(BUSINESS WIRE)--T. Boone Pickens offered the following comment on President Obama’s speech yesterday at the Trinity Structural Towers wind energy plant in Newton, Iowa.
“President Obama’s Earth Day message couldn’t be more important: Congress needs to act now to advance the creation of renewable energy jobs—a vital component of the comprehensive energy reform we so urgently need.
The ability for America’s workforce to adapt to the changing marketplace is key to our recovery from the recession. One of the fundamental elements of the Pickens Plan is the need to embrace the abundant opportunities we have to develop a vibrant alternative energy supply that will revitalize our economy, bringing jobs and families back to the heartland. Newton is a prime example of this transformation—a town that was struggling after its biggest employer was sold and shut down manufacturing operations is now a model for job creation. Helped by business incentives and tax breaks, the former Maytag plant is now thriving under Trinity, turning out towers that will support the very turbines that can develop this region into the Saudi Arabia of wind.
It is important to remember that our work on an energy plan is not done. We need to continue focusing on reducing our dependence on foreign oil and to do that, we have to target transportation and replace foreign diesel with domestic alternatives such as natural gas. Congress needs to act now to adopt a national renewable electricity standard in order to create a real long-term commitment to renewable energy in America, creating thousands of good jobs. It is time to move now to reform our energy policy. Congress has the unique opportunity to act and protect our economy and our security. I agree with President Obama’s vision that will retrain idled workers, revitalize shuttered manufacturing towns, and adapt to a new, green economy.”
About the Pickens Plan
Unveiled on July 8, 2008 by T. Boone Pickens, the Pickens Plan is a detailed solution for ending the United States’ growing dependence on foreign oil. Earlier this year, when oil prices reached $140/barrel, America was spending about $700 billion for foreign oil, equaling the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. That figure has decreased some while oil prices have retreated, but the U.S. is still dependent on foreign nations for nearly 70 percent of its oil, representing a continuing national economic and national security threat. The plan calls for investing in power generation from domestic renewable resources such as wind and using our abundant supplies of natural gas as a transportation fuel, replacing more than one-third of our imported oil.
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Boehner: Economy Will Improve Because of American Ingenuity, Not the President’s Reckless Washington Spending
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after President Obama’s speech on the economy at Georgetown University:
“Our economy will improve – but it will be because of the ingenuity and hard work of American workers and small businesses, not because of the Washington Democrats’ misguided policies that rely on recklessly spending taxpayer dollars. This is money we don’t have, yet the President’s trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ was loaded with wasteful spending that has nothing to do with job creation, his $410 billion ‘omnibus’ spending bill was chock full of 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks, and his $3.5 trillion budget paves the way for a bigger and costlier federal government that will not create new jobs, help rebuild Americans’ savings, and get our economy moving again. Instead of embracing tough decisions, Democrats have avoided them in favor of saddling our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt that we know they cannot afford.
“During this time of economic crisis, we must do better. Republicans are offering better solutions to spur economic growth now and in the future, including our plan to create twice as many jobs – 6.2 million total – at half the cost of the President’s ‘stimulus’ spending plan. It’s time for Democrats to stop paying lip-service to working across party lines to tackle our economic challenges and actually start doing it. The hard-working American families and small businesses that will lead our economy back to prosperity deserve no less.”
“Our economy will improve – but it will be because of the ingenuity and hard work of American workers and small businesses, not because of the Washington Democrats’ misguided policies that rely on recklessly spending taxpayer dollars. This is money we don’t have, yet the President’s trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ was loaded with wasteful spending that has nothing to do with job creation, his $410 billion ‘omnibus’ spending bill was chock full of 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks, and his $3.5 trillion budget paves the way for a bigger and costlier federal government that will not create new jobs, help rebuild Americans’ savings, and get our economy moving again. Instead of embracing tough decisions, Democrats have avoided them in favor of saddling our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt that we know they cannot afford.
“During this time of economic crisis, we must do better. Republicans are offering better solutions to spur economic growth now and in the future, including our plan to create twice as many jobs – 6.2 million total – at half the cost of the President’s ‘stimulus’ spending plan. It’s time for Democrats to stop paying lip-service to working across party lines to tackle our economic challenges and actually start doing it. The hard-working American families and small businesses that will lead our economy back to prosperity deserve no less.”
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Boehner: President’s National Energy Tax Will Destroy Jobs, Wreck Family Budgets
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday issued the following statement on President Obama’s demand for Congress to pass a budget that includes a massive new national energy tax that will hit middle-class families and small businesses:
“It’s disturbing that the President is calling for a national energy tax that will destroy jobs and wreck family budgets, and even more disturbing that White House officials have identified this national energy tax as a non-negotiable presidential priority. We need a better solution, and Republicans will offer one.
“Middle-class families and small businesses face a slumping job market, rising costs of living, and evaporating savings. Unfortunately, President Obama’s budget is poised to make matters even worse forcing Americans to deal with a new national energy tax that will cost families up to $3,100 per year.
“From last week’s revelation that the President’s budget costs a staggering $2.3 trillion more than the White House claimed to today’s discussion of a new national energy tax, Washington Democrats are making all the wrong moves when it comes to getting our economy back on track. They should work with Republicans on a budget that will help rebuild savings, create jobs, and get the government’s fiscal house back in order. The President’s budget will harm our economy and destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. Republicans will offer a better budget solution in the days to come, and we hope the President and his Democratic colleagues will give it the consideration it deserves.”
“It’s disturbing that the President is calling for a national energy tax that will destroy jobs and wreck family budgets, and even more disturbing that White House officials have identified this national energy tax as a non-negotiable presidential priority. We need a better solution, and Republicans will offer one.
“Middle-class families and small businesses face a slumping job market, rising costs of living, and evaporating savings. Unfortunately, President Obama’s budget is poised to make matters even worse forcing Americans to deal with a new national energy tax that will cost families up to $3,100 per year.
“From last week’s revelation that the President’s budget costs a staggering $2.3 trillion more than the White House claimed to today’s discussion of a new national energy tax, Washington Democrats are making all the wrong moves when it comes to getting our economy back on track. They should work with Republicans on a budget that will help rebuild savings, create jobs, and get the government’s fiscal house back in order. The President’s budget will harm our economy and destroy jobs by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much. Republicans will offer a better budget solution in the days to come, and we hope the President and his Democratic colleagues will give it the consideration it deserves.”
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama Effort to End Armed Pilots Program an Outrage, Says CCRKBA
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A revelation by the Washington Times that President Barack Obama is trying to quietly end the armed pilot program, making air travel more vulnerable to terrorist attack, should outrage travelers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
"The Washington Times nailed it," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who proposed arming pilots just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and championed the armed pilot program. "What Obama is doing is risking public safety, as the newspaper put it, 'in the name of an anti-gun ideology.'"
The newspaper reported in its Tuesday edition that President Obama is "quietly ending the federal firearms program" by diverting some $2 million from the training program to hire "supervisory" staff, whose job, it appears, will be to harass armed pilots through unnecessary field inspections.
