Global Articles on what is going on...posted daily

[sandi66]

Wikileaks, Rendition, and the CIA's Italian Job

What could leaked State Department cables tell us about a CIA kidnapping in Milan and other extraordinary renditions?

— By Nick Baumann

Mon Dec. 13, 2010 3:15 AM PST

Among the hundreds of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in recent weeks were a number pertaining to extraordinary rendition—the practice of effectively kinapping a suspected terrorist in one country and transporting him to another, usually Arab, nation for interrogation that almost invariably invovles torture. Most of the time, renditions happen quietly; CIA operatives swoop in and out and no one's the wiser. Then came the February 2003 kidnapping of a cleric named Abu Omar in Milan, Italy. The operation was bungled (the American operatives used unencrypted, trackable cell phones, for starters), and, in a major embarassment to the US, the 23 CIA agents involved were eventually tried by an Italian court. In 2009, they were convicted in absentia of violating Italian law. (Peter Bergen wrote about the case, and interviewed Abu Omar himself, for the March/April 2008 issue of Mother Jones.) Recently, I spoke to Steve Hendricks, a freelance journalist and author whose most recent work is the just-released A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trial, about Abu Omar, renditions, and the impact of the Wikileaks disclosures. Here's an edited transcript of our conversation. (In some cases, I've expanded my original questions to provide additional context):

Advertise on MotherJones.com
Mother Jones: Wikileaks recently released a diplomatic cable detailing a conversation between Rolf Nikel, the German Deputy National Security Adviser, and John Koenig, the deputy chief of the US embassy in Berlin. In the discussion, Koenig pressured Nikel to tell his bosses not to prosecute the CIA personnel involved in the rendition of Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, and allegedly beaten, sodomized, and repeatedly interrogated before the US realized it had the wrong guy. According to the cable, part of the pressure that was put on the Germans had to do with the kidnapping and subsequent trial you write about in your book. Can you tell us a little more about that?

Steve Hendricks: The Deputy Chief of Mission who had that conversation in Germany with his counterpart there referenced "repercussions" in the US-Italian relationship [in the wake of the decision to prosecute the CIA officers involved in the Abu Omar case.] That's an interesting phrase because there almost certianly weren't any repercussions. Italy was already doing what the White House wanted. The governments of [Silvio] Berlusconi, [Romano] Prodi, and Berlusconi again all got in line, doing everything they could to derail prosecution. Their problem was that the magistracy [that was prosecuting the CIA officers] was independent. About all that Rome could do was to file challenges in court making the same arguments over there that Obama and Bush made over here: That we can't talk about these things because doing so would reveal state secrets.

MJ: So the US successfully pressured the Italian government to try to interfere with the Milan prosecution?

SH: I don't think they needed any nudge from the White House to get them to do that. Certainly, the Berlusconi government was one of the biggest backers of the Bush administration's [counterterrorism policies]. It's extremely unlikely that we're going to learn that there was any real arm-twisting going on there.

MJ: So does that mean that the idea in the US (at least on the left) that Europeans oppose Bush-style counterterrorism policies is wrong, and that civil libertarians' hopes that Europeans may force accountability for torture are misguided?

SH: It's a real mix. We're talking about a wide range of both public and elite opinion. Germany probably falls right in the middle of that map. They're not dying to piss off the US, but neither are they as slovenly on their knees in the way the Italian government was. The other piece of it as far as accountability for torture and so on is that Europe as a whole seems to understand that we're part of an international community, whether we like it or not. They seem to have a greater respect for international conventions—they're aware of the [UN] Convention Against Torture, for example, and there's a lot more fallout over there for disobeying international conventions.

MJ: Does the constitutional independence of top judicial and prosecutorial officials in European countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain make a difference when it comes to prosecuting these sorts of cases?

SH: Well, in the case of Germany what we know is that the judge in Munich issued warrants. That was independent of the central government. But it was the choice of central government whether to enforce those warrants. There were things that they could actually do and had a choice about whether they would or would not do it. [Ed. note: The government ultimately decided to enforce the warrants, but did not make a formal request for the extradition of the agents involved after an initial, informal request was denied.] I imagine we will be hearing in the future about what exactly did happen after that pressure was put on—what the wrangling was, and [how the government decided] "We have to ignore the Americans."

[In Spain and Italy], their magistrates...[have] independence that we completely lack over here. Federal prosecutors all work for the Justice Department. They work at the whim of the Attorney General and the President. That's why we don't have a single prosecutor here who would do what [magistrates in Italy and Spain did in charging CIA personnel with crimes].

MJ: What about US attorneys like Patrick Fitzgerald and John Durham, who are investigating issues related to interrogation and detention and are generally referred to as "independent"?

SH: They are independent within a narrow range. [Attorney General] Eric Holder isn't looking over the shoulder of every prosecutor in the country. But they know what they can and cannot do. It's almost like the censorship of the newsroom: you know certain topics are completely out of bounds. Every prosecutor is going to know they can't bring a prosecution against Bush or Obama—or for extraordinary renditions, even though those are violations of the Convention Against Torture, which is US law. They'd be fired if they did that. On truly deep foundational levels, are we going to accuse our president of committing crimes against humanity? No. They don't have that kind of independence.


MJ: So how much power do European magistrates have, really?

SH: International law increasingly reflects the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. If someone has committed a truly heinous crime, a crime against humanity, and the country where it was committed is not prosecuting the person, than courts elsewhere arguably have jurisdiction to go after these people. That's how [famed Spanish magistrate Baltasar] Garzon went after [former Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet. It's a doctrine to be used sparingly. But the case of the US since 9/11 is exactly what this doctrine contemplated: crimes that have largely gone unpunished.

MJ: But will we ever see another prosecution like the Milan trial?

SH: For a while, there were rumors coming out of Germany that German prosecutors were about to bring charges against the people in Germany who were involved in the rendition of Abu Omar. It's long been known that the Germans were looking into who was involved there. But it would appear that the CIA has learned a lot of lessons, or the Obama CIA has learned many lessons from the kidnapping in Milan and other fiascos. Although Obama insists he will continue to use extraordinary renditions, we haven't heard about any of them. That means they're either carrying out fewer, they're carrying them out with greater discretion, or both. If that's the case, then we're probably not going to have any more Kidnapping in Milan-type fiascos blowing up anytime soon. After all, we heard about almost none of the Clinton-era renditions, and he did several dozen.

