.com
(202) 662-8735
Monday, October 3, 2011
Who increased the debt?
Read the original here.
Who Increased the Debt?
If you have a bunch of dumbass friends who post ill informed political tripe on their Facebook walls, you've probably seen this making the rounds lately:
This chart came from House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, and has been out since April of this year. Politifact looked in to, and gave the chart its lowest rating of Pants on Fire. One of the more glaring problems with that the debt from the first year of Obama's administration has been shifted to Bush, despite the dates on the chart not reflecting this. (Pelosi has released an updated chart, showing Bush at 86% and Obama at 35%.)
Now, there are some fair arguments that a lot of what happens early on in a president's term is due to the policies of the prior administration. But, the chart didn't do the same thing for other presidents on the chart. And, with Democrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, it's hard to blame Bush for the Democrats not acting to undo his mistakes, and in some cases doubling down on his policies.
The chart also looks only at the raw debt numbers, and not debt as a percentage of GDP. According to the Office of Budget Management, debt at percentage of GDP went up by 5.6% under Bush. Under Obama, it has increased 21.9%.
But really, the biggest problem with the chart is that it acts as if the President increases the debt. The real taxer and spender is the Congress.
What drove up spending from 2001-2009? "Bush's Wars," right? But, the vote to go to war in Afghanistan was nearly unanimous, opposed by only 1 Democrat. The vote to go in to Iraq was supported by 40% of Democrats. For both votes, Democrats controlled the Senate, and could have stopped either war.
Remember the bank bailouts? Sure, Bush was in office, but Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate at the time.
The fact of the matter is that the debt belongs to the mainstream of both parties. So, to reflect this, we've created a different, more accurate chart:
Who Increased the Debt?
If you have a bunch of dumbass friends who post ill informed political tripe on their Facebook walls, you've probably seen this making the rounds lately:
This chart came from House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, and has been out since April of this year. Politifact looked in to, and gave the chart its lowest rating of Pants on Fire. One of the more glaring problems with that the debt from the first year of Obama's administration has been shifted to Bush, despite the dates on the chart not reflecting this. (Pelosi has released an updated chart, showing Bush at 86% and Obama at 35%.)
Now, there are some fair arguments that a lot of what happens early on in a president's term is due to the policies of the prior administration. But, the chart didn't do the same thing for other presidents on the chart. And, with Democrats controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, it's hard to blame Bush for the Democrats not acting to undo his mistakes, and in some cases doubling down on his policies.
The chart also looks only at the raw debt numbers, and not debt as a percentage of GDP. According to the Office of Budget Management, debt at percentage of GDP went up by 5.6% under Bush. Under Obama, it has increased 21.9%.
But really, the biggest problem with the chart is that it acts as if the President increases the debt. The real taxer and spender is the Congress.
What drove up spending from 2001-2009? "Bush's Wars," right? But, the vote to go to war in Afghanistan was nearly unanimous, opposed by only 1 Democrat. The vote to go in to Iraq was supported by 40% of Democrats. For both votes, Democrats controlled the Senate, and could have stopped either war.
Remember the bank bailouts? Sure, Bush was in office, but Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate at the time.
The fact of the matter is that the debt belongs to the mainstream of both parties. So, to reflect this, we've created a different, more accurate chart:
Monday, September 19, 2011
Rising Taxes
Read the original here.
Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will propose $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to identify more than $3 trillion in long-term deficit reduction and slow the nation's escalating national debt.
Obama's tax plan is aimed predominantly at the wealthy and draws sharp contrasts with congressional Republicans.
It comes just days after House Speaker John Boehner ruled out tax increases to lower deficits. It also comes amid a clamor in his own Democratic Party for Obama to take a tougher stance against Republicans. And while the plan stands little chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.
The core of the president's plan totals just more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It combines the new taxes with $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion from Medicare.
The administration also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The deficit reduction plan represents an economic bookend to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that Obama has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs. He's submitting his deficit fighting plan to a special joint committee of Congress that is charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
In a defiant note, administration officials made clear Sunday that Obama would veto any Medicare benefit cuts that aren't paired with tax increases on upper-income people.
Officials cast Obama's plan as his vision for deficit reduction, and distinguished it from the negotiations he had with Boehner in July as Obama sought to avoid a government default.
As a result, it includes no changes in Social Security and no increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had been willing to accept this summer.
Moreover, the new tax revenue Obama is seeking is nearly double the $800 billion that Boehner had been willing to consider in July. Republicans were already lining up against the president's tax proposal before they even knew the magnitude of what he intended to recommend.
"Class warfare may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics," GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, said Sunday in reaction to one Obama tax proposal to impose a minimum tax rate on wealthy filers.
Former President Bill Clinton on Monday dismissed GOP claims that the tax on the wealthy would discourage jobs creation and hamper economic growth.
"Republicans in Washington always say the same thing," Clinton said on NBC's "Today" show. He called their argument an insult to wealthy Americans, including many who don't mind paying more.
Key features of Obama's plan, as described by senior administration officials Sunday evening:
-$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.
-$580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies.
-$430 billion in savings from lower interest payment on the national debt.
By adding about $1 trillion in spending cuts already enacted by Congress and counting about $1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the combined deficit reduction would total more than $4 trillion over 10 years, senior administration officials said.
Republicans have ridiculed the war savings as gimmicky, but House Republicans included them in their budget proposal this year and Boehner had agreed to count them as savings during debt ceiling negotiations with the president this summer.
Obama backed away from proposing sweeping changes to Medicare, following the advice of fellow Democrats that it would only give political cover to a privatization plan supported by House Republicans that turned to be unpopular with older Americans.
Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers. The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017.
Illustrating Obama's populist pitch on tax revenue, one proposal would set a minimum tax on taxpayers making $1 million or more in income. The measure - Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for billionaire investor Warren Buffett - is designed to prevent millionaires from taking advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings than what middle-income taxpayers pay on their wages.
At issue is the difference between a taxpayer's tax bracket and the effective tax rate that taxpayer pays. Millionaires face a 35 percent tax bracket, while middle income filers fall in the 15 or 25 percent bracket. But investment income is taxed at 15 percent and Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been "coddled long enough" and shouldn't be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
---
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama will propose $1.5 trillion in new taxes as part of a plan to identify more than $3 trillion in long-term deficit reduction and slow the nation's escalating national debt.
Obama's tax plan is aimed predominantly at the wealthy and draws sharp contrasts with congressional Republicans.
It comes just days after House Speaker John Boehner ruled out tax increases to lower deficits. It also comes amid a clamor in his own Democratic Party for Obama to take a tougher stance against Republicans. And while the plan stands little chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.
The core of the president's plan totals just more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It combines the new taxes with $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion from Medicare.
The administration also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The deficit reduction plan represents an economic bookend to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that Obama has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs. He's submitting his deficit fighting plan to a special joint committee of Congress that is charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
In a defiant note, administration officials made clear Sunday that Obama would veto any Medicare benefit cuts that aren't paired with tax increases on upper-income people.
Officials cast Obama's plan as his vision for deficit reduction, and distinguished it from the negotiations he had with Boehner in July as Obama sought to avoid a government default.