"How dare the president, or anybody in his administration, take measures to erode the safety of air travelers," Gottlieb questioned. "The armed pilot program provides a guaranteed level of security to the public. There may or may not be an air marshal aboard every airplane, but there is definitely a pilot in the cockpit.
"We trust commercial airline pilots with $500 million aircraft," he continued. "We can certainly trust them with $500 pistols to defend those planes, and the lives of their passengers.
"Certain individuals have never liked the armed pilot program," Gottlieb acknowledged. "These anti-gun, anti-self-defense bureaucrats seem more interested in their own power, and protecting their little empires, than they are in protecting the public. And now, Obama is catering to their anti-gun bigotry."
Call the White House at (202) 456-1111, or send a comment by visiting www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
"The Washington Times nailed it," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who proposed arming pilots just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and championed the armed pilot program. "What Obama is doing is risking public safety, as the newspaper put it, 'in the name of an anti-gun ideology.'"
The newspaper reported in its Tuesday edition that President Obama is "quietly ending the federal firearms program" by diverting some $2 million from the training program to hire "supervisory" staff, whose job, it appears, will be to harass armed pilots through unnecessary field inspections.
"How dare the president, or anybody in his administration, take measures to erode the safety of air travelers," Gottlieb questioned. "The armed pilot program provides a guaranteed level of security to the public. There may or may not be an air marshal aboard every airplane, but there is definitely a pilot in the cockpit.
"We trust commercial airline pilots with $500 million aircraft," he continued. "We can certainly trust them with $500 pistols to defend those planes, and the lives of their passengers.
"Certain individuals have never liked the armed pilot program," Gottlieb acknowledged. "These anti-gun, anti-self-defense bureaucrats seem more interested in their own power, and protecting their little empires, than they are in protecting the public. And now, Obama is catering to their anti-gun bigotry."
Call the White House at (202) 456-1111, or send a comment by visiting www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Federal Government Still Viewed as Secretive; Public Supports President's Directive on Transparency
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the first time in four years, public opinion about government secrecy has leveled off, although more than seven in 10 adults still consider the federal government to be secretive, according to the 2009 Sunshine Week survey by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.
Since 2006, the percentage of adults who believe the federal government to be somewhat or very secretive has grown steadily; from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008. The latest survey finds 73 percent characterizing federal government as secretive.
This mood is perhaps buoyed by the nearly eight in 10 adults who think President Obama's Freedom of Information directive calling for a presumption of disclosure is the right thing to do.
"Trust in government has been on the decline for some time in the United States. The previous administration's disclosure policies certainly contributed to public skepticism," said Jerry Miller, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University. "People now appear more optimistic, but still guarded, about President Obama and the current administration's disclosure practices under the Freedom of Information Act."
As in previous years' surveys, people see their state and local governments as more open than the federal system. At the state level, 54 percent view government as open, 44 percent as secretive. People also are more trusting of local public officials. More than half, 56 percent, say their local government is very or somewhat open, with 44 percent rating it as very or somewhat open.
"The more open our government, the more inclusive the processes that impact our everyday lives," noted Rich Boehne, president and chief executive officer of The E.W. Scripps Co.
Two-thirds of adults (67 percent) say they've heard of the federal Freedom of Information Act, and when told about it, slightly more (77 percent) think it is a good law. However, hardly anyone surveyed had ever used it. Nine in 10 adults (94 percent) have never requested information using a FOIA request. None of this, of course, dulls their skepticism about compliance with the law: 61 percent say they believe the federal government only sometimes, rarely or never obeys FOIA law.
"It's heartening there is a reversal in the downward trend of public confidence in the openness of the federal government," said Andy Alexander, co-chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editor's FOI Committee.
"But it's sobering to note that more than half of those surveyed said they still believe their government only sometimes, rarely or never abides by disclosure requirements mandated by law," added Alexander, who is ombudsman at The Washington Post.
The survey of 946 adults was conducted by telephone from Feb. 16 through March 11 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The survey has a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.
The survey has been commissioned by ASNE for Sunshine Week since 2006, Sunshine Week is a non-partisan open government initiative led by ASNE, with print, online and broadcast media; public officials; civic groups and non-profit organizations; public and special libraries; educators and students; religious leaders; and others. It is primarily funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Since 2006, the percentage of adults who believe the federal government to be somewhat or very secretive has grown steadily; from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008. The latest survey finds 73 percent characterizing federal government as secretive.
This mood is perhaps buoyed by the nearly eight in 10 adults who think President Obama's Freedom of Information directive calling for a presumption of disclosure is the right thing to do.
"Trust in government has been on the decline for some time in the United States. The previous administration's disclosure policies certainly contributed to public skepticism," said Jerry Miller, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University. "People now appear more optimistic, but still guarded, about President Obama and the current administration's disclosure practices under the Freedom of Information Act."
As in previous years' surveys, people see their state and local governments as more open than the federal system. At the state level, 54 percent view government as open, 44 percent as secretive. People also are more trusting of local public officials. More than half, 56 percent, say their local government is very or somewhat open, with 44 percent rating it as very or somewhat open.
"The more open our government, the more inclusive the processes that impact our everyday lives," noted Rich Boehne, president and chief executive officer of The E.W. Scripps Co.
Two-thirds of adults (67 percent) say they've heard of the federal Freedom of Information Act, and when told about it, slightly more (77 percent) think it is a good law. However, hardly anyone surveyed had ever used it. Nine in 10 adults (94 percent) have never requested information using a FOIA request. None of this, of course, dulls their skepticism about compliance with the law: 61 percent say they believe the federal government only sometimes, rarely or never obeys FOIA law.
"It's heartening there is a reversal in the downward trend of public confidence in the openness of the federal government," said Andy Alexander, co-chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editor's FOI Committee.
"But it's sobering to note that more than half of those surveyed said they still believe their government only sometimes, rarely or never abides by disclosure requirements mandated by law," added Alexander, who is ombudsman at The Washington Post.
The survey of 946 adults was conducted by telephone from Feb. 16 through March 11 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The survey has a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.
The survey has been commissioned by ASNE for Sunshine Week since 2006, Sunshine Week is a non-partisan open government initiative led by ASNE, with print, online and broadcast media; public officials; civic groups and non-profit organizations; public and special libraries; educators and students; religious leaders; and others. It is primarily funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Monday, March 9, 2009
National Multiple Sclerosis Society Commends President Obama's Initial Steps in Removing the Bans on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The National Multiple Sclerosis Society is a driving force in creating a world free of MS. To advance this goal, the Society continues to seek ways to prevent, slow the progression or repair the effects of MS. One channel is by supporting scientifically meritorious medical research, including research using human cells. This is done in accordance with federal, state and local laws and with adherence to the strictest ethical and procedural guidelines. For the past eight years, federal policies have impeded these efforts by severely limiting the number of approved embryonic stem cell lines that could be used in federally funded research and prohibiting the donation of unused embryos for research purposes by people utilizing the services of in vitro fertilization clinics.