MJ: Why was the Milan operation so bungled? Even if you think extraordinary renditions are a good thing, I assume you'd want to make sure they were done quietly and competently, no?

SH: The main reason, I think, is just that [in the years immediately following the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration] demanded so much of the CIA in so little time, and the CIA was already so broken an agency, that to ask them to do the minimal level of competence was a lot on any given day. In Legacy of Ashes [an award-winning history of the agency], Tim Weiner essentially says that in the entire history of the agency, there's barely a major operation that they carried off with competence. That's true. If you take an agency this disfunctional and say, "We want you to do ten times what you were doing," you're going to have problems. They didn't have enough planes, so they had to rent "torture taxis." They didn't have enough heavies to do the actual grunt work of renditions, so they had to hire contractors. It's amazing that more of these renditions didn't blow up in our face like this.

If you're doing renditions in smaller numbers, and not doing it willy-nilly, the third-world dictatorships were usually happy to get these guys, who are usually their home-grown extremist types. But when you start doing it with this cowboy attitude and semi-publicly, and making it very clear to all the terrorists that people are being sent to Egypt or whatever, that's not exactly helpful to Egypt and Morrocco and Syria and so on. So it's not shocking to me that some of this information began to leak out.

MJ: Are there any obstacles to a future president reinstituting an aggressive, semi-public, high-volume rendition program? Or other parts of the Bush-era interrogation and detention regime?

SH: There aren't any barriers, and that's why people have been clamoring for prosecutions. Without punishment or huge public censure, there's nothing to stop it from happening again. The only thing that has really been done of any substance is the executive order [signed by President Barack Obama banning torture.] But of course that was already US law, and President Palin could countermand [the executive order] in the stroke of a pen. Of course, one of the great overlooked thing about why Obama isn't going after Bush is that a lot of [Bush's] sins started with Clinton... [By prosecuting top Bush administration officials for torture, Obama] would be opening Clinton up for prosecution—and he'd be opening himself up, too. Clinton originating this stuff is, I think, a big piece of why we're not getting any action on it today.

MJ: How did this all come about?

SH: It came about in 1993, if we can believe [former Clinton administration counterterrorism adviser] Richard Clarke. [After the first attacks on the World Trade Center], he decided it was too cumbersome to snatch suspected terrorists and bring them back to the US for trial—and Clinton and the rest of the national security staff agreed. We don't know who the first person [to be rendered] was, but we know that by August 1995 they succeeded in rendering a guy named Abu Talal [al-Qasimi] from Croatia to Egypt, and that was such a success that over the remaining five years they rendered about ten people a year. (Read more: Rendition By The Numbers.)

The fact that this program went so smoothly, and that what little got known about it in public got so little condemnation was a big green light after 9/11, when Bush and the CIA wanted to amp this up. They thought it'd be okay, and they weren't entirely right but they were broadly right: they knew they could get away with it. And Clinton having set it up was a big piece of that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Hendricks' A Kidnapping In Milan: The CIA On Trial was released on October 11.

motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-rendition-cia-italian-job

[sandi66]

U.S. President Barack Obama released a statement on special U.S. representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke
December 11, 2010

U.S. President Obama said:

Earlier today, I spoke to Richard Holbrooke's wife Kati and told her that Michelle and I are praying for Richard. Richard Holbrooke is a towering figure in American foreign policy, a critical member of my Afghanistan and Pakistan team, and a tireless public servant who has won the admiration of the American people and people around the world. I know that Secretary Clinton, Admiral Mullen, Tom Donilon, and other members of our team have been with him at George Washington hospital, and we continue to pray for his recovery, and support his family in this difficult time.


www.isria.com/pages/12_December_2010_170.php

[sandi66]

Pentagon Talks Advance U.S.-China Military Ties

07:55 GMT, December 13, 2010

WASHINGTON | The Pentagon’s policy chief believes the Defense Consultative Talks between the U.S. and China here on Friday moved the ball forward in fostering Chinese candor and transparency.

Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said her talks with General Ma Xiaotian in the Pentagon really re-started the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship. Ma is the deputy chief of the Peoples’ Liberation Army’s General Staff. It was the 11th round of the U.S.-China Defense Consultative Talks.

“We discussed the relationship itself, an integral part of our positive, cooperative and comprehensive bilateral relationship with China,” the undersecretary said. “We also discussed how to develop a more durable framework to shift the military–to-military relationship to a more sustained and reliable and continuous footing.”

The two sides discussed maritime safety and regional issues including security concerns about Africa, North Korea, Afghanistan-Pakistan and Iran. Flournoy thanked the Chinese for their efforts in the United Nations on the Security Council sanctions against Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

Ma and Flournoy exchanged views on the U.S. nuclear posture review and ballistic missile defense report. They discussed the importance of China continuing to make progress in improving its openness and transparency in defense matters, Flournoy said.

The talks pave the way for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ visit to China in January.

“These were positive discussions,” she said. “While I won’t say we agreed on every issue, where we did differ we had a very candid, frank and productive exchange. These talks form the basis for a more productive relationship between our two countries and our two militaries over time.”


----
Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


www.defpro.com/news/details/20493/?SID=c516591daa40f34615cf8506024fb131

[sandi66]

JPMorgan - China revenue up over 80 pct to record

| Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:55pm IST

BEIJING (Reuters) - JPMorgan & Chase Co(JPM.N) will see record revenues from China this year, as the second-largest U.S. bank benefits from a surge in equity raising by Chinese companies, the head of the bank's China investment banking business said on Monday at the Reuters China Investment Summit.

JPMorgan's China revenue will rise more that 80 percent over 2009 levels, and up 40 percent over the bank's previous record for China in 2007, said Fang Fang, the bank's CEO of China investment banking.

"Our pipeline is now stronger than ever, with a number of deals landing in January," Fang said at the Summit held at the Reuters office in Beijing. "A lot of clients are coming to talk to us about next year."

Asia, and China in particular, is a key source of investment banking revenue for global banks. Agricultural Bank of China Ltd's record $22.1 billion IPO, in which JPMorgan participated, is a case in point.

The bank's number of completed deals will also be about 80 percent higher than last year.

Fang, who is also a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, a largely ceremonial advisory body to parliament, predicted a rise in debt and equity deals in a number of Chinese sectors in 2011, including financial services, health care, transportation, education, food and beverage and luxury goods.