As a result, it includes no changes in Social Security and no increase in the Medicare eligibility age, which the president had been willing to accept this summer.
Moreover, the new tax revenue Obama is seeking is nearly double the $800 billion that Boehner had been willing to consider in July. Republicans were already lining up against the president's tax proposal before they even knew the magnitude of what he intended to recommend.
"Class warfare may make for really good politics but it makes for rotten economics," GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman, said Sunday in reaction to one Obama tax proposal to impose a minimum tax rate on wealthy filers.
Former President Bill Clinton on Monday dismissed GOP claims that the tax on the wealthy would discourage jobs creation and hamper economic growth.
"Republicans in Washington always say the same thing," Clinton said on NBC's "Today" show. He called their argument an insult to wealthy Americans, including many who don't mind paying more.
Key features of Obama's plan, as described by senior administration officials Sunday evening:
-$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.
-$580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies.
-$430 billion in savings from lower interest payment on the national debt.
By adding about $1 trillion in spending cuts already enacted by Congress and counting about $1 trillion in savings from the drawdown of military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the combined deficit reduction would total more than $4 trillion over 10 years, senior administration officials said.
Republicans have ridiculed the war savings as gimmicky, but House Republicans included them in their budget proposal this year and Boehner had agreed to count them as savings during debt ceiling negotiations with the president this summer.
Obama backed away from proposing sweeping changes to Medicare, following the advice of fellow Democrats that it would only give political cover to a privatization plan supported by House Republicans that turned to be unpopular with older Americans.
Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers. The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017.
Illustrating Obama's populist pitch on tax revenue, one proposal would set a minimum tax on taxpayers making $1 million or more in income. The measure - Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for billionaire investor Warren Buffett - is designed to prevent millionaires from taking advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings than what middle-income taxpayers pay on their wages.
At issue is the difference between a taxpayer's tax bracket and the effective tax rate that taxpayer pays. Millionaires face a 35 percent tax bracket, while middle income filers fall in the 15 or 25 percent bracket. But investment income is taxed at 15 percent and Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been "coddled long enough" and shouldn't be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
---
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
More stimulus?
How's this for stimulus, give me $500,000 and I'll start a business with a bunch of jobs....Where is all of this money going? How's it stimulating, when my company is telling me for the last 3 years, "The economy is so bad we're freezing pay"? Read the original here.
Obama Jobs “Plan”: $300 Billion In Spending
Written By : William Teach
Plan has to be put in quotations, of course, because a) we haven’t actually seen it yet, b) we’ll probably never see it, we’ll just hear about it Thursday night and during press conferences and campaign speeches, a c) we all know it will be the same old tired and failed ideas, per MSNBC: Obama to propose $300 billion to jump-start jobs
The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again. Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs — but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.
According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president’s proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan was still being finalized and some proposals could still be subject to change.
The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.
None of these ideas worked back when the Democrats passed their $843 billion Stimulus plan. The best it can do is provide some short term jobs. None of these ideas stimulated commerce which led to increased hiring in the private sector. Remember that $7-$13 extra a week you had in your paycheck? Did it get you to buy anything more than an extra meal a week? How about extending jobless benefits? After extension after extension, the unemployment rate is still over 9%. Tax credit to hire the unemployed? Sure, companies that were going to hire anyhow liked it, but, it obviously did not stimulate extra hiring.
Public works? Interestingly, the recession was said to have officially ended in June 2009, but most Stimulus measures kicked in after that. So, we can say that it was the Bush policies that ended the official recession, but the Obama policies made the economy worse.
Politico reports much the same, and also says he wants to offset these “ideas” with tax increases later.
What we can also expect from Obama’s campaign speech to a joint session of Congress will be these brief ideas, along with raising taxes on evil rich people like himself, patent reform, and free trade agreements (has the White House sent them over to Congress yet?). That, and lots of calls for bipartisanship followed by excoriating Republicans.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Obama Jobs “Plan”: $300 Billion In Spending
Written By : William Teach
Plan has to be put in quotations, of course, because a) we haven’t actually seen it yet, b) we’ll probably never see it, we’ll just hear about it Thursday night and during press conferences and campaign speeches, a c) we all know it will be the same old tired and failed ideas, per MSNBC: Obama to propose $300 billion to jump-start jobs
The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again. Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs — but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.
According to people familiar with the White House deliberations, two of the biggest measures in the president’s proposals for 2012 are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and an extension of expiring jobless benefits. Together those two would total about $170 billion.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan was still being finalized and some proposals could still be subject to change.
The White House is also considering a tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed. That could cost about $30 billion. Obama has also called for public works projects, such as school construction. Advocates of that plan have called for spending of $50 billion, but the White House proposal is expected to be smaller.
None of these ideas worked back when the Democrats passed their $843 billion Stimulus plan. The best it can do is provide some short term jobs. None of these ideas stimulated commerce which led to increased hiring in the private sector. Remember that $7-$13 extra a week you had in your paycheck? Did it get you to buy anything more than an extra meal a week? How about extending jobless benefits? After extension after extension, the unemployment rate is still over 9%. Tax credit to hire the unemployed? Sure, companies that were going to hire anyhow liked it, but, it obviously did not stimulate extra hiring.
Public works? Interestingly, the recession was said to have officially ended in June 2009, but most Stimulus measures kicked in after that. So, we can say that it was the Bush policies that ended the official recession, but the Obama policies made the economy worse.
Politico reports much the same, and also says he wants to offset these “ideas” with tax increases later.
What we can also expect from Obama’s campaign speech to a joint session of Congress will be these brief ideas, along with raising taxes on evil rich people like himself, patent reform, and free trade agreements (has the White House sent them over to Congress yet?). That, and lots of calls for bipartisanship followed by excoriating Republicans.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Umm...can they do this?
I don't know what's worse, that this has never happened before and now is, or that I'm not sure they can make this guarantee, but they are. Read the original here.
Obama To Banks: We're Not Defaulting
While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.
In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.
While the negotiations to craft a budget remain at an impasse, Republicans and Democrats on Monday began crafting their own plans to cut spending that could lead to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. It's unclear if a broad agreement can be reached any time soon, but even if a deal is struck, a complicating issue for lawmakers and the administration is the possibility of a downgrade to the US debt rating, which would cut the triple-A rating on the nation's debt to a lower level.
Major ratings firms -- namely Standard & Poor's and Moody's -- have said even if the country raises the debt ceiling and doesn't default, there's a strong likelihood that the triple-A bond rating will be cut to double-A unless a budget can be crafted that results in $4 trillion in savings, the result of the massive debt load the country has accumulated in recent years. The nation's outstanding debt is more than $14 trillion.
A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."
This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven't imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.
The banking official said the administration understands that if there were to be a default, it would likely spark another financial crisis.
"They also know they can pay the debt with cash on hand," this official told FOX Business. The Treasury collects around $2 trillion in tax revenues, and is scheduled to pay out $200 billion in interest to bond holders. In order to meet its obligations to contractors, social security recipients and others, the administration would have to raise another $1 trillion either through cuts, higher tax revenues, the issuance of debt or a combination of all three.