President Obama has taken a major step in removing the barriers to a promising path of responsible scientific research and the Society commends him for the new hope and optimism he brings to the millions of people living with chronic and debilitating diseases or disabilities.
Says Weyman T. Johnson, Jr., Chair, National MS Society's board of directors:
"As an MS advocate and someone living with the disease, I applaud President Obama's actions. The lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research now allows our best scientific minds the opportunity to pursue all avenues that can speed more effective treatments and we hope, eventually, find a cure for the over 400,000 people in America living with MS."
Adds Dr. John Richert, Executive Vice President for Research and Clinical Programs, National MS Society:
"The National MS Society believes that all promising avenues that could lead to the cure or prevention of MS, or relieve its symptoms by repairing MS damage, must be explored - including expanding the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research. President Obama's actions to alleviate restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells represent an important step that will allow us to move forward with greater speed and effectiveness in exploring potential new areas for treatment, not only for MS but for many chronic diseases."
President Obama has taken a major step in removing the barriers to a promising path of responsible scientific research and the Society commends him for the new hope and optimism he brings to the millions of people living with chronic and debilitating diseases or disabilities.
Says Weyman T. Johnson, Jr., Chair, National MS Society's board of directors:
"As an MS advocate and someone living with the disease, I applaud President Obama's actions. The lifting of the ban on embryonic stem cell research now allows our best scientific minds the opportunity to pursue all avenues that can speed more effective treatments and we hope, eventually, find a cure for the over 400,000 people in America living with MS."
Adds Dr. John Richert, Executive Vice President for Research and Clinical Programs, National MS Society:
"The National MS Society believes that all promising avenues that could lead to the cure or prevention of MS, or relieve its symptoms by repairing MS damage, must be explored - including expanding the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research. President Obama's actions to alleviate restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells represent an important step that will allow us to move forward with greater speed and effectiveness in exploring potential new areas for treatment, not only for MS but for many chronic diseases."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
AFGE Applauds White House Efforts to Stop Contracting Out Government Functions
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, President Obama announced significant reforms in how the government does business by changing contracting methods and standards, including a call for federal employee performance of inherently governmental functions. The American Federation of Government Employees has long insisted that inherently governmental work, and closely related work of a recurring nature, should always be performed by reliable and experienced federal employees who put the public interest first.
"For too long, American taxpayers have had to foot the bill for unnecessary, and costly projects that have served only to line the pockets of contractors," said AFGE National President John Gage. "It is clear that President Obama is taking seriously his commitment to a better, stronger government by ensuring that federal programs are not driven by private interests."
"This administration intends to stop contracting out government services that should be performed by federal employees," continued Gage. "We hope this is the end of the era of privatization during which agencies were forced to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of integrity and accountability of federal programs."
President Obama's direction builds on Section 736 of Division D of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that requires all agencies to establish plans to insource new and outsourced work, particularly inherently governmental work wrongly contracted out, work contracted out without competition, and work contracted out that is poorly performed.
"From our VA hospitals where former President Bush's privatization agenda has undermined the care that our veterans receive, to the Social Security Administration where contracting out has jeopardized Americans' privacy, AFGE embraces President Obama's measures to reform how the government does business," concluded Gage. "AFGE and its dedicated members stand ready to help make the government run smoothly and efficiently."
"For too long, American taxpayers have had to foot the bill for unnecessary, and costly projects that have served only to line the pockets of contractors," said AFGE National President John Gage. "It is clear that President Obama is taking seriously his commitment to a better, stronger government by ensuring that federal programs are not driven by private interests."
"This administration intends to stop contracting out government services that should be performed by federal employees," continued Gage. "We hope this is the end of the era of privatization during which agencies were forced to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of integrity and accountability of federal programs."
President Obama's direction builds on Section 736 of Division D of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that requires all agencies to establish plans to insource new and outsourced work, particularly inherently governmental work wrongly contracted out, work contracted out without competition, and work contracted out that is poorly performed.
"From our VA hospitals where former President Bush's privatization agenda has undermined the care that our veterans receive, to the Social Security Administration where contracting out has jeopardized Americans' privacy, AFGE embraces President Obama's measures to reform how the government does business," concluded Gage. "AFGE and its dedicated members stand ready to help make the government run smoothly and efficiently."
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Missile Defense - Deal or no Deal - with Russia
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Riki Ellison, Chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org, went on record today commenting on the subject of the United States and Russia making a deal on the proposed third site for deployment of our missile defense system in Poland and limiting Iran's development and deployment of ballistic missiles. His comments are as follows:
"The United States decision to deploy missile defenses in Europe for the protection of the American Public, U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Allies is about Iran's growing capability, intent and national will of nuclear ambition coupled with ballistic missiles. Any and all influences that can prevent and stop Iranian efforts to build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles should be fully endorsed and supported. For the United States of America to stop the deployment of the missile defense system in Europe without complete verification that the Iranian nuclear program is dismantled and destroyed as well as the termination of development and deployment of long and medium-range ballistic missiles would put in jeopardy and risk the lives of the American public, the European public and the U.S. Armed Forces deployed in Europe and the Middle East."
"It would be foolish and remiss to believe that President Obama and his National Security Team would not choose to defend the American public, U.S. Military Forces and our Allies from an Iran that will soon develop nuclear strategic missiles. To that extent, movement towards deployment of missile defense systems in Europe must proceed."
"We fully support the outreach to Russia by this President and would hope that Russia is capable of halting Iran's national intent and their development of nuclear and ballistic missile programs. We would also want that Presidential outreach to be extended to collaboration and cooperation with Russia on their missile defense systems, of both sensors and interceptors, to help defend Europe, Russia and the United States if Iran chooses to ignore Russia's influence."
"The United States decision to deploy missile defenses in Europe for the protection of the American Public, U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Allies is about Iran's growing capability, intent and national will of nuclear ambition coupled with ballistic missiles. Any and all influences that can prevent and stop Iranian efforts to build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles should be fully endorsed and supported. For the United States of America to stop the deployment of the missile defense system in Europe without complete verification that the Iranian nuclear program is dismantled and destroyed as well as the termination of development and deployment of long and medium-range ballistic missiles would put in jeopardy and risk the lives of the American public, the European public and the U.S. Armed Forces deployed in Europe and the Middle East."
"It would be foolish and remiss to believe that President Obama and his National Security Team would not choose to defend the American public, U.S. Military Forces and our Allies from an Iran that will soon develop nuclear strategic missiles. To that extent, movement towards deployment of missile defense systems in Europe must proceed."
"We fully support the outreach to Russia by this President and would hope that Russia is capable of halting Iran's national intent and their development of nuclear and ballistic missile programs. We would also want that Presidential outreach to be extended to collaboration and cooperation with Russia on their missile defense systems, of both sensors and interceptors, to help defend Europe, Russia and the United States if Iran chooses to ignore Russia's influence."