"It's related to the increase in household disposable income," Fang said, referring to the rising demand for capital.

JPMorgan is doing deals -- both equity and debt -- with a much wider range of companies than in the past, he said, which could help shield the bank in the event of any economic turbulence in China.

"In the past, our business was like a 9-inch, black-and-white TV with one channel: state-owned enterprises going public offshore," he said. "Now it's like a 52-inch plasma TV with 30 channels. If one or two channels go blank, we still have others."

Priorities for 2011 include hiring more investment bankers and significantly increasing clients and products and services through a planned joint venture with a Chinese partner, said Fang, a graduate of Tsinghua and Vanderbilt Universities who is also vice-chairman of JPMorgan's Asia investment banking.

The joint venture, with First Capital Securities Co Ltd of Shenzhen, will allow JPMorgan to tap China's lucrative underwriting market.

"Right now we can only raise money for Chinese clients offshore," Fang said. "With a domestic securities license we will be able to provide clients with renminbi equities and bonds capabilities.

"Most importantly, we are looking at increasing the number of clients we cover in China and we want to offer more products to them," Fang said.

Getting a license to operate in yuan currency securities markets "is very important to us," he said. "Not initially from a revenue point of view, but we want the ability to go to our best clients and say we can do both offshore and domestic business."

The joint venture, in which JPMorgan will hold a one-third stake, is awaiting regulatory approval. JP Morgan is behind rivals such as UBS Securities, Goldman Sachs or Credit Suisse, which already have established JVs with Chinese partners.

While it does not break out revenue by country, JPMorgan said in October that its third-quarter global investment banking profit fell by a third to $1.2 billion.

Investment banking revenue for the Asia-Pacific region grew 6 percent in the first nine months of this year compared with the same period last year, while investment banking revenue for Europe, the Middle East and Africa fell 29 percent, and declined 8 percent for the Americas.

in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53528420101213

[sandi66]

Friday saw two more bank closures as total for 2010 reaches 151

December 12th, 2010 12:10 pm ET

It has been two weeks since the last bank failure in the United States, but on Friday, December 10th, two more went into FDIC receivership.

12/10/2010 *** MI *** Farmington Hills *** Paramount Bank *** $90.2 estimated FDIC DIF cost.

12/10/2010 *** PA *** Southampton *** Earthstar Bank *** $22.9 estimated FDIC DIF cost.

This now brings the total number of banks closing their doors, going into receivership, or being purchased by another institution in 2010 to 151.

You can find more information on bank closures at the FDIC website in their Failed Bank List section.

There is also a website that carries a non-official list of problem banks that you can check and see if your institution falls under their criteria.

www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/friday-saw-two-more-bank-closures-as-total-for-2010-reaches-151

[sandi66]

Obama to talk to US bosses on economy

Monday, 13th December 2010

US President Barack Obama will hold a one-day summit of chief executives on Wednesday as part of a renewed effort by the White House to build support from among business leaders for his economic agenda.

The administration expects bosses from Google, Cisco Systems, International Business Machines, American Express, Dow Chemical and Pepsico to attend the meeting to discuss trade, tax, regulatory issues and the deficit.

The Obama administration wants to persuade US firms to release some of the $1.93 trillion (£1.22 trillion) in cash and other liquid assets they are thought to be hording.

The Federal Reserve said last week that cash as a share of total assets is at the highest level it has been in a half-century. President Obama is keen for America’s biggest companies to invest that money in expansion and job creation.

The summit will include substantial discussions on overhauling the tax code and cutting the budget deficit as well as discussions over providing “a balanced approach to regulations.”

The meeting will be held in private in contrast with some previous White House meetings involving business leaders. It is expected that holding the meeting in private will allow business leaders to speak more candidly than the have felt able to in previous more public meetings.

While Obama has met with chief executives since the start of his administration some have complained he has ignored their views. Business leaders have also expressed concern at the President’s occasional sharp criticism of multi-national companies, and his administration's regulatory and tax policies.

www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/obama-talk-us-bosses-economy

[sandi66]

House Floor Schedule Week of December 13, 2010

Posted by Katie Baker on December 12, 2010 at 7:48pm in Legislation and Bills in Congress

View Discussions
ANTICIPATED FLOOR SCHEDULE

THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 13, 2010



MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2010:

On Monday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. in pro forma session. Votes are not expected.



TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2010:

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for Morning Hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:00 p.m.



Suspensions (14 Bills)

1) S. 2906 - A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a provision relating to leases involving certain Indian tribes (Sen. Cantwell - Natural Resources)

2) S. 1609 - Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Fishery Cooperative Act (Sen. Cantwell - Natural Resources)

3) Senate Amendment to H.R. 1061 - Hoh Indian Tribe Safe Homelands Act (Rep. Dicks - Natural Resources)

4) S. 1405 - Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act (Sen. Kennedy - Natural Resources)

5) S. 1448 - A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land (Sen. Merkley - Natural Resources)

6) S.Con.Res. 72 - A concurrent resolution recognizing the 45th anniversary of the White House Fellows Program (Sen. Brownback - Oversight and Government Reform)

7) H.R. 6205 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the "Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office" (Rep. Crowley - Oversight and Government Reform)

8) S. 3794 - FOR VETS Act of 2010 (Sen. Leahy - Oversight and Government Reform)

9) H.Res. 1743 - Congratulating Gerda Weissmann Klein on being selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom (Rep. Mitchell - Oversight and Government Reform)

10) H.R. 5446 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the "Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office" (Rep. Posey - Oversight and Government Reform)

11) H.R. __ - To make technical corrections to provisions of law enacted by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Rep. Oberstar - Transportation and Infrastructure)

12) H.R. 6510 - To direct the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Houston, Texas, to the Military Museum of Texas (Rep. Jackson-Lee - Transportation and Infrastructure)

13) S. 3984 - Museum and Library Services Act of 2010 (Sen. Reed - Education and Labor)

14) S. 1275 - National Foundation on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition Establishment Act (Sen. Warner - Education and Labor)



WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15; THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16; FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2010:

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business.

Last Vote: Friday p.m.