Congressional Republicans believe that the Administration is raising the possibility of a default as a way to ramp up pressure on Republicans to agree to a budget deal that includes tax increases, which they oppose.
A Treasury spokesman said that "when we exhaust our borrowing authority, as we will on August 2nd, there is no way to guarantee that we will be able to pay all of our bills. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply false."
Even without a default, banks expect some market turbulence if the triple-A sovereign-debt rating is cut, sources tell FOX Business. While bank officials do not believe there will be a “catastrophic” effect to a downgrade, that’s not to say there won’t be negative ripple effects, notably to bond deals and derivatives priced off triple-A-rated Treasurys.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/25/obama-to-banks-were-not-defaulting/#ixzz1TJJBFoUq
Obama To Banks: We're Not Defaulting
While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.
In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.
While the negotiations to craft a budget remain at an impasse, Republicans and Democrats on Monday began crafting their own plans to cut spending that could lead to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. It's unclear if a broad agreement can be reached any time soon, but even if a deal is struck, a complicating issue for lawmakers and the administration is the possibility of a downgrade to the US debt rating, which would cut the triple-A rating on the nation's debt to a lower level.
Major ratings firms -- namely Standard & Poor's and Moody's -- have said even if the country raises the debt ceiling and doesn't default, there's a strong likelihood that the triple-A bond rating will be cut to double-A unless a budget can be crafted that results in $4 trillion in savings, the result of the massive debt load the country has accumulated in recent years. The nation's outstanding debt is more than $14 trillion.
A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."
This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven't imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.
The banking official said the administration understands that if there were to be a default, it would likely spark another financial crisis.
"They also know they can pay the debt with cash on hand," this official told FOX Business. The Treasury collects around $2 trillion in tax revenues, and is scheduled to pay out $200 billion in interest to bond holders. In order to meet its obligations to contractors, social security recipients and others, the administration would have to raise another $1 trillion either through cuts, higher tax revenues, the issuance of debt or a combination of all three.
Congressional Republicans believe that the Administration is raising the possibility of a default as a way to ramp up pressure on Republicans to agree to a budget deal that includes tax increases, which they oppose.
A Treasury spokesman said that "when we exhaust our borrowing authority, as we will on August 2nd, there is no way to guarantee that we will be able to pay all of our bills. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply false."
Even without a default, banks expect some market turbulence if the triple-A sovereign-debt rating is cut, sources tell FOX Business. While bank officials do not believe there will be a “catastrophic” effect to a downgrade, that’s not to say there won’t be negative ripple effects, notably to bond deals and derivatives priced off triple-A-rated Treasurys.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/25/obama-to-banks-were-not-defaulting/#ixzz1TJJBFoUq
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debt Crisis Talks update...no real update
Read the original here.
Obama Kills Bipartisan Deal, Then Reid Resorts To Smoke And Mirrors - Right Turn
Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
As I reported earlier, the president rejected a bipartisan congressional deal that would have calmed the markets, resolved the debt-ceiling crisis and restored faith in Washington politicians. President Obama was having none of it, demonstrating once and for all that the problem is NOT the House Republicans, but the election-obsessed White House.
So then the parties begin to devise separate congressional plans. The Post reports, “Senate Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would avert a national default on Aug. 2 and achieve $2.7 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade without raising taxes.”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is devising a sham that will never pass muster in the House. A Capitol Hill source with knowledge of the plan tells me: “It includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” A Senate aide says dryly that Reid “has about a trillion in ‘savings’ from ending the war in Iraq that’s already going to end.” And a disgusted House adviser bluntly tells me that Reid’s plan “isn’t real.”
We shouldn’t be too harsh on Reid. HE DID reach a bipartisan deal with the House. But the president squashed it. (Note to Congress: Next time don’t ask, just pass it and leave town.) Now we are back to gamesmanship.
It is extremely telling, however, that Reid’s plan contains NO tax hike. As I suspected, Obama doesn’t have enough support even in his own party (and particularly from Senate Democrats facing reelection) to pass the massive tax increases that he and his liberal base demand. And yet Obama at the last minute in negotiations with the speaker of the House last week threw in $400 billion in more taxes. There could only have been one purpose for that, since the Senate is as tax-hike-averse as the House: to create a crisis. We have finally found the president’s strong suit.
More on this topic in PostOpinions
Obama Kills Bipartisan Deal, Then Reid Resorts To Smoke And Mirrors - Right Turn
Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
As I reported earlier, the president rejected a bipartisan congressional deal that would have calmed the markets, resolved the debt-ceiling crisis and restored faith in Washington politicians. President Obama was having none of it, demonstrating once and for all that the problem is NOT the House Republicans, but the election-obsessed White House.
So then the parties begin to devise separate congressional plans. The Post reports, “Senate Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would avert a national default on Aug. 2 and achieve $2.7 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade without raising taxes.”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is devising a sham that will never pass muster in the House. A Capitol Hill source with knowledge of the plan tells me: “It includes $1.2 trillion in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] savings . . . which was assumed anyway, $1.2 trillion (over $1.1 trillion less than [Majority Leader Eric] Cantor identified in the Biden talks) and $300 billion in interest savings.” A Senate aide says dryly that Reid “has about a trillion in ‘savings’ from ending the war in Iraq that’s already going to end.” And a disgusted House adviser bluntly tells me that Reid’s plan “isn’t real.”
We shouldn’t be too harsh on Reid. HE DID reach a bipartisan deal with the House. But the president squashed it. (Note to Congress: Next time don’t ask, just pass it and leave town.) Now we are back to gamesmanship.
It is extremely telling, however, that Reid’s plan contains NO tax hike. As I suspected, Obama doesn’t have enough support even in his own party (and particularly from Senate Democrats facing reelection) to pass the massive tax increases that he and his liberal base demand. And yet Obama at the last minute in negotiations with the speaker of the House last week threw in $400 billion in more taxes. There could only have been one purpose for that, since the Senate is as tax-hike-averse as the House: to create a crisis. We have finally found the president’s strong suit.
More on this topic in PostOpinions
Democratic Rep: Debt Crisis Has Been ‘Manufactured By House Republicans’
Question 1. Do Democrats just say whatever they want and see what sticks in the media? Question 2. How'd spending that $800,000,000,000 work out?
Read the original here.
Democratic Rep: Debt Crisis Has Been ‘Manufactured By House Republicans’
(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) released a statement Monday saying the “debt crisis” has been “manufactured by House Republicans” who are “attempting to advance an extremist agenda.”
“The current, so-called ‘debt crisis’ has been completely manufactured by House Republicans attempting to advance an extremist agenda. This should be a simple vote to allow the US Treasury to fund all of the programs and obligations of the entire federal government that are already in the law,” said Rep. Lee in a statement handed out to reporters before a Democratic press conference on jobs at the Capitol.
Rep. Lee has called for Congress to increase the debt limit with no strings attached like spending cuts.