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Obama's Speech Filled with Rhetoric, Wishful Thinking, According to Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation Columnist, Robert Hale
/PRNewswire/ -- The Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation website, http://www.fgfbooks.com/, released a column yesterday critiquing 14 points from President Obama's speech on Tuesday. North Dakota attorney and builder, Robert L. Hale, takes the President to task for "wishful rhetoric" and his "clear misunderstanding of how markets work."
Some of Hale's 14 points include:
--The President said: "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans." Hale comments: "Does it seem a realistic that two percent of Americans are going to pay off a federal debt estimated to be between $12 trillion and $19 trillion?"
--The President said: "We have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade." Hale replies: "What has been provided is health care insurance -- not health care reform. Nothing has been done to reform a health care system that is bloated by massive Medicare and Medicaid mismanagement.
--The President said: "...we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills." Hale replies: "As a builder for more than 30 years, I can state unequivocally this is a fiction. It is simply cannot be done.
--The President said: "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks." Hale comments: "Yet news reports identified up to 9,000 earmarks in Congress' $410 billion omnibus spending bill."
--The President said: "The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything... and [how] businesses make payroll." Hale responds: "Businesses do not make payrolls with loans. Those that do, don't stay in business; they fail."
For more than three decades, Mr. Hale has been involved in drafting proposed laws and counseling elected officials in ways to remove burdensome and unnecessary rules and regulations.
"For those who listened carefully and understand how sustainable jobs and prosperity happen, the President's speech was a terrible disappointment," Mr. Hale said.
Some of Hale's 14 points include:
--The President said: "In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans." Hale comments: "Does it seem a realistic that two percent of Americans are going to pay off a federal debt estimated to be between $12 trillion and $19 trillion?"
--The President said: "We have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade." Hale replies: "What has been provided is health care insurance -- not health care reform. Nothing has been done to reform a health care system that is bloated by massive Medicare and Medicaid mismanagement.
--The President said: "...we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills." Hale replies: "As a builder for more than 30 years, I can state unequivocally this is a fiction. It is simply cannot be done.
--The President said: "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks." Hale comments: "Yet news reports identified up to 9,000 earmarks in Congress' $410 billion omnibus spending bill."
--The President said: "The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything... and [how] businesses make payroll." Hale responds: "Businesses do not make payrolls with loans. Those that do, don't stay in business; they fail."
For more than three decades, Mr. Hale has been involved in drafting proposed laws and counseling elected officials in ways to remove burdensome and unnecessary rules and regulations.
"For those who listened carefully and understand how sustainable jobs and prosperity happen, the President's speech was a terrible disappointment," Mr. Hale said.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Highway Users Bewildered by Administration's Transportation Budget Proposal
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For attribution to Greg Cohen, President & CEO of The American Highway Users Alliance:
"Apparently, the staff at US Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Office of Management and Budget have not been listening to President Obama and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
"Throughout his campaign and during his inauguration speech, President Obama promoted investment in 'roads and bridges' to keep our country moving. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary LaHood opposed the tolling of existing, toll-free roads. Yet the authors of the Transportation Department's 2010 budget framework must have been out of the office when their bosses were speaking.
"The President's strong support for roads and bridges serves him well. Despite the controversy over the Economic Recovery package, 94% of Americans supported the President's call to increase infrastructure investments. Roads and bridges rank #2 in importance among infrastructure priorities for the American people. And while Congress only provided 3.6% of the Economic Recovery funds for roads and bridges, the President's consistent promotion of highway infrastructure made his views crystal clear.
"Yet the 2010 budget framework for DOT includes no mention of roads, repeals the 87-year old contracting mechanism that guarantees funds for multi-year projects, and mentions 'road pricing' (tolls) as an option for states to deal with the meager funding levels.
"Given all of the stated support for roads and bridges, The Highway Users are mystified by the treatment of highway funding in the FY10 budget framework," said Greg Cohen, President & CEO of The Highway Users.
The budget framework raises four red flags:
1. The proposal implies that the 87-year old budgetary mechanism known as
"contract authority" be deleted from the budget. Without contract
authority, multi-year highway projects cannot be fully-funded.
2. There is no mention of President Obama's support for roads and bridges
anywhere in DOT's budget framework.
3. "Road pricing" is discussed as an option in the budget framework,
despite Secretary LaHood's opposition to tolling existing roads.
4. There is no room in the budget for any substantial increase in highway
funding, despite the President's recent call for investment levels that
would rival the funding for construction of the Interstate Highway
System.
Cohen stated, "Until these issues are resolved, the American Highway Users Alliance will remain deeply concerned about the FY2010 budget framework. We look forward to improvements in the final budget request and sincerely hope that the President and Secretary of Transportation continue to exhibit leadership in promoting roads, bridges, and mobility in the 2010 budget."
"Apparently, the staff at US Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Office of Management and Budget have not been listening to President Obama and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
"Throughout his campaign and during his inauguration speech, President Obama promoted investment in 'roads and bridges' to keep our country moving. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary LaHood opposed the tolling of existing, toll-free roads. Yet the authors of the Transportation Department's 2010 budget framework must have been out of the office when their bosses were speaking.
"The President's strong support for roads and bridges serves him well. Despite the controversy over the Economic Recovery package, 94% of Americans supported the President's call to increase infrastructure investments. Roads and bridges rank #2 in importance among infrastructure priorities for the American people. And while Congress only provided 3.6% of the Economic Recovery funds for roads and bridges, the President's consistent promotion of highway infrastructure made his views crystal clear.
"Yet the 2010 budget framework for DOT includes no mention of roads, repeals the 87-year old contracting mechanism that guarantees funds for multi-year projects, and mentions 'road pricing' (tolls) as an option for states to deal with the meager funding levels.
"Given all of the stated support for roads and bridges, The Highway Users are mystified by the treatment of highway funding in the FY10 budget framework," said Greg Cohen, President & CEO of The Highway Users.
The budget framework raises four red flags:
1. The proposal implies that the 87-year old budgetary mechanism known as
"contract authority" be deleted from the budget. Without contract
authority, multi-year highway projects cannot be fully-funded.
2. There is no mention of President Obama's support for roads and bridges
anywhere in DOT's budget framework.
3. "Road pricing" is discussed as an option in the budget framework,
despite Secretary LaHood's opposition to tolling existing roads.
4. There is no room in the budget for any substantial increase in highway
funding, despite the President's recent call for investment levels that
would rival the funding for construction of the Interstate Highway
System.
Cohen stated, "Until these issues are resolved, the American Highway Users Alliance will remain deeply concerned about the FY2010 budget framework. We look forward to improvements in the final budget request and sincerely hope that the President and Secretary of Transportation continue to exhibit leadership in promoting roads, bridges, and mobility in the 2010 budget."
FRC Deplores Obama's Expected Action Against Conscience Protections
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the Family Research Council (FRC) responded to President Obama's expected action to stop the implementation of regulations to enforce the Church, Coats, and Weldon Amendments that protect health care providers' right of conscience. These regulations would have increased public awareness of, and ensured governmental enforcement of, these vital statutes.