Suspensions (12 Bills)

1) S. 3036 - National Alzheimer's Project Act (Sen. Bayh - Energy and Commerce)

2) H.Res. 1600 - Supporting the critical role of the physician assistant profession and supporting the goals and ideals of National Physician Assistant Week (Rep. McCollum - Energy and Commerce)

3) S. 30 - Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (Sen. Nelson (FL) - Energy and Commerce)

4) S. 3386 - Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (Sen. Rockefeller - Energy and Commerce)

5) S. 3199 - Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010 (Sen. Snowe - Energy and Commerce)

6) H.Res. __ - Supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral declarations of a Palestinian state (Rep. Berman - Foreign Affairs)

7) S. 987 - International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010 (Sen. Durbin - Foreign Affairs)

8) H.Res. 20 - Calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a "Country of Particular Concern" with respect to religious freedom. (Rep. Royce - Foreign Affairs)

9) H.Res. 1757 - Providing for the approval of final regulations issued by the Office of Compliance to implement the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 that apply to the House of Representatives and employees of the House of Representatives (Rep. Brady (PA) - House Administration)

10) H.Res. 1377 - Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Rep. Honda - House Administration)

11) S. 3860 - A bill to require reports on the management of Arlington National Cemetery (Sen. McCaskill - Veterans' Affairs)

12) H.R. 4337 - Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act (Rep. Rangel - Ways and Means)



Possible Further Action on H.R. 3082 - Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 and the Food Safety Enhancement Act (Rep. Obey – Appropriations) (If amended by the Senate)



Possible Further Action on H.R. 4853 – Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 (Rep. Levin – Ways and Means) (If amended by the Senate)



* Conference Reports may be brought up at any time.

* Motions to go to Conference should they become available.

* Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.



Adam Wolf

Floor Assistant

Republican Leader John A. Boehner

H-204, The Capitol

[phone]

repcloakroom.house.gov

www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/house-floor-schedule-week-of-1

[sandi66]

Political Highlights December 13, 2010: President Obama & Bill Clinton Sell Tax Cut Extension at Press White House Press Conferences

December 13, 2010

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 111TH & 112TH CONGRESS:

President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton appear together in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House for statements and to answer questions from the media, December 10, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

STATS & POLLS

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is below George W. Bush: Gallup Poll: This one’s gotta hurt. President Obama’s approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush. The ex-President’s approval rating rose to 47% in recent weeks according to a Gallup poll released Monday, which is one point higher than Obama’s rating in a survey also taken this week. The poll results represent a surprising rebound for the once fiercely unpopular Bush, whose approval rating was just 25% just a little over a year ago. Politico speculates the unexpected boomerang could be a result of the positive reviews Bush’s recently released memoir, “Decision Points,” has received in addition to the former commander-in-chief’s opening of a presidential library in Texas. That coupled with criticism over Obama’s handling of the economy and stinging Democratic losses in the midterm elections, may have affected Americans’ views of the President. Before the release of his memoir, Bush had a 44% approval rating. The most recent survey numbers mark the highest for him since 2005 – before Hurricane Katrina – CBS News reported. Bush’s highest rating was 87%, immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Still, it’s not all good news for the former President. His disapproval rating, (51%) is still higher than his approval rating, a similarity he shares with Richard Nixon, whose approval rating is just 29%. Obama’s disapproval rating (47%) is just one point higher than his approval rating. John F. Kennedy remains the most popular President in Gallup’s annual poll with 85% approval. Ronald Reagan came in second with 74%, followed by Bill Clinton’s 69%. – NY Daily News, 12-
Poll: Obama’s approval ratings fall to new low: President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he’d lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy Newspapers-Marist poll. The biggest reason for Obama’s fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November’s midterm elections. At the same time, he’s gained nothing among independents. “He’s having the worst of both worlds right now,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the national survey. “As he moves to the center, he’s not picking up support among independents and he’s having some fall-off among his base. If his strategy is to gain independents and keep the Democrats in tow, it isn’t working so far.” The poll was taken from Dec. 2 through Wednesday, as the president proposed a two-year freeze on federal civilian workers’ pay and cut a deal with congressional Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts – even those for the wealthy, which he’d opposed. Overall, just 42 percent of registered voters approve of how he’s doing his job, while 50 percent disapprove. Obama’s standing among Democrats dropped from a month ago, with his approval rating falling to 74 percent from 83 percent, and his disapproval rating rising from 11 percent to 21 percent. Among liberals, his approval rating dropped from 78 percent to 69 percent and his disapproval rating jumped from 14 percent to 22 percent. His position among independents remained virtually the same, with 39 percent approving and 52 percent disapproving. A month ago, it was 38-54…. – McClatchy Newspapers, 12-10-10
Poll: Obama’s approval ratings fall to new low: The president’s continued failure to rally independents could ruin his bid for re-election. A hypothetical 2012 matchup showed him getting the support of 44 percent of registered voters and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, getting 46 percent. Obama now is running slightly ahead of Republican former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, drawing 47 percent to Huckabee’s 43 percent. Both results were within the poll’s margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. He would easily defeat Republican former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however; he’d get 52 percent of registered voters and she’d get 40 percent, if the election were held today…. – McClatchy Newspapers, 12-10-10
Poll: Americans Want Action on the Deficit, but Oppose Most Proposals to Cut It: Amid all the discussion and debate about the deficit and what to do about it, several hard truths keep emerging: an overwhelming majority of Americans believe it is a major problem and almost none of the most widely mentioned proposals to cut the red ink by reducing spending or raising taxes get majority support from the public. Those realities stand out starkly in a new Pew Research Center poll, conducted Dec. 1-5, in which 70 percent of Americans say the deficit is a major problem that must be solved now, but disapprove by a big margin of the deficit commission’s plan to get the red ink under control. Forty-eight percent opposed the commission’s proposal — which would do things like cut spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate the popular home mortgage interest deduction — while 30 percent supported it, with 21 percent undecided. While 7 out of 10 want action on the deficit, it takes a back seat to concern over jobs. Forty-seven percent said the job situation is the economic issue that worries them most compared to 19 percent who cited the deficit. Throw into this mix the lack of confidence that the public has in Democratic or Republicans leaders to address the problem. Fifty-six percent say they have “not too much” or no confidence in the Republicans compared to 40 percent who do, while 52 percent have little or no confidence in the Democrats compared to 42 percent who do. (The remainder in each case is undecided). President Obama fares better, with 53 percent expressing confidence in him while 44 percent do not, with the rest undecided…. – Politics Daily,, 12-9-10
THE HEADLINES….