“Enough is enough,” she said. “We should immediately pass a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling so that we can work on the real crisis in this country – the jobs crisis.”Congressional leaders are currently working on a deal to increase the debt limit – currently at $14.3 trillion – by the Aug. 2 deadline
Democratic Rep: Debt Crisis Has Been ‘Manufactured By House Republicans’
(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) released a statement Monday saying the “debt crisis” has been “manufactured by House Republicans” who are “attempting to advance an extremist agenda.”
“The current, so-called ‘debt crisis’ has been completely manufactured by House Republicans attempting to advance an extremist agenda. This should be a simple vote to allow the US Treasury to fund all of the programs and obligations of the entire federal government that are already in the law,” said Rep. Lee in a statement handed out to reporters before a Democratic press conference on jobs at the Capitol.
Rep. Lee has called for Congress to increase the debt limit with no strings attached like spending cuts.
“Enough is enough,” she said. “We should immediately pass a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling so that we can work on the real crisis in this country – the jobs crisis.”Congressional leaders are currently working on a deal to increase the debt limit – currently at $14.3 trillion – by the Aug. 2 deadline
Monday, July 25, 2011
Washington Times on POTUS & the Debt Crisis
Read the original here. They get right to the point.
CURL: Is Obama A Pathological Liar?
The Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
“Mendacity is a system that we live in.”
- Brick, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”
In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”
But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.
And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.
His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.
“I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling,” Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn’t a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.
“I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Not so: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”
Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: “The discussions we’ve had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. … Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.”
But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. “You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” Mr. Obama said.
That, too, was a lie. “The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said.
The negotiations just before breakdown called for $800 billion in new “revenues” (henceforth, we’ll call those “taxes”), but after the supposedly bipartisan plan came out — and bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase.
Mr. Boehner was blunt: “The White House moved the goalpost. There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday, when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people.”
But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. “We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”
The truth: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric,” the insider said.
Now, Mr. Boehner and the real leaders in Congress have taken back the process. He’ll write the bill and pass it along to the president, with this directive, which he reportedly said to Mr. Obama’s face in a short White House meeting Saturday: “Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign.”
Watching the one-third-of-a-term-senator-turned-president negotiate brings to mind a child spinning yarns about just how the living room lamp got broken. Now, though, the grown-ups are in charge; the kids have been put to bed. Ten days ago, the president warned the speaker: “Dont call my bluff.”
Well, Mr. Boehner has. He’s holding all the cards — and he’s not bluffing.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
CURL: Is Obama A Pathological Liar?
The Washington Times
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
“Mendacity is a system that we live in.”
- Brick, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”
In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”
But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.
And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.
His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.
“I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling,” Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn’t a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.
“I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Not so: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”
Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: “The discussions we’ve had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. … Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform.”
But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. “You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” Mr. Obama said.
That, too, was a lie. “The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said.
The negotiations just before breakdown called for $800 billion in new “revenues” (henceforth, we’ll call those “taxes”), but after the supposedly bipartisan plan came out — and bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase.
Mr. Boehner was blunt: “The White House moved the goalpost. There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday, when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people.”
But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. “We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”
The truth: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric,” the insider said.
Now, Mr. Boehner and the real leaders in Congress have taken back the process. He’ll write the bill and pass it along to the president, with this directive, which he reportedly said to Mr. Obama’s face in a short White House meeting Saturday: “Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign.”
Watching the one-third-of-a-term-senator-turned-president negotiate brings to mind a child spinning yarns about just how the living room lamp got broken. Now, though, the grown-ups are in charge; the kids have been put to bed. Ten days ago, the president warned the speaker: “Dont call my bluff.”
Well, Mr. Boehner has. He’s holding all the cards — and he’s not bluffing.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Who is pressing the Debt crisis?
Read the original here.
White House Stokes Debt-Ceiling Crisis - Right Turnby Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”
If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.
White House Stokes Debt-Ceiling Crisis - Right Turnby Jennifer Rubin - Washington Post
A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”
If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Rasmussen Poll shows 55% opposed to any tax hikes
Read the original here.
55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal
As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.
Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.
Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.
Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago.
At the same time, however, 52% believe it would beeven more dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts in government spending. Thirty-seven percent (37%) take the opposite view and believe a government default would be more dangerous.
(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are alsoavailable on Twitter or Facebook.
The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 12-13, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points witha 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC.See methodology.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters are following the debt ceiling story at least Somewhat Closely. That figure includes 48% who are following it Very Closely. Older voters are following the story more closely than younger voters.
Thirty-eightpercent (38%) believe the president has done a good or an excellent job handling the debt ceiling debate while 41% say he has done a poor job. Predictably, 74% of Democrats give him good or excellent marks while 71% of Republicans say he’s doing a poor job. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 31% give the president good or excellent marks on this topic while 42% say he’s doing a poor job.
Overall, the president’s Job Approval ratings have been remarkably stable for the past year-and-a-half. With only modest exceptions, his totalapproval numbers have stayed in the mid-to-high 40s since the end of 2009.
By a 59% to19% margin, Political Class voters favor a tax hike in the debt ceiling deal. By a 68% to 22% margin, Mainstream voters take the opposite view (for more on the Political Class-Mainstream classification, click here.
Data released earlier shows that most Americans believe tax hikes are bad for the economy and spending cuts are good.
Consumer confidence has fallen to the lowest level in twoyears and most Americans now believe their own personal finances are getting worse.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public.
55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal
As the Beltway politicians try to figure out how they will raise the debt ceiling and for how long, most voters oppose including tax hikes in the deal.
Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.
Americans who earn more than $75,000 a year are evenly divided as to whether a tax hike should be included in the debt ceiling deal. Those who earn less are opposed to including tax hikes.
Voters remain very concerned about the debt ceiling issue. Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe that it would be bad for the economy if a failure to raise the debt ceiling led to government defaults. Only 6% believe it would be good for theeconomy. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it would have no impact and 11% are notsure. These figures are little changed from a few weeks ago.
At the same time, however, 52% believe it would beeven more dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without making significant cuts in government spending. Thirty-seven percent (37%) take the opposite view and believe a government default would be more dangerous.
(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are alsoavailable on Twitter or Facebook.
The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 12-13, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points witha 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC.See methodology.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters are following the debt ceiling story at least Somewhat Closely. That figure includes 48% who are following it Very Closely. Older voters are following the story more closely than younger voters.
Thirty-eightpercent (38%) believe the president has done a good or an excellent job handling the debt ceiling debate while 41% say he has done a poor job. Predictably, 74% of Democrats give him good or excellent marks while 71% of Republicans say he’s doing a poor job. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 31% give the president good or excellent marks on this topic while 42% say he’s doing a poor job.
Overall, the president’s Job Approval ratings have been remarkably stable for the past year-and-a-half. With only modest exceptions, his totalapproval numbers have stayed in the mid-to-high 40s since the end of 2009.
By a 59% to19% margin, Political Class voters favor a tax hike in the debt ceiling deal. By a 68% to 22% margin, Mainstream voters take the opposite view (for more on the Political Class-Mainstream classification, click here.
Data released earlier shows that most Americans believe tax hikes are bad for the economy and spending cuts are good.
Consumer confidence has fallen to the lowest level in twoyears and most Americans now believe their own personal finances are getting worse.
Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public.
Quote of the Day
President Obama claims that 80% of Americans support tax hikes. Read the original here.
Obama: Public Is 'Sold' On Tax Increases In A Debt-Ceiling Deal
By Sam Youngman and Alicia M. Cohn - 07/15/11 11:54 AM ET
President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."
Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.
"This is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people," Obama said.
"I hope [Republicans are] not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ... I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.
Obama repeated his warning that the country is "running out of time" to avert a financial “Armageddon.”
"We should not even be this close on a deadline," Obama said. "This is something we should have accomplished earlier."
Obama said he is still pushing for a “big” deal to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline despite the hardening of positions on Capitol Hill.
"I always have hope," Obama said. "Don't you remember my campaign?"
The president signaled he is opposed to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal that House Republicans coalesced around Friday morning, and he challenged the GOP to "be ambitious" in proposing a package to cut the deficit.
"If they show me a serious plan, I'm ready to move, even if it requires some tough sacrifices on my part," Obama said.
Republicans in the House rallied Friday behind an effort to cut spending, cap spending in future years and pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
“We asked the president to lead, we asked him to put forward a plan, not a speech — a real plan — and he hasn’t. We will,” Speaker John Boehner said (R-Ohio) before Obama’s press conference.
The plan would authorize a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling after Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment.
The president said he had not studied the new Republican proposal, but said it “doesn't sound like a serious plan to me."
Obama also shot down the GOP calls for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, saying "we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs."
As he has done since last week, the president challenged Republicans to pursue the biggest plan possible, seizing an "opportunity to stabilize American's finances" for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
Noting the acknowledgment by Republican leaders that the debt ceiling has to be raised, Obama said that they should not stop at the "routine" decision to increase the government's borrowing authority.
"I'm glad the congressional leaders want to raise the debt ceiling, but I think the American people expect more," Obama said.
The president has repeatedly called for the negotiators to put politics aside even as the negotiations have increasingly been framed through the lens of the 2012 election.
Obama said he was hopeful that the leaders would step back from trying to please their base constituencies and move on the debt ceiling, reducing the deficit and other economic agenda items.
"You know… whatever Sen. McConnell says about me on the floor of the Senate is not going to be impediment to us getting a deal done," Obama said. "You know, the question is going to be whether at any given moment we're willing to set politics aside at least briefly in order to get something done.
He continued: "Surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems. So there will be huge differences between now and November 2012 between the parties. And whoever the Republican nominee is, you know, we're going to have a big, serious debate about what we believe is the right way to guide America forward and to win the future. And I'm confident that I will win that debate.”
"And I think increasingly the American people are going to say to themselves, you know what? If a party or a politician is constantly taking the position, my way or the highway, constantly being locked into, you know, ideologically rigid positions, that you know, we're going to remember at the polls," Obama said.
Obama didn't rule out the fall-back plan proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that would give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a national default.
"It is constructive to say that if Washington operates as usual and can't get anything done, let's at least avert Armageddon," he said. However, Obama said he wanted to address the deeper debt issues.
"I have not seen a credible plan ... that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion [in savings] without really hurting ordinary folks," he said.
The president said voters are paying attention to "who seems to be trying to get something done” in the high-stakes negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
“It's going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression,” he said.
This story was updated at 12:50 p.m.
Obama: Public Is 'Sold' On Tax Increases In A Debt-Ceiling Deal
By Sam Youngman and Alicia M. Cohn - 07/15/11 11:54 AM ET
President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."
Throughout the press conference, Obama blasted Republicans for ignoring what he said is the will of the American people by rejecting tax increases that would balance out spending cuts in a debt package.
"This is not an issue of salesmanship to the American people," Obama said.
"I hope [Republicans are] not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ... I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.
Obama repeated his warning that the country is "running out of time" to avert a financial “Armageddon.”
"We should not even be this close on a deadline," Obama said. "This is something we should have accomplished earlier."
Obama said he is still pushing for a “big” deal to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline despite the hardening of positions on Capitol Hill.
"I always have hope," Obama said. "Don't you remember my campaign?"
The president signaled he is opposed to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal that House Republicans coalesced around Friday morning, and he challenged the GOP to "be ambitious" in proposing a package to cut the deficit.
"If they show me a serious plan, I'm ready to move, even if it requires some tough sacrifices on my part," Obama said.
Republicans in the House rallied Friday behind an effort to cut spending, cap spending in future years and pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
“We asked the president to lead, we asked him to put forward a plan, not a speech — a real plan — and he hasn’t. We will,” Speaker John Boehner said (R-Ohio) before Obama’s press conference.
The plan would authorize a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling after Congress passes a balanced-budget amendment.
The president said he had not studied the new Republican proposal, but said it “doesn't sound like a serious plan to me."
Obama also shot down the GOP calls for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, saying "we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs."
As he has done since last week, the president challenged Republicans to pursue the biggest plan possible, seizing an "opportunity to stabilize American's finances" for the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
Noting the acknowledgment by Republican leaders that the debt ceiling has to be raised, Obama said that they should not stop at the "routine" decision to increase the government's borrowing authority.
"I'm glad the congressional leaders want to raise the debt ceiling, but I think the American people expect more," Obama said.
The president has repeatedly called for the negotiators to put politics aside even as the negotiations have increasingly been framed through the lens of the 2012 election.
Obama said he was hopeful that the leaders would step back from trying to please their base constituencies and move on the debt ceiling, reducing the deficit and other economic agenda items.
"You know… whatever Sen. McConnell says about me on the floor of the Senate is not going to be impediment to us getting a deal done," Obama said. "You know, the question is going to be whether at any given moment we're willing to set politics aside at least briefly in order to get something done.
He continued: "Surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems. So there will be huge differences between now and November 2012 between the parties. And whoever the Republican nominee is, you know, we're going to have a big, serious debate about what we believe is the right way to guide America forward and to win the future. And I'm confident that I will win that debate.”
"And I think increasingly the American people are going to say to themselves, you know what? If a party or a politician is constantly taking the position, my way or the highway, constantly being locked into, you know, ideologically rigid positions, that you know, we're going to remember at the polls," Obama said.
Obama didn't rule out the fall-back plan proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that would give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a national default.
"It is constructive to say that if Washington operates as usual and can't get anything done, let's at least avert Armageddon," he said. However, Obama said he wanted to address the deeper debt issues.
"I have not seen a credible plan ... that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion [in savings] without really hurting ordinary folks," he said.
The president said voters are paying attention to "who seems to be trying to get something done” in the high-stakes negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
“It's going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression,” he said.
This story was updated at 12:50 p.m.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
How come I can't just leave meetings I don't like?
Read the original here.
President Obama Abruptly Walks Out Of Talks - Jonathan Allen And Jake Sherman
President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.Continue Reading
On a day when the Moody’s rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.
When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.
“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.
Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room.
“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”
On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.
Cantor insists he never interrupted the president, and was “deferential,” seeking permission to speak.
The latest and sharpest in a series of harsh exchanges between the two leaders heightened concern that markets could crash at any time amid fear of a reduction in the rating on once-ironclad U.S. debt.