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, released the following statement:
"For President Obama to do this would be a huge blow to religious freedom and First Amendment rights. No one should be forced to have an abortion, and no one should be forced to be an abortionist in violation of their religious or ethical convictions. However, President Obama intends to stop regulations to enforce conscience protection statutes. In doing so, he will open the door to discrimination against the choice of healthcare workers who do not want to be complicit in abortion or other controversial practices. These regulations would have ensured that healthcare workers are not forced to participate in the performance or promotion of abortion against their will.
"Despite current law that has protected conscience rights for over 30 years, the lack of regulations resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness within the health care community, leaving health care personnel vulnerable to discrimination and forcing them to drop their specialties at a crucial time of health care scarcity. Protecting the right of all health care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to healthcare is not diminished, which will occur if healthcare workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances. President Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them.
"It is unfortunate that President Obama is planning to bow down to pro-abortion forces and stop enforcement of laws enacted to protect the choice of healthcare providers not to participate in abortion or other controversial practices. Family Research Council urges President Obama to change course and defend the conscience laws for healthcare workers by keeping these much-needed regulations in place."
Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, released the following statement:
"For President Obama to do this would be a huge blow to religious freedom and First Amendment rights. No one should be forced to have an abortion, and no one should be forced to be an abortionist in violation of their religious or ethical convictions. However, President Obama intends to stop regulations to enforce conscience protection statutes. In doing so, he will open the door to discrimination against the choice of healthcare workers who do not want to be complicit in abortion or other controversial practices. These regulations would have ensured that healthcare workers are not forced to participate in the performance or promotion of abortion against their will.
"Despite current law that has protected conscience rights for over 30 years, the lack of regulations resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness within the health care community, leaving health care personnel vulnerable to discrimination and forcing them to drop their specialties at a crucial time of health care scarcity. Protecting the right of all health care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to healthcare is not diminished, which will occur if healthcare workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances. President Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them.
"It is unfortunate that President Obama is planning to bow down to pro-abortion forces and stop enforcement of laws enacted to protect the choice of healthcare providers not to participate in abortion or other controversial practices. Family Research Council urges President Obama to change course and defend the conscience laws for healthcare workers by keeping these much-needed regulations in place."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
FRC's Tony Perkins Responds to President Obama's Address to Congress
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to President Obama's address to Congress last evening:
"While the reaction to the President's speech was mixed, the reaction on Wall Street will be most telling of whether or not the President succeeded in infusing confidence into the nation's faltering economy.
"As President, it is incumbent upon Barack Obama to encourage the American people and help drive our nation's economy forward. That is, however, a difficult feat with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. Despite the hopeful talk designed to nudge the nation forward, the reality of bigger and more costly government is stopping many Americans dead in their tracks on the road to economic recovery.
"The bottom line is bigger government is bigger government regardless of the patriotism that is wrapped around it. The President's pork barrel spending bills and his speech tonight reflect a philosophy that says only massive government spending will cure our economic troubles. The President's call for fiscal responsibility rings hallow when the actions that follow only pile on more massive debt and mortgage away the future of our children and their children.
"We do applaud the President for focusing on reducing the dropout rates in America, for there is little hope for those who cannot enter the workforce with the most basic of skills. However, the key is not doubling the size of the Department of Education it is in restoring parental involvement in education by allowing parents to make the fundamental decisions about their child's education, whether it be charter schools, private schools or home-schooling. All children in America should be treated equally."
"While the reaction to the President's speech was mixed, the reaction on Wall Street will be most telling of whether or not the President succeeded in infusing confidence into the nation's faltering economy.
"As President, it is incumbent upon Barack Obama to encourage the American people and help drive our nation's economy forward. That is, however, a difficult feat with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. Despite the hopeful talk designed to nudge the nation forward, the reality of bigger and more costly government is stopping many Americans dead in their tracks on the road to economic recovery.
"The bottom line is bigger government is bigger government regardless of the patriotism that is wrapped around it. The President's pork barrel spending bills and his speech tonight reflect a philosophy that says only massive government spending will cure our economic troubles. The President's call for fiscal responsibility rings hallow when the actions that follow only pile on more massive debt and mortgage away the future of our children and their children.
"We do applaud the President for focusing on reducing the dropout rates in America, for there is little hope for those who cannot enter the workforce with the most basic of skills. However, the key is not doubling the size of the Department of Education it is in restoring parental involvement in education by allowing parents to make the fundamental decisions about their child's education, whether it be charter schools, private schools or home-schooling. All children in America should be treated equally."
Friday, February 20, 2009
Not All Spending Is Equal, Says CIRT
/PRNewswire/ -- The following Op-Ed was issued yesterday, February 19, by Mark A. Casso, Esq., President, Construction Industry Round Table:
On February 17, 2009 the nation's economy was saved, or at least that is what we are suppose to believe, given the fact the largest bill in U.S. history was signed into law by President Obama with the intended purpose of spurring consumer spending and creating millions of jobs.
Of course, if merely expending federal government funds - now at historic levels - are all it takes to insure a strong vivacious economy then the U.S. should never again expect to see a recession or even a down turn. Considering the annual federal budget is at nearly three trillion dollars, even without the stimulus package and the financial markets "bailout," economic expansion should be on everyone's lips.
But, all spending (and even more importantly what CBO marks as "costs") are not equal - they do not have equal impacts, timelines, or even returns - and that is at the heart of what went wrong with the stimulus package.
When the leaders of an industry like the design and construction community, represented by the Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT) can go from near universal support of the original stimulus package with its proposed targeting of timely infrastructure expenditures and some measure of tax relief - to a nearly universal concern (84% responding to a CIRT poll that the final package that passed into law is off target and not timely) - something drastic has occurred.
It can be explained in one phrase: "H.R.1" - the massive, unfocused, spend-fest that defines every dollar expended with the same broad brush of being job creating and stimulating to the economy. Such a claim is untenable and unprincipled just by merely perusing the over 1,000 pages of text in the bill. A focused, timely, and restricted expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' money would not require 1,000 pages to explain. Beyond the costs (both spending and tax relief) are the policy and program changes that seek to fundamentally alter aspects of the U.S. economy and life. These provisions are "slipped" into the massive act, which no one read in its entirety before passing (never mind understood) - so as to avoid the scrutiny of an American public that is not likely to be supportive of the drastic proposals and/or their consequences.
Notwithstanding the litany of H.R.1 supporters that like to point to the justifiable and defensible "infrastructure projects" that will be funded by the stimulus package (which even the fiscally conservative IBD editorial noted "almost everyone agrees a little timely infrastructure might help,") - in a best case scenario those dollars represent only about 19 percent of the overall $787 billion in cost for the bill (and about 30 percent of the spending side). A healthy amount for certain - however, only a fraction of it will be spent in a timely manner during the upcoming construction season in 2009. Given this lack of focus and timeliness the expenditures, while welcome, will not have nearly the positive impact hoped for in sopping-up excess capacity and putting people to work in the industry. [Construction industry studies vary as to the exact impact expenditures have on employment, but a USDOT 2008 update entitled: "Employment Impacts of Highway Infrastructure Investment" revising earlier reports puts the latest estimate at 34,779 jobs per billion dollars in new construction].