White House Photo, Chuck Kennedy, 12/7/10
Tax cuts will pass despite Democratic uprising, Obama advisor says: Congress will approve without major changes the $858-billion package that extends tax cuts and jobless benefits, says President Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod: ‘No one wants to see taxes go up on 150 million Americans.’ A top advisor to President Obama said Sunday a $858-billion package of tax cuts and jobless benefits will pass Congress without major changes, despite a revolt by some House Democrats. Senior advisor David Axelrod, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the administration would prevail on the deal struck with GOP lawmakers “because at the end of the day, no one wants to see taxes go up on 150 million Americans on Jan. 1.” A showdown in the lame-duck Congress is coming this week. Axelrod told ABC’s “This Week” that some provisions of the compromise struck with Republican lawmakers were “odious.” He cited upper-income tax cuts and estate-tax relief. But that’s the nature of compromise, he said, calling the overall package a “win for the American people.”… – LAT, 12-12-10
US diplomat Richard Holbrooke critically ill after surgery Richard Holbrooke, the veteran US diplomatic trouble-shooter nicknamed “the bulldozer”, was in critical condition in hospital on Saturday with his family by his bedside after emergency heart surgery: The 69-year-old has maintained a gruelling work and travel schedule as President Barack Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan for nearly two years. A forceful negotiator, he was best-known for brokering the 1995 Bosnian peace accords in Dayton, Ohio, that ended the ended the bloody ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslav republic. Mr Holbrooke, a key but controversial player in Mr Obama’s efforts to turn around the nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, was working at the State Department when he fell ill on Friday. He was rushed to the nearby George Washington University hospital where he underwent surgery to a torn aorta, the major artery carrying blood from the heart to other parts of the body. “Doctors completed surgery to repair a tear in his aorta,” a State Department spokesman said. “He is in critical condition and has been joined by his family.” His friend and boss, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, visited the hospital on Saturday…. – Telegraph, UK, 12-11-10
Bill Clinton Holds Forth on Tax Plan, for Starters: They have been foes and they have been, kind of, friends. And on Friday afternoon, President Obama and former President Bill Clinton walked unexpectedly into the White House briefing room for a news conference that was part surreal flashback, part one-two political punch. With Mr. Obama standing largely silently at his side, Mr. Clinton took over the lectern to lend his backing to the tax compromise the White House reached this week with Republicans. And then Mr. Clinton went on, for half an hour, answering questions and holding forth on topics from triangulation to Haiti to the mortgage crisis and the nuclear arms treaty with Russia. “I have reviewed this agreement that the president reached with the Republican leaders,” Mr. Clinton told reporters. “The agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the most Americans.” After finishing one soliloquy, Mr. Clinton summed up with, “for what it’s worth, it’s what I think.” From the side, and just out of camera range, Mr. Obama piped up: “It’s worth a lot.” “I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t want to make her mad,” Mr. Clinton quipped. “Please go.” “In my opinion, this is a good bill, and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it,” Mr. Clinton said. “We all see this differently. But I really believe this will be a significant net plus for the country.” “There are a lot of fights worth having,” he said, “but this holds the promise that after the fights are over, we will be able to find principled compromise on those as well. To me, that’s worth doing.” – NYT, 12-10-10
If Bill Clinton Were President: By the end of last week, it certainly looked as if Barack Obama had outsourced his presidency to Bill Clinton. First, he cut a Clintonian-style deal with Republicans on tax cuts and then he literally turned over the White House lectern to his predecessor. STAND IN Bill Clinton took the podium from President Obama on Friday. Equally riveting and astonishing, Mr. Clinton’s blast-from-the-past performance in the White House briefing room on Friday afternoon reinforced the impression of political déjà vu, the sense that once again a Democratic president humbled by midterm elections was pivoting to the center at the expense of his own supporters. But as no less an authority than Mr. Clinton reminded us, the comparison is incomplete and imperfect. “The story line is how well we worked with the Republicans and all that,” he said during his brief West Wing comeback. “But you know, we played political kabuki for a year.” Indeed, the real history of his response to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 was more complicated than the reductionist version. And so far, Mr. Obama’s response to the November elections has been more complicated as well. The current president’s uncomfortable tax compromise with Republicans harked back to only one aspect of Mr. Clinton’s recovery strategy in 1995 and 1996, although the howls of protest from the left must have sounded familiar to the visiting former chief executive. Mr. Clinton’s approach involved as much confrontation as conciliation, and most of all, improvisation. Even in the few weeks since the Republican election victory, Mr. Obama has already sampled from the full menu of options. On the tax cuts, he concluded that he had little choice but to cut a deal with Republicans, conceding to them one of their core priorities and angering his own supporters even as he squeezed out of the opposition as many concessions as he could to balance the agreement…. – NYT, 12-11-10
Add-ons turn tax cut bill into ‘Christmas tree’: In the spirit of the holiday season, President Barack Obama’s tax-cut deal with Republicans is becoming a Christmas tree tinseled with gifts for lobbyists and lawmakers. There are ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs, wind and solar grants for the environmentalists — all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats. The holiday additions are being hung on the big bill that was Congress’ main reason for spending December in Washington, long after the elections that will give Republicans new power in January. The measure will extend Bush-era tax cuts, averting big tax increases for nearly all Americans, and keep jobless benefits flowing. Republicans generally liked that agreement, worked out by Obama and GOP leaders. Democrats generally didn’t, hence the add-ons…. – AP, 12-10-10
Bill’s Back: Clinton commands stage at White House: No comment? No way. You don’t stop Bill Clinton when he’s back at the White House with something to say. Well, OK. He and President Barack Obama, two of the most famous men in the world, did need a little help getting a door unlocked first. But then it was on. The former president came before surprised reporters to let it be known that he endorsed the tax deal that Obama cut with the Republican Party, even though many Democrats were raising a fuss about it. That was the news. But it wasn’t the story. What had the West Wing buzzing was the scene itself: Clinton in his element, like he had never left. And almost like he wasn’t going to leave this time. For one remarkable half hour, Clinton turned a seemingly slow Friday afternoon into his stage. He tutored in loving detail about economic theory and nuclear disarmament. He was short on time, yet somehow found some for just one more question. He bit on his lip and spread his arms as he spoke and did all those other familiar gestures…. – AP, 12-10-10
Obama enlists Clinton to sell tax deal: President Barack Obama on Friday enlisted former President Bill Clinton to help sell a compromise tax package negotiated with Republicans to reluctant Democrats. After meeting with Clinton at the White House, Obama brought him to the briefing room to tout the proposal to reporters, even backing off after a brief introduction to let Clinton do the talking and take questions. “I personally think this is a good deal, and the best we can get,” Clinton said, arguing that the combination of payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance benefits and various tax credits would help the economy grow. Acknowledging that the Republican insistence on extending tax cuts to the wealthy would help him personally, Clinton said the compromise meant that both sides had to accept provisions they disliked. “There’s never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan,” Clinton said. “I believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country.” It was the latest salvo by the Obama administration in a battle for public and political support for the plan that combines extended tax cuts from the Bush era with extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks and the payroll tax holiday intended to bolster a sluggish recovery from economic recession…. – CNN, 12-10-10