Cantor, for his part, delivered the blow-by-blue of his interaction with Obama to a gaggle of Capitol Hill reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby, where lawmakers typically mingle with reporters during votes. It wasn’t through aides — it was Cantor taking on the president, directly.
Cantor accused the president and congressional Democrats of progressively low-balling, over the last several days, the savings that could be achieved from proposals discussed by Vice President Joe Biden’s working group on deficit reduction. Cantor warned that the group has not identified enough cuts to win House passage of a $2.5 trillion debt-limit increase — the size the president says is needed to get through the 2012 election, sources told POLITICO.
Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
He said that the negotiators should return to the White House Thursday to discuss savings from health care programs, budget caps and options for raising revenue.
“Then he said we also ought to get in the mode here, because we’re going to have to decide by Friday which way we’re going,” Cantor said. “He said really we ought to all start to think about things we can do rather than things we can’t.”
That’s when Cantor said he would be willing to abandon his own insistence on having just one vote on the debt ceiling if they could agree to a smaller package of cuts in exchange for a shorter-term hike that would require another increase before the 2012 election.Continue Reading
But Obama said he wouldn’t do the debt-limit increase incrementally and that he would veto a short-term bill.
“That’s when he got very agitated,” Cantor told reporters.
“Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence,” said an official in the meeting. “It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said no progress was made in the Wednesday talks.
“The president is spending a lot of time and effort to get us to an agreement, and it is tough,” Hoyer said.
Cantor said he’s trying to inform the group of what House members will agree to pass.
“I’m trying to represent where the votes are in the House. and we’ve always said the votes in the House are consistent with the principles that the speaker’s laid out that we’ve been operating on,” Cantor said. “It is dollar-for-dollar match, it is the no tax increase and it is this other subject that we are discussing tomorrow the enforcement mechanisms … I understand why he’s frustrated. But again, we’re trying to get this thing done, and that’s why I was a little taken aback.”
Despite the president’s abrupt exit, Democratic officials pointed to signs of progress. Officials on Wednesday for the first time reviewed a series of proposed spending cuts. Obama has offered $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, and the parties have agreed in principle on roughly $1.5 trillion of those, officials said.
The agenda Thursday will focus on revenue — the touchiest subject of all for Republicans — and mandatory health programs.
On Friday, Obama wants an assessment of where the process stands, Democratic officials said. Of significant concern is the calendar, and the ability to get everything done in time to avert a crisis. It was unclear whether a lack of agreement by Friday was any sort of dealbreaker, or what consequences might be attached to that assessment.
“We are not miles apart here,” said one Democratic official familiar with the debt talks. “It’s sitting right in front of them.”
Julie Mason, John Bresnahan and Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S5Mtvjrj
President Obama Abruptly Walks Out Of Talks - Jonathan Allen And Jake Sherman
President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations.
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting.Continue Reading
On a day when the Moody’s rating agency warned that American debt could be downgraded, the White House talks blew up amid a new round of sniping between Obama and Cantor, who are fast becoming bitter enemies.
When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.
“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.
Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room.
“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”
On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.
Cantor insists he never interrupted the president, and was “deferential,” seeking permission to speak.
The latest and sharpest in a series of harsh exchanges between the two leaders heightened concern that markets could crash at any time amid fear of a reduction in the rating on once-ironclad U.S. debt.
Cantor, for his part, delivered the blow-by-blue of his interaction with Obama to a gaggle of Capitol Hill reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby, where lawmakers typically mingle with reporters during votes. It wasn’t through aides — it was Cantor taking on the president, directly.
Cantor accused the president and congressional Democrats of progressively low-balling, over the last several days, the savings that could be achieved from proposals discussed by Vice President Joe Biden’s working group on deficit reduction. Cantor warned that the group has not identified enough cuts to win House passage of a $2.5 trillion debt-limit increase — the size the president says is needed to get through the 2012 election, sources told POLITICO.
Obama told Cantor that he would either have to agree to tax increases or give up on his demand that the debt hike be matched dollar-to-dollar to the cuts — that is, $2.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years in exchange for a $2.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling.
He said that the negotiators should return to the White House Thursday to discuss savings from health care programs, budget caps and options for raising revenue.
“Then he said we also ought to get in the mode here, because we’re going to have to decide by Friday which way we’re going,” Cantor said. “He said really we ought to all start to think about things we can do rather than things we can’t.”
That’s when Cantor said he would be willing to abandon his own insistence on having just one vote on the debt ceiling if they could agree to a smaller package of cuts in exchange for a shorter-term hike that would require another increase before the 2012 election.Continue Reading
But Obama said he wouldn’t do the debt-limit increase incrementally and that he would veto a short-term bill.
“That’s when he got very agitated,” Cantor told reporters.
“Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence,” said an official in the meeting. “It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said no progress was made in the Wednesday talks.
“The president is spending a lot of time and effort to get us to an agreement, and it is tough,” Hoyer said.
Cantor said he’s trying to inform the group of what House members will agree to pass.
“I’m trying to represent where the votes are in the House. and we’ve always said the votes in the House are consistent with the principles that the speaker’s laid out that we’ve been operating on,” Cantor said. “It is dollar-for-dollar match, it is the no tax increase and it is this other subject that we are discussing tomorrow the enforcement mechanisms … I understand why he’s frustrated. But again, we’re trying to get this thing done, and that’s why I was a little taken aback.”
Despite the president’s abrupt exit, Democratic officials pointed to signs of progress. Officials on Wednesday for the first time reviewed a series of proposed spending cuts. Obama has offered $1.7 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, and the parties have agreed in principle on roughly $1.5 trillion of those, officials said.
The agenda Thursday will focus on revenue — the touchiest subject of all for Republicans — and mandatory health programs.
On Friday, Obama wants an assessment of where the process stands, Democratic officials said. Of significant concern is the calendar, and the ability to get everything done in time to avert a crisis. It was unclear whether a lack of agreement by Friday was any sort of dealbreaker, or what consequences might be attached to that assessment.
“We are not miles apart here,” said one Democratic official familiar with the debt talks. “It’s sitting right in front of them.”
Julie Mason, John Bresnahan and Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S5Mtvjrj
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
What's your tax money being spent on?
Read the original here.
OPS (Omaha Public Schools) buys 8,000 diversity manuals
By Joe Dejka
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Metro/Region
The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive.
The book by Virginia education consultants could raise some eyebrows with its viewpoints.
The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”
The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.
The authors argue that public school teachers must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students and improve academic achievement.
The Omaha school board approved buying 8,000 copies of the book — one for every employee, including members of the custodial staff — in April. The decision to buy the book was made 11-0, with board member Mary Ellen Drickey passing on the vote.
Janice Garnett, OPS assistant superintendent of human resources, said she could not recall another time that the district had bought copies of the same book to give to every staff member.
Employees will be asked to read a couple of chapters each quarter and then meet in study groups to discuss the book using a study guide produced by the district, she said. For teachers, the study sessions will be a part of their professional development.
School board President Sandra Jensen said the district doesn't endorse everything in the book, nor does she expect employees to adopt the authors' positions. The book is intended to open a dialogue, she said.