Initial design/construction industry support was very vocal and strong based on the favorable factors going into the debate. On November 11, 2008 the CIRT Board of Directors adopted a resolution expressing its strong support for a new stimulus package that focuses its expenditures on infrastructure needs across the country as a means to meet the twin goals of increasing economic activity as well as creating meaningful jobs. In addition, the Council voiced its concerns to the Obama transition team "that every effort should be made to constrain, if not eliminate, extraneous issues and provisions from being added-on to the package." Moreover, the Round Table expressed its "strong preference . . . for maximum flexibility and decentralized decision-making in order to move infrastructure related funds quickly into the system to achieve maximum economic activity and job creation."
In the end, what we saw pass was a typical Washington, DC bill - with special interest and inside deals to incorporate provisions and expenditures that would never be able to stand the "light of day" or the scrutiny of the American people. Contrary to this display, the design/construction community can stand tall: we were open in our requests, we were often cited for worthy expenditures, and in the end the portion of the money spent on infrastructure needs will be the most likely to bring true economic return to the nation. Would if they could say that about the rest of the package's costs!
On February 17, 2009 the nation's economy was saved, or at least that is what we are suppose to believe, given the fact the largest bill in U.S. history was signed into law by President Obama with the intended purpose of spurring consumer spending and creating millions of jobs.
Of course, if merely expending federal government funds - now at historic levels - are all it takes to insure a strong vivacious economy then the U.S. should never again expect to see a recession or even a down turn. Considering the annual federal budget is at nearly three trillion dollars, even without the stimulus package and the financial markets "bailout," economic expansion should be on everyone's lips.
But, all spending (and even more importantly what CBO marks as "costs") are not equal - they do not have equal impacts, timelines, or even returns - and that is at the heart of what went wrong with the stimulus package.
When the leaders of an industry like the design and construction community, represented by the Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT) can go from near universal support of the original stimulus package with its proposed targeting of timely infrastructure expenditures and some measure of tax relief - to a nearly universal concern (84% responding to a CIRT poll that the final package that passed into law is off target and not timely) - something drastic has occurred.
It can be explained in one phrase: "H.R.1" - the massive, unfocused, spend-fest that defines every dollar expended with the same broad brush of being job creating and stimulating to the economy. Such a claim is untenable and unprincipled just by merely perusing the over 1,000 pages of text in the bill. A focused, timely, and restricted expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' money would not require 1,000 pages to explain. Beyond the costs (both spending and tax relief) are the policy and program changes that seek to fundamentally alter aspects of the U.S. economy and life. These provisions are "slipped" into the massive act, which no one read in its entirety before passing (never mind understood) - so as to avoid the scrutiny of an American public that is not likely to be supportive of the drastic proposals and/or their consequences.
Notwithstanding the litany of H.R.1 supporters that like to point to the justifiable and defensible "infrastructure projects" that will be funded by the stimulus package (which even the fiscally conservative IBD editorial noted "almost everyone agrees a little timely infrastructure might help,") - in a best case scenario those dollars represent only about 19 percent of the overall $787 billion in cost for the bill (and about 30 percent of the spending side). A healthy amount for certain - however, only a fraction of it will be spent in a timely manner during the upcoming construction season in 2009. Given this lack of focus and timeliness the expenditures, while welcome, will not have nearly the positive impact hoped for in sopping-up excess capacity and putting people to work in the industry. [Construction industry studies vary as to the exact impact expenditures have on employment, but a USDOT 2008 update entitled: "Employment Impacts of Highway Infrastructure Investment" revising earlier reports puts the latest estimate at 34,779 jobs per billion dollars in new construction].
Initial design/construction industry support was very vocal and strong based on the favorable factors going into the debate. On November 11, 2008 the CIRT Board of Directors adopted a resolution expressing its strong support for a new stimulus package that focuses its expenditures on infrastructure needs across the country as a means to meet the twin goals of increasing economic activity as well as creating meaningful jobs. In addition, the Council voiced its concerns to the Obama transition team "that every effort should be made to constrain, if not eliminate, extraneous issues and provisions from being added-on to the package." Moreover, the Round Table expressed its "strong preference . . . for maximum flexibility and decentralized decision-making in order to move infrastructure related funds quickly into the system to achieve maximum economic activity and job creation."
In the end, what we saw pass was a typical Washington, DC bill - with special interest and inside deals to incorporate provisions and expenditures that would never be able to stand the "light of day" or the scrutiny of the American people. Contrary to this display, the design/construction community can stand tall: we were open in our requests, we were often cited for worthy expenditures, and in the end the portion of the money spent on infrastructure needs will be the most likely to bring true economic return to the nation. Would if they could say that about the rest of the package's costs!
Thursday, February 19, 2009
RNC: Trading Positions: After Two Years on the Campaign Trail and a Month in the Oval Office, Do We Finally Know President Obama's Position on NAFTA?