How tax cut revolt helps Obama: It’s a page from Clinton playbook Perhaps President Obama’s tax-cut deal with the GOP was astute, after all. While he angered liberals, he also won back some independent support – an example of Clintonian ‘triangulation.’: Former President Clinton’s impromptu press conference in the White House briefing room Friday – in which he announced his support of President Obama’s tax-cut deal with the Republicans – could not have put in sharper relief the new political landscape in Washington. Sixteen years ago, Mr. Clinton was in the same situation Mr. Obama finds himself in today: the Democratic majority in Congress swept out of power, and the need to rethink how policy is formed. For Clinton, the answer was “triangulation,” the practice of meeting Republicans part-way, often to the chagrin of Democrats. Obama already appears to be getting the hang of it. This week’s crackup between Obama and his liberal base over a tax-cut deal he reached with the Republicans seemed poised to threaten Obama’s support among the progressive grassroots, whose energy and donations he will need to win reelection. But just as easily, it opens him up to a second look from independents and moderates who abandoned the Democrats in the midterms and whose support he needs if he wants a second term…. – CS Monitor, 12-10-10
Gates Regrets Rejection of ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Friday that he was disappointed “but not surprised” by the Senate vote late Thursday that dimmed chances for repeal this year of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. Speaking to reporters on his plane during a flight from Abu Dhabi to Washington, Mr. Gates said that he had not been optimistic that the Senate would repeal the law, which requires gay men, lesbians and bisexual people in the military to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge. Nonetheless, he held out some possibility that the Senate might end the policy by other means, even though time is rapidly running out before the end of the year. “There is still roughly a week left in the lame-duck session and so I would hope that the Congress would act to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Mr. Gates said. He was evidently referring to a plan late Thursday by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, to pull the measure out of the military spending bill it is attached to and try to pass it as stand-alone legislation. If that does not happen, Mr. Gates repeated warnings that the Pentagon would face what he has described as judicial chaos. “My greatest worry will be that then we are at the mercy of the courts and all the lack of predictability that that entails,” he said…. – NYT, 12-10-10
Senate halts repeal of ban on gays serving openly in the military: The Senate voted 57 to 40 against bringing to the floor a defense spending bill that included a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The vote delivers a significant blow to efforts to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. -
Democrats demand changes in Obama-GOP tax deal: Disappointed Democratic congressional leaders demanded changes in the White House’s tax deal with Republicans on Tuesday despite a spirited argument by President Barack Obama that concessions were preferable to higher taxes for millions of Americans. In a remarkable political role reversal, Republicans lined up to support the package, while lawmakers of the president’s party said they were prepared to oppose it. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pledged to “do everything I can to defeat this,” including a filibuster to prevent a final vote. The deal includes an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels — not just for lower and middle-income taxpayers, as Democrats wanted. It also contains a renewal of jobless benefits due to expire in a few weeks, and a one-year cut in Social Security taxes paid by workers. Other elements would loosen the estate tax and provide breaks for businesses to spur hiring. Officials said that overall, the proposal could add $900 billion to the federal deficit over two years. Democratic opposition focused chiefly on two parts of the deal that marked concessions to Republicans — the decision to let expiring tax cuts remain in effect for people in upper incomes, and a change in the estate tax that the GOP has long sought…. – AP, 12-7-10
Obama defends tax deal at news conference: One day after announcing a framework for a deal that would preserve the very tax cuts for the wealthy that he promised would be allowed expire, a fiery President Obama today defended the agreement, saying that he did not want to hurt the American people or the economy with a protracted political fight. Under the agreement — which has angered many Democrats, especially in the House — the Bush-era tax rates would be extended for two years for people at all income levels, unemployment insurance would be extended for 13 months, and payroll taxes would be decreased by 2 percentage points for one year. According to a fact sheet provided by the White House, the deal would allow a typical working family to avoid a $3,000 tax increase next year. At a hastily convened news conference in the press briefing room, the president vowed to continue the debate over tax cuts for the rich, saying he would fight to end them when they expire again. In a nod to his pragmatic governing philosophy, Obama said a refusal to compromise on any issue would lead nowhere and he asked members of his own party to remember “this is a long game, not a short game.” “This country was founded on compromise,” Obama said. “I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And, you know, if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union. So my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there: What is helping the American people live out their lives?”… – MSNBC, 12-7-10
Obama urges Democrats to support tax cut deal: President Obama on Tuesday defended the deal he reached with Republicans on extending a broad range of expiring tax cuts, saying he did not want Americans to be harmed while he engages in a long-term political fight with the GOP. Obama held a hastily arranged news conference to answer questions on the agreement struck late Monday. Vice President Biden went to Capitol Hill to sell the agreement to Democrats who played no part in reaching a compromise Obama said he struck because Republicans would not budge. “The deal we struck here … gives us time to have a political battle,” Obama said, adding that he was unwilling to see millions of Americans “immediately damaged at a time when the economy is about to recover.”… “To my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game,” Obama said…. “In order to get stuff done, we’re going to have to compromise,” Obama said. “This country was founded on compromise.”… – USA Today, 12-7-10
Tax Deal Suggests New Path for Obama: President Obama announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans on Monday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy. President Obama, who on Monday visited Greensboro, N.C., announced from the White House his deal with the Republicans. The deal appeared to resolve the first major standoff since the midterm elections between the White House and newly empowered Republicans on Capitol Hill. But it also highlighted the strains Mr. Obama faces in his own party as he navigates between a desire to get things done and a retreat from his own positions and the principles of many liberals. Congressional Democrats pointedly noted that they had yet to agree to any deal, even as many Republicans signaled that they would go along. Mr. Obama said that he did not like some elements of the framework, but that he had agreed to it to avoid having taxes increase for middle class Americans at the end of the year. He said that in return for agreeing to Republican demands that income tax rates not go up on upper-income brackets, he had secured substantial assistance to lower- and middle-income workers as well as the unemployed. “It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”… – NYT, 12-6-10