“The purpose of providing this resource is to help staff see that people come from a multitude of different backgrounds which cause them to respond differently to the same set of facts, depending on their personal perspectives,” she said in a statement. “Recognition that one might have a certain perspective is critical to treating all people equally.”
Representatives of other large Nebraska school districts — Lincoln, Millard, Papillion-La Vista and Bellevue — said they have not used the book for training teachers, nor have the Council Bluffs Community Schools and Des Moines Public Schools.
Lincoln officials bought copies of a different cultural proficiency book to train administrators later this summer, according to spokeswoman Mary Kay Roth.
The book that OPS bought, “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change,” includes a worksheet for teachers to score themselves on a continuum of cultural sensitivity. The continuumranges from “cultural destructiveness,” as evidenced by genocide and ethnocide, to “cultural proficiency,” depicted as the highest level of awareness.
Only those educators who acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that “white” is a culture in America and that race “is a definer for social and economic status” can reach proficiency, the authors contend. Those who score poorly on the worksheet are asked in the book what they will do “to align yourself with the values expressed.”
Jensen said the district will not use the book to evaluate or judge employees.
The book says teachers must overcome irrational fear of homosexuality and reject the “color-blind” approach to teaching in which teachers treat all children the same. Instead, the group identity of students of color should be recognized and esteemed, the authors say.
The authors ask readers to reflect on several hypothetical cases, including that of a gay “teacher of the year” afraid to post family photos of his male partner for his school's Family Day, an African-American parent upset by a sixth-grade Early-American Day because African-Americans were enslaved in those days, and a principal whose attempt to reach out to Muslim students backfires when he announces over the intercom that students should welcome Muslims though they “might believe in violence.”
The authors — Franklin and Brenda CampbellJones and Randall B. Lindsey — all former teachers, write that their intent in the book is “to prepare educators to unshackle themselves from tradition and become facilitators for reconciliation of historical injustices.”
Franklin CampbellJones said in an interview that although some issues in the book are considered “challenging” and “taboo,” discussing them is important to break down barriers to educating every child.
He said the book has been well-received by other school districts using it, including San Diego and Atlanta, and districts in Maryland and Canada.
The push for cultural proficiency, sometimes referred to as cultural competence, is a trend across the country, though what's meant by these terms varies. Definitions range from encouraging teachers to understand the cultural backgrounds of students to more aggressive efforts to rewrite curricula and adapt school systems to immigrant cultures.
A primary concern of critics is that schools and universities could use cultural proficiency as an ideological litmus test and that the money put toward such programs could be better spent directly on academics.
In 2009 the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities drew criticism when a task force proposed introducing cultural competency requirements for its teacher candidates.
The task force proposed that future teachers, in order to be recommended for licensure, should “recognize and demonstrate understanding of white privilege,” fight for social justice and take tests to measure their “intercultural sensitivity” and “cultural intelligence.”
Among the critics were the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit watchdog group advocating individual rights at America's colleges and universities, which argued that the proposals intruded on matters of individual freedom and conscience.
The Nebraska Board of Education is considering drafting teacher standards that call for teachers to be “culturally competent,” a move spokeswoman Betty VanDeventer said is intended to make teachers more aware and respectful of children of all cultures. Last winter, board members authorized a 41-member committee of teachers, principals, parents and others to draft the standards.
The proposed standards call upon teachers to, among other things, connect with a student's traditions to move him toward academic success, use “culturally appropriate instructional strategies” and make sure tests are valid and address the diversity of students.
The draft standards do not include any of the social justice goals contained in the book acquired by OPS.
The state plans to hold forums this summer and fall on the draft standards. The Nebraska standards would be voluntary. Local districts could decide whether to adopt them.
Paul Peterson, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, and a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said cultural proficiency is part of a broader agenda advocated by people “who think that we should have a teaching force that has a certain political perspective.”
About OPS spending stimulus money on the book, he said: “That must be a wealthy school district.”
Stimulus rules allowed districts to spend money on teacher training, but Peterson suggested the money would be better spent on academic training.
“I would like to know whether the teachers are proficient in the subject they're going to be teaching,” he said. “It would be nice, if they're going to be teaching science, to be proficient in science; or math, to be proficient in math.”
Peterson said it's important that teachers be aware of the traditions a child brings to the school, and to take those into account when working with the pupil and deciding how to engage and motivate him or her.
He is concerned, however, about the book's general statements about the white population. That kind of generalization can be “extremely misleading” and “it would seem it would not be the kind of book you would distribute,” he said.
Jensen said there's no hidden agenda with the book study. She said she had started reading the book before the board voted to approve the purchase, and she intends to finish it and participate in the sessions.
Asked last week if she believes white privilege exists in Omaha, Jensen said: “That depends on the cultural lens that one looks through.”
The Omaha school district has a racially diverse enrollment. Last year the enrollment was 35.7 percent Caucasian, 29.9 percent Hispanic, 29.7 percent African-American, 3.1 percent Asian-American and 1.6 percent American-Indian. Students speak 93 different languages, Omaha Public Schools officials say.
The district, like most across the country, has struggled to close stubborn achievement gaps between whites and minorities.
Garnett, with OPS, said the district will use the book as a conversation starter on topics such as social equity, cultural understanding and racial justice.
“We're not saying that every idea in that book you have to accept,” Garnett said. “Not at all. What we're saying is let's explore this whole concept and see where we want to be as a school district when it relates to the diverse student population we now serve.”
Teachers will be asked to reflect on the book this year, and then next year the district will look for ways to apply some of the concepts in the classroom and workplace, she said.
That will include looking at “culturally responsive teaching” as a way to improve achievement for kids, Garnett said.
In defense of the district's purchase, OPS spokeswoman Luanne Nelson pointed to a study released by two Latino advocacy groups in Massachusetts calling for cultural proficiency in that state's schools.
When there are gaps in achievement between whites and minorities, schools need to identify obstacles to learning embedded in school culture, policies and practices, according to the study released by the Sociedad Latina and the University of Massachusetts' Mauricio Gaston Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy.
Nancy Edick, dean of the College of Education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said it is “imperative” that teachers are prepared for increasingly diverse schools.
Edick has trained Millard Public Schools teachers in culturally responsive teaching.
The hope is that teachers develop an understanding and appreciation for diversity in the classroom, school and community, and that they see “the increasing diversity we're all experiencing is not a threat, it's an opportunity,” she said.
“The rich life experiences of a diverse classroom contribute to an excellent education. It's an education that helps prepare our kids for a world they're going to live in, an increasingly diverse world,” Edick said.
Contact the writer: 402-444-1077, joe.dejka@owh
OPS (Omaha Public Schools) buys 8,000 diversity manuals
By Joe Dejka
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Metro/Region
The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive.
The book by Virginia education consultants could raise some eyebrows with its viewpoints.
The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”
The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.
The authors argue that public school teachers must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students and improve academic achievement.
The Omaha school board approved buying 8,000 copies of the book — one for every employee, including members of the custodial staff — in April. The decision to buy the book was made 11-0, with board member Mary Ellen Drickey passing on the vote.