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Republican National Committee:
Today, President Obama is travelling to Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and is expected to reassure Harper of his commitment to trade:
Today, President Obama Will Take His First International Trip To Canada. "Obama will visit Canada Thursday on his first international trip as president, and in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Company Tuesday morning, the issue of NAFTA came up quickly." (Sam Youngman, "Obama Defends NAFTA Policy Ahead Of Canada Trip," The Hill, 2/17/09)
Foreign Policy Adviser Denis McDonough Said President Obama Will Make It Clear That He Is Interested In More Trade. "'Obviously, given the delicate state of the global economy, [Obama] wants to make clear to Prime Minister Harper and to all of our trading partners that this is no time for anybody to give the impression that somehow we are interested in less - rather than more - trade,' [Obama Foreign Policy Adviser Denis] McDonough said. 'That's the message that he'll underscore.'" (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
President Obama: "Canada Is One Of Our Most Important Trading Partners ... It Is Not In Anybody's Interest To See That Trade Diminish." "'But what I've also said is that Canada is one of our most important trading partners, we rely on them heavily, there's $1.5 billion worth of trade going back and forth every day between the two countries and that it is not in anybody's interest to see that trade diminish,' Obama said." (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
But During The Democrat Primary, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To Amend NAFTA And Even Suggested Opting-Out:
As A Presidential Candidate, Obama Repeatedly Threatened To Quit NAFTA. "As a presidential candidate stumping across the Rust Belt a year ago, Barack Obama drew cheers when he threatened to quit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico agreed to tough new worker-friendly standards." (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
At The AFL-CIO Forum In August 2007, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To "Immediately Call The President Of Mexico, The President Of Canada To Try To Amend NAFTA..." "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street." (Sen. Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
At A February 2008 Debate In Ohio, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To Renegotiate NAFTA With The Threat Of A "Potential Opt-Out." NBC's Tim Russert: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" Obama: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
Meanwhile, Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee Told Canadian Officials Obama's Protectionist Rhetoric Was Merely "Political Positioning":
Despite Denials That The Meeting Occurred, The Associated Press Noted A Memo Written By The Canadian Consulate Which Described An Obama Adviser's Visit. "Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press. The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee..." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Canadian Consulate Memo: Goolsbee Said Anti-Trade Messaging "Should Be Viewed As More About Political Positioning Than A Clear Articulation Of Policy Plans." "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Obama Senior Adviser Disputed The Memo. Obama Adviser Austan Goolsbee: "This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language. ... He's not quoting me. I certainly did not use that phrase in any way." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Even President Obama's Eventual Chief Of Staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Disagreed With Obama's NAFTA Position During The Primary:
Emanuel, Along With Other Democrat House Members, Distanced Himself From Obama's Position On NAFTA. "Three other Democratic House members - Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, New York Rep. Steve Israel, and New Jersey Rep. Robert Andrews - all joined Davis in distancing themselves from the NAFTA position articulated by the Democratic Party's presidential candidates." (Teddy Davis, "NAFTA Renegotiation Questioned By Fellow Dems," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 2/29/08)
But Prior To Running For President, Obama Supported NAFTA:
In September 2004, Obama Said The U.S Should "Pursue Deals Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." "[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests." (Christopher Wills, "Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues," The Associated Press, 9/8/04)
And After Winning The Democrat Primary, Obama Shifted His Position On NAFTA Once Again:
After He Wrapped Up The Democrat Nomination, Obama "Tamped Down His Rhetoric" On NAFTA. "The softer tone as president widens the already-gaping distance with Obama's more protectionist pose of the primary. He tamped down his rhetoric after wrapping up the nomination, acknowledging in a June interview with Fortune magazine that the anti-trade talk got 'overheated and amplified.'" (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
Today, President Obama is travelling to Canada to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and is expected to reassure Harper of his commitment to trade:
Today, President Obama Will Take His First International Trip To Canada. "Obama will visit Canada Thursday on his first international trip as president, and in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Company Tuesday morning, the issue of NAFTA came up quickly." (Sam Youngman, "Obama Defends NAFTA Policy Ahead Of Canada Trip," The Hill, 2/17/09)
Foreign Policy Adviser Denis McDonough Said President Obama Will Make It Clear That He Is Interested In More Trade. "'Obviously, given the delicate state of the global economy, [Obama] wants to make clear to Prime Minister Harper and to all of our trading partners that this is no time for anybody to give the impression that somehow we are interested in less - rather than more - trade,' [Obama Foreign Policy Adviser Denis] McDonough said. 'That's the message that he'll underscore.'" (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
President Obama: "Canada Is One Of Our Most Important Trading Partners ... It Is Not In Anybody's Interest To See That Trade Diminish." "'But what I've also said is that Canada is one of our most important trading partners, we rely on them heavily, there's $1.5 billion worth of trade going back and forth every day between the two countries and that it is not in anybody's interest to see that trade diminish,' Obama said." (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
But During The Democrat Primary, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To Amend NAFTA And Even Suggested Opting-Out:
As A Presidential Candidate, Obama Repeatedly Threatened To Quit NAFTA. "As a presidential candidate stumping across the Rust Belt a year ago, Barack Obama drew cheers when he threatened to quit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico agreed to tough new worker-friendly standards." (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
At The AFL-CIO Forum In August 2007, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To "Immediately Call The President Of Mexico, The President Of Canada To Try To Amend NAFTA..." "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street." (Sen. Barack Obama, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
At A February 2008 Debate In Ohio, Then-Sen. Obama Pledged To Renegotiate NAFTA With The Threat Of A "Potential Opt-Out." NBC's Tim Russert: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" Obama: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
Meanwhile, Economic Adviser Austan Goolsbee Told Canadian Officials Obama's Protectionist Rhetoric Was Merely "Political Positioning":
Despite Denials That The Meeting Occurred, The Associated Press Noted A Memo Written By The Canadian Consulate Which Described An Obama Adviser's Visit. "Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press. The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee..." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Canadian Consulate Memo: Goolsbee Said Anti-Trade Messaging "Should Be Viewed As More About Political Positioning Than A Clear Articulation Of Policy Plans." "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Obama Senior Adviser Disputed The Memo. Obama Adviser Austan Goolsbee: "This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language. ... He's not quoting me. I certainly did not use that phrase in any way." (Nedra Pickler, "Obama Adviser Denies Trade Remarks," The Associated Press, 3/2/08)
Even President Obama's Eventual Chief Of Staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Disagreed With Obama's NAFTA Position During The Primary:
Emanuel, Along With Other Democrat House Members, Distanced Himself From Obama's Position On NAFTA. "Three other Democratic House members - Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, New York Rep. Steve Israel, and New Jersey Rep. Robert Andrews - all joined Davis in distancing themselves from the NAFTA position articulated by the Democratic Party's presidential candidates." (Teddy Davis, "NAFTA Renegotiation Questioned By Fellow Dems," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 2/29/08)
But Prior To Running For President, Obama Supported NAFTA:
In September 2004, Obama Said The U.S Should "Pursue Deals Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." "[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the country must be more aggressive about protecting American interests." (Christopher Wills, "Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues," The Associated Press, 9/8/04)
And After Winning The Democrat Primary, Obama Shifted His Position On NAFTA Once Again:
After He Wrapped Up The Democrat Nomination, Obama "Tamped Down His Rhetoric" On NAFTA. "The softer tone as president widens the already-gaping distance with Obama's more protectionist pose of the primary. He tamped down his rhetoric after wrapping up the nomination, acknowledging in a June interview with Fortune magazine that the anti-trade talk got 'overheated and amplified.'" (Carrie Budoff Brown, "O, Canada: Plans For Obama's Trip North," The Politico, 2/18/09)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Uncovering the Stimulus- Chicago Style
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- With President Obama to visit Springfield this week, state leaders and Stop-OMP.org are crying foul with Mayor Daley's most recent comments that the list of stimulus projects are too controversial to list publicly. It is widely believed that one of his projects is the $20 billion "O'Hare Modernization Project" that the FAA and airlines have refused to fund.
"As we prepare a national celebration around Abraham Lincoln's legacy in Illinois we are faced with a state of politics that includes corruption and secrecy, greed and cronyism," said Bensenville Village President John Geils. "Lincoln, one of the best Presidents in history, must be rolling in his grave!"
"While most Americans are expecting 'change' from their government, Mayor Daley is trying to protect the Old Chicago Way," said John Tillman, chairman and CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. "Now more than ever, we need to have an open, informed debate about spending priorities in Illinois. Voters deserve to know exactly what's on the table and how their money is being spent. We need transparency from City Hall--and from the legislature down in Springfield."
The Chicago Tribune quoted Mayor Daley as saying, "Yes, we do, we have our list, we've been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart."
"It's very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago..." the mayor added.