Payroll Tax Holiday Discussed in Talks on Bush Rates: The Obama administration proposed a year-long reduction in payroll taxes of 2 percentage points as part of a broader compromise to extend Bush-era tax cuts temporarily, a congressional aide said. The proposed reduction was offered as an alternative to renewing the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, a creation of President Barack Obama that expires Dec. 31 along with lower income-tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003, the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Some Senate Republicans oppose the credit. Negotiators also are discussing including Obama’s proposal to allow a full deduction for equipment purchases that currently must be deducted over time, an administration official said. The proposal would accelerate $200 billion in tax savings for companies in the first year and benefit 1.5 million companies and several million individuals who run businesses, according to White House estimates…. – Bloomberg, 12-6-10
Source: White House presents proposed tax deal to Democratic leaders: President Barack Obama presented congressional Democratic leaders Monday with a proposed deal with Republicans that would extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years and unemployment benefits for 13 months while also setting the estate tax at 35% for two years on inheritances worth more than $5 million, a senior Democratic source told CNN. The deal also includes a temporary 2% reduction in the payroll tax to replace Obama’s “making work pay” tax credit from the 2009 economic stimulus package for lower-income Americans, the senior Democratic source said. As currently crafted, the deal would prohibit amendments by either party, according to the source, who spoke on condition of not being identified by name…. – CNN, 12-6-10
111TH & 112TH CONGRESS
GOP freshmen back to Washington: Freshman members haven’t even been sworn in yet, but they’re already heading to Washington for another round of orientation — this time to learn about policy issues and begin the committee assignment process. The Republican freshmen class — 84 members strong — is in town for a “retreat” hosted by the Congressional Institute at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, with workshops in which they’ll learn about congressional process and rules before they meet with their conference to determine chairmanships and begin to hash out committee assignments…. – Politico, 12-7-10
ELECTIONS 2010, 2012….
Obama’s Tax Deal Likely to Emerge as Campaign Issue in 2012: If Congress approves President Obama’s deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, the compromise is all but certain to be a major issue in the next election cycle. “I’m a little bit surprised that there weren’t more people pushing to have this be a three-year deal instead of a two-year deal,” said Andy Card, the former White House chief of staff to President George W. Bush. “Because they’ve guaranteed that taxes will be front and center of the debate in terms of the presidential election in 2012. Which means it’s also going to be front and center for the election for every member of Congress and for one third of the United States Senate.”… The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint oppose it. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee support it. And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence either aren’t sure or are just staying mum. Obama, who met with congressional leaders on Nov. 30 to work on this deal says he’s focused on the issue at hand right now. “These aren’t times for us to be playing games,” he said. “As I told the leaders at the beginning of the meeting, the next election is two years away and there will be plenty of time for campaigning.”… – Fox News, 12-11-10
QUOTES
President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton make statements and answer questions from the press corps in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, December 10, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Strongly Urges Passage of the Framework Agreement on Middle Class Tax Cuts Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White House December 11, 2010: Right now, there’s a big debate taking place in Washington that will affect how much you pay in taxes next year. If Congress doesn’t act, tax rates will automatically go up for just about everyone in our country. Typical middle class families would end up paying an extra $3,000. That’s unacceptable to me. Not when we know that it’s the middle class that was hit the hardest by the recession. And not when we know that taking this money out of the pockets of working people is exactly the wrong thing to do to get our economy growing faster. Economists tell us that this tax hike on working families could actually cost us well over a million jobs. That’s why I’ve been fighting so hard to cut middle class taxes. And that’s why I brought both Democrats and Republicans to the table – to put together a compromise, and work through our differences, so we could get this done. Now, the Republicans in Congress strongly favored permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers and the wealthiest estates, most of which would go to millionaires and even billionaires. But I didn’t believe that these tax cuts were worth the cost. They’d add to our deficits without really boosting the economy. I believed that the best way to help the economy, and working families, was to keep middle class tax rates low, and cut taxes for working parents, college students, and small businesses. And I believed that with millions of people looking for jobs, it would be a terrible mistake to end unemployment insurance – not only for people who are out of work, but for our entire economy. So we hammered out a deal that reflects ideas from both sides. It wasn’t easy, and it’s by no means perfect. And as with any compromise, everybody had to live with elements they didn’t like. But this is a good deal for the American people. The vast majority of the tax cuts in this plan will help the middle class, including a new cut in payroll taxes that will save the average family about $1,000. And as this plan is debated in Congress, what I want to make clear is the real difference it will make in people’s lives…. So this plan is going to help millions of families to make ends meet, through tax cuts and unemployment insurance for people who’ve lost their jobs by no fault of their own. And we included tax relief for businesses, too – making it easier for them to invest and expand. All told, this will not only directly help families and businesses. By putting more money in people’s pockets, and helping companies grow, we’re going to see people being able to spend a little more, we’re going to spur hiring – we’re going to strengthen our entire economy. Now, I recognize that many of my friends in my own party are uncomfortable with some of what’s in this agreement, in particular the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy. And I share their concerns. It’s clear that over the long run, if we’re serious about balancing the budget, we cannot afford to continue these tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers – especially when we know that cutting the deficit is going to demand sacrifice from everyone. That’s the reality. But at the same time, we cannot allow the middle class in this country to be caught in the political crossfire of Washington. People want us to find solutions, not score points. And I will not allow middle class families to be treated like pawns on a chessboard. The opportunity for families to send their kids to college hinges on this debate. The ability of parents to put food on the table while looking for a job depends on this debate. And our recovery will be strengthened or weakened based on the choice that now rests with Congress. So I strongly urge members of both parties to pass this plan. And I’m confident that they will do the right thing, strengthening the middle class and our economic recovery. – - Transcript — Mp4 — Mp3