Janice Garnett, OPS assistant superintendent of human resources, said she could not recall another time that the district had bought copies of the same book to give to every staff member.
Employees will be asked to read a couple of chapters each quarter and then meet in study groups to discuss the book using a study guide produced by the district, she said. For teachers, the study sessions will be a part of their professional development.
School board President Sandra Jensen said the district doesn't endorse everything in the book, nor does she expect employees to adopt the authors' positions. The book is intended to open a dialogue, she said.
“The purpose of providing this resource is to help staff see that people come from a multitude of different backgrounds which cause them to respond differently to the same set of facts, depending on their personal perspectives,” she said in a statement. “Recognition that one might have a certain perspective is critical to treating all people equally.”
Representatives of other large Nebraska school districts — Lincoln, Millard, Papillion-La Vista and Bellevue — said they have not used the book for training teachers, nor have the Council Bluffs Community Schools and Des Moines Public Schools.
Lincoln officials bought copies of a different cultural proficiency book to train administrators later this summer, according to spokeswoman Mary Kay Roth.
The book that OPS bought, “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change,” includes a worksheet for teachers to score themselves on a continuum of cultural sensitivity. The continuumranges from “cultural destructiveness,” as evidenced by genocide and ethnocide, to “cultural proficiency,” depicted as the highest level of awareness.
Only those educators who acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that “white” is a culture in America and that race “is a definer for social and economic status” can reach proficiency, the authors contend. Those who score poorly on the worksheet are asked in the book what they will do “to align yourself with the values expressed.”
Jensen said the district will not use the book to evaluate or judge employees.
The book says teachers must overcome irrational fear of homosexuality and reject the “color-blind” approach to teaching in which teachers treat all children the same. Instead, the group identity of students of color should be recognized and esteemed, the authors say.
The authors ask readers to reflect on several hypothetical cases, including that of a gay “teacher of the year” afraid to post family photos of his male partner for his school's Family Day, an African-American parent upset by a sixth-grade Early-American Day because African-Americans were enslaved in those days, and a principal whose attempt to reach out to Muslim students backfires when he announces over the intercom that students should welcome Muslims though they “might believe in violence.”
The authors — Franklin and Brenda CampbellJones and Randall B. Lindsey — all former teachers, write that their intent in the book is “to prepare educators to unshackle themselves from tradition and become facilitators for reconciliation of historical injustices.”
Franklin CampbellJones said in an interview that although some issues in the book are considered “challenging” and “taboo,” discussing them is important to break down barriers to educating every child.
He said the book has been well-received by other school districts using it, including San Diego and Atlanta, and districts in Maryland and Canada.
The push for cultural proficiency, sometimes referred to as cultural competence, is a trend across the country, though what's meant by these terms varies. Definitions range from encouraging teachers to understand the cultural backgrounds of students to more aggressive efforts to rewrite curricula and adapt school systems to immigrant cultures.
A primary concern of critics is that schools and universities could use cultural proficiency as an ideological litmus test and that the money put toward such programs could be better spent directly on academics.
In 2009 the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities drew criticism when a task force proposed introducing cultural competency requirements for its teacher candidates.
The task force proposed that future teachers, in order to be recommended for licensure, should “recognize and demonstrate understanding of white privilege,” fight for social justice and take tests to measure their “intercultural sensitivity” and “cultural intelligence.”
Among the critics were the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit watchdog group advocating individual rights at America's colleges and universities, which argued that the proposals intruded on matters of individual freedom and conscience.
The Nebraska Board of Education is considering drafting teacher standards that call for teachers to be “culturally competent,” a move spokeswoman Betty VanDeventer said is intended to make teachers more aware and respectful of children of all cultures. Last winter, board members authorized a 41-member committee of teachers, principals, parents and others to draft the standards.
The proposed standards call upon teachers to, among other things, connect with a student's traditions to move him toward academic success, use “culturally appropriate instructional strategies” and make sure tests are valid and address the diversity of students.
The draft standards do not include any of the social justice goals contained in the book acquired by OPS.
The state plans to hold forums this summer and fall on the draft standards. The Nebraska standards would be voluntary. Local districts could decide whether to adopt them.
Paul Peterson, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, and a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said cultural proficiency is part of a broader agenda advocated by people “who think that we should have a teaching force that has a certain political perspective.”
About OPS spending stimulus money on the book, he said: “That must be a wealthy school district.”
Stimulus rules allowed districts to spend money on teacher training, but Peterson suggested the money would be better spent on academic training.
“I would like to know whether the teachers are proficient in the subject they're going to be teaching,” he said. “It would be nice, if they're going to be teaching science, to be proficient in science; or math, to be proficient in math.”
Peterson said it's important that teachers be aware of the traditions a child brings to the school, and to take those into account when working with the pupil and deciding how to engage and motivate him or her.
He is concerned, however, about the book's general statements about the white population. That kind of generalization can be “extremely misleading” and “it would seem it would not be the kind of book you would distribute,” he said.
Jensen said there's no hidden agenda with the book study. She said she had started reading the book before the board voted to approve the purchase, and she intends to finish it and participate in the sessions.
Asked last week if she believes white privilege exists in Omaha, Jensen said: “That depends on the cultural lens that one looks through.”
The Omaha school district has a racially diverse enrollment. Last year the enrollment was 35.7 percent Caucasian, 29.9 percent Hispanic, 29.7 percent African-American, 3.1 percent Asian-American and 1.6 percent American-Indian. Students speak 93 different languages, Omaha Public Schools officials say.
The district, like most across the country, has struggled to close stubborn achievement gaps between whites and minorities.
Garnett, with OPS, said the district will use the book as a conversation starter on topics such as social equity, cultural understanding and racial justice.
“We're not saying that every idea in that book you have to accept,” Garnett said. “Not at all. What we're saying is let's explore this whole concept and see where we want to be as a school district when it relates to the diverse student population we now serve.”
Teachers will be asked to reflect on the book this year, and then next year the district will look for ways to apply some of the concepts in the classroom and workplace, she said.
That will include looking at “culturally responsive teaching” as a way to improve achievement for kids, Garnett said.
In defense of the district's purchase, OPS spokeswoman Luanne Nelson pointed to a study released by two Latino advocacy groups in Massachusetts calling for cultural proficiency in that state's schools.
When there are gaps in achievement between whites and minorities, schools need to identify obstacles to learning embedded in school culture, policies and practices, according to the study released by the Sociedad Latina and the University of Massachusetts' Mauricio Gaston Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy.
Nancy Edick, dean of the College of Education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said it is “imperative” that teachers are prepared for increasingly diverse schools.
Edick has trained Millard Public Schools teachers in culturally responsive teaching.
The hope is that teachers develop an understanding and appreciation for diversity in the classroom, school and community, and that they see “the increasing diversity we're all experiencing is not a threat, it's an opportunity,” she said.
“The rich life experiences of a diverse classroom contribute to an excellent education. It's an education that helps prepare our kids for a world they're going to live in, an increasingly diverse world,” Edick said.
Contact the writer: 402-444-1077, joe.dejka@owh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