"We have one former governor in jail, we just removed one from office, our state is $9 billion in debt - and Mayor Daley is refusing to disclose his funding requests from the economic stimulus bill? Without transparency, we will have no reform. This is classic Chicago politics. After what we've just gone through with our former Governor I think it is time to say, 'enough is enough!'" said Adam Andrzejewski, director of For the Good of Illinois.
www.stop-omp.org is dedicated to stopping the senseless, ill-advised and flawed O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP) and preventing further unnecessary displacement of families and waste of taxpayer dollars. Community leaders, concerned citizens, aviation industry leaders and economic experts continue to urge the FAA to adopt viable alternatives. These include runway configurations proposed by the Chicago air traffic controllers, use of congestion management techniques, reliance on other nearby airports, and construction of a third airport.
"As we prepare a national celebration around Abraham Lincoln's legacy in Illinois we are faced with a state of politics that includes corruption and secrecy, greed and cronyism," said Bensenville Village President John Geils. "Lincoln, one of the best Presidents in history, must be rolling in his grave!"
"While most Americans are expecting 'change' from their government, Mayor Daley is trying to protect the Old Chicago Way," said John Tillman, chairman and CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. "Now more than ever, we need to have an open, informed debate about spending priorities in Illinois. Voters deserve to know exactly what's on the table and how their money is being spent. We need transparency from City Hall--and from the legislature down in Springfield."
The Chicago Tribune quoted Mayor Daley as saying, "Yes, we do, we have our list, we've been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart."
"It's very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago..." the mayor added.
"We have one former governor in jail, we just removed one from office, our state is $9 billion in debt - and Mayor Daley is refusing to disclose his funding requests from the economic stimulus bill? Without transparency, we will have no reform. This is classic Chicago politics. After what we've just gone through with our former Governor I think it is time to say, 'enough is enough!'" said Adam Andrzejewski, director of For the Good of Illinois.
www.stop-omp.org is dedicated to stopping the senseless, ill-advised and flawed O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP) and preventing further unnecessary displacement of families and waste of taxpayer dollars. Community leaders, concerned citizens, aviation industry leaders and economic experts continue to urge the FAA to adopt viable alternatives. These include runway configurations proposed by the Chicago air traffic controllers, use of congestion management techniques, reliance on other nearby airports, and construction of a third airport.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Fidelis: Obama Picks Porn Lawyer for #2 at Justice
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama has made a major mistake and put America's families at risk by selecting David Ogden to become Deputy Attorney General, says Fidelis, a pro-family organization.
"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. Ogden's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."
"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine -- at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.
As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.
"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."
For a full report on David Ogden's disappointing legal record, visit http://www.fidelis.org/.
"David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing common sense laws protecting families, women, and children. The United States Senate has a responsibility to the American people to insure that Mr. Ogden's full record is fully reviewed before any vote on his nomination," said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis. Ogden's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Ogden's record is nothing short of obscene. He has represented Playboy Enterprises in multiple cases, Penthouse Magazine, the ACLU, and the largest distributor of hard-core pornography videos. He has opposed filters on library computers protecting children from Internet smut, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children."
"David Ogden has collected checks from Playboy and Penthouse to fight any attempts to establish filters on federally-funded public libraries. Ogden even sued the federal government in an attempt to publish Braille versions of Playboy magazine -- at taxpayer expense, of course," said Burch.
As a lawyer in private practice, Ogden has argued for an unlimited abortion license, gays in the military, and has urged courts to treat traditional definitions of marriage as a social prejudice.
"A vast majority of Americans support parental notification before a minor's abortion and protecting kids from Internet pornography in our libraries," continued Burch. "Yet David Ogden has fought tooth and nail against these common sense laws protecting our children from harm. At a time when America's families are under increasing assault, Mr. Ogden is a dangerous choice for a position whose responsibilities include the enforcement of our nation's laws."
For a full report on David Ogden's disappointing legal record, visit http://www.fidelis.org/.
Gallup Poll: Most Americans Disapprove of Mexico City Policy Reversal
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A USA Today/Gallup poll on actions taken by President Obama showed the least support for his January 23 decision to reverse the Mexico City Policy and restore U.S. funding to organizations that perform and promote abortion in developing nations. Deirdre McQuade, assistant director for policy and communications for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, commented on the January 31-February 1 survey:
"Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has said that the bishops find the recent decision by President Barack Obama to reverse the Mexico City Policy 'very disappointing.' Most Americans seem to agree.
The recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only 35 percent of those surveyed approve of the President's controversial move 'allowing funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortions.' Fifty-eight percent disapproved of this executive order.
An Administration that wants to reduce abortions should not divert U.S. funds to groups that perform and promote abortion.
Our country faces serious national challenges at this time, requiring Americans to unite for the common good of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. This is no time to divide our nation with policies that offend the pro-life values of most Americans."
"Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has said that the bishops find the recent decision by President Barack Obama to reverse the Mexico City Policy 'very disappointing.' Most Americans seem to agree.
The recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only 35 percent of those surveyed approve of the President's controversial move 'allowing funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortions.' Fifty-eight percent disapproved of this executive order.
An Administration that wants to reduce abortions should not divert U.S. funds to groups that perform and promote abortion.
Our country faces serious national challenges at this time, requiring Americans to unite for the common good of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. This is no time to divide our nation with policies that offend the pro-life values of most Americans."
Monday, February 2, 2009
Obama Policy Threatens House Democrats, says Washington Senior Rights Activist
/PRNewswire/ -- "President Obama is asking congressional Democrats to do what President Clinton recognized was an action that cost Democrats their majority 15 years ago after controlling the House of Representatives for several decades," John M. Snyder said here today.
"Over the weekend," noted Snyder, "Amy Brundage of the White House said Obama supports reviving the ban on certain firearms passed in 1994 and even expanding it, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is the ban Clinton implied led to the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections. He indicated this in his 1995 State of the Union speech and later in his autobiography. Even though the White House referred to 'assault weapons,' the law actually banned semiautomatic firearms used by millions of law-abiding American citizens. The ban expired five years ago.
"Obama is giving Republicans a big stick with which to beat his fellow Democrats. Obama may not realize that, as philosopher George Santayana did, 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' The next mid-term congressional elections come just 21 months from now."
Named recently the senior rights activist in Washington by Shotgun News, Snyder, a former National Rifle Association magazine editor, is Manager of Telum Associates, Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation.
"Over the weekend," noted Snyder, "Amy Brundage of the White House said Obama supports reviving the ban on certain firearms passed in 1994 and even expanding it, reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is the ban Clinton implied led to the Democrats' defeat in the 1994 mid-term elections. He indicated this in his 1995 State of the Union speech and later in his autobiography. Even though the White House referred to 'assault weapons,' the law actually banned semiautomatic firearms used by millions of law-abiding American citizens. The ban expired five years ago.
"Obama is giving Republicans a big stick with which to beat his fellow Democrats. Obama may not realize that, as philosopher George Santayana did, 'those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' The next mid-term congressional elections come just 21 months from now."
Named recently the senior rights activist in Washington by Shotgun News, Snyder, a former National Rifle Association magazine editor, is Manager of Telum Associates, Public Affairs Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