Remarks by President Obama and Former President Clinton: PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hey, everybody. I thought it was a slow day, so I’ve –Q Slow news day, huh? PRESIDENT OBAMA: — bring the other guy in. Obviously, there’s a big debate going on about taxes, and about the need to grow the economy and to create jobs. And just about every day this week, I’ve been making an argument as to why the agreement that we’ve struck to provide billions of dollars in payroll tax cuts that can immediately help rejuvenate the economy, as well as tax cuts for middle-class families, unemployment insurance for folks who desperately need it, credits for college, Child Tax Credits, as well as a range of business investments credits are so important to make sure that we keep this recovery moving. I just had a terrific meeting with the former President, President Bill Clinton. And we just happened to have this as a topic of conversation. And I thought, given the fact that he presided over as good an economy as we’ve seen in our lifetimes, that it might be useful for him to share some of his thoughts. I’m going to let him speak very briefly. And then I’ve actually got to go over and do some — just one more Christmas party. So he may decide he wants to take some questions, but I want to make sure that you guys hear it from him directly. FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, I feel awkward being here, and now you’re going to leave me all by myself. (Laughter.) Let me just say a couple of things. First of all, I still spend about an hour a day trying to study this economy. And I’m not running for anything, and I don’t have a political agenda. I just — I try to figure out what to do. I have reviewed this agreement that the President reached with Republican leaders. And I want to make full disclosure I make quite a bit of money now, so the position that the Republicans have urged will personally benefit me. And on its own, I wouldn’t support it because I don’t think that my tax cut is the most economically efficient way to get the economy going again. But I don’t want to be in the dark about the fact that I will receive the continuation of the tax rates. However, the agreement taken as a whole is, I believe, the best bipartisan agreement we can reach to help the largest number of Americans, and to maximize the chances that the economic recovery will accelerate and create more jobs, and to minimize the chances that it will slip back, which is what has happened in other financial collapses. Like, that’s what Japan faced, and it’s something that we have to avoid in America. Why do I say that? First of all, because clearly the extension of unemployment, which gives people a percentage of the income they were previously making, will — that money will be spent and it will bolster the economy for the next couple of years. Secondly, the conversion of the Make Work Pay Tax Credit, which the President passed before, which goes to — went to 95 percent of the American people, converting that into an $120 billion one-year payroll tax relief act is, according to all the economic analyses, the single most effective tax cut you can do to support economic activity. This will actually create a fair number of jobs. I expect it to lower the unemployment rate and keep us going. Thirdly, and one thing I haven’t seen much about in the reports, this agreement will really help America over the long term, because it continues the credits for manufacturing jobs related to energy coming in to America. And I’ll remind you, just in the last two years, there have been 30 high-powered battery factories either opened or presently being built in America, taking us from 2 to 20 percent of the world’s share of that. And we’re going to probably be at 40 percent by 2014. This is a really important thing, bringing manufacturing back to America, because it’s a huge multiplier to create new jobs. So in my opinion, this is a good bill. And I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it. I thank the Republican leaders for agreeing to include things that were important to the President. There is never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan. And we all see this differently. But I really believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country. I also think that in general a lot of people are heaving a sigh of relief that there’s finally been some agreement on something. But don’t minimize the impact of the unemployment relief for working families, of the payroll tax relief, and of the continuation of the incentives to grow jobs, which will trigger more credit coming out of the banks. Keep in mind, ultimately the long-term answer here is to get the $2 trillion, which banks now have in cash reserves uncommitted to loans, out there in the economy again, the $1.8 trillion in corporate treasuries not now being invested out there in the economy again. I think this is a net-plus. And you know how I feel. I think the people that benefit most should pay most. That’s always been my position — not for class warfare reasons; for reasons of fairness in rebuilding the middle class in America. But we have the distribution of authority we have now in the Congress and what we’re going to have in January, and I think this is a much, much better agreement than would be reached were we to wait until January. And I think it will have a much more positive impact on the economy. So for whatever it’s worth, that’s what I think. PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s worth a lot…. – WH, 12-10-10 — Transcript — Mp4 — Mp3
President Obama on the Middle Class Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance Agreement: “A Good Deal For The American People”: I’m focused on making sure that tens of millions of hardworking Americans are not seeing their paychecks shrink on January 1st just because the folks here in Washington are busy trying to score political points. And because of this agreement, middle-class Americans won’t see their taxes go up on January 1st, which is what I promised — a promise I made during the campaign, a promise I made as President. Because of this agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table. And in exchange for a temporary extension of the high-income tax breaks — not a permanent but a temporary extension — a policy that I opposed but that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two years ago. I’ll cite three of them. Number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to see tax breaks next year. Second, if you’re a small business looking to invest and grow, you’ll have a tax cut next year. Third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011, which will add about $1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family. So this isn’t an abstract debate. This is real money for real people that will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. It will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. In other words, it’s a good deal for the American people. Now, I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all Americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment insurance for those who are desperately looking for work. And I understand the desire for a fight. I’m sympathetic to that. I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years. In the long run, we simply can’t afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed. So we’re going to keep on having this debate. We’re going to keep on having this battle. But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. A long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people. And my responsibility as President is to do what’s right for the American people. That’s a responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in this office…. – WH, 12-7-10 — Transcript — Mp3 — Mp4 Video
Democrats Urge Senate Leaders to Add Build Americas to Tax Deal: Senate Democrats are seeking changes to a tax-cut agreement President Barack Obama reached with Republican lawmakers, said Majority Leader Harry Reid, who hopes to bring the measure to the floor this week. Some changes “would make the bill much better, and I’m going to work on those,” Reid of Nevada told reporters after meeting with members of his party today to discuss the plan. He said he hopes the Senate would take the measure up “in the next day or two.” Asked whether the Senate would have the votes to pass the measure, he said, “I hope so.” – Bloomberg, 12-8-10
Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Republican leadership, said he expects few changes to the negotiated pact, even though Democrats may want them. “I don’t think there’s going to be any real changes to speak of,” he said.
Obama earlier today rejected the notion that he betrayed congressional Democrats by making the deal. “I think Democrats are looking at this bill, and you’ve already had a whole bunch of them who said ‘this makes sense,’” Obama said following an Oval Office meeting with Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski. “I think they’re going to feel confident that, in fact, this is the right course.”
Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia called the agreement the “ultimate stimulus plan” that “shows great promise for reinvigorating the economy” by putting more money in the pockets of workers and small- business owners. “The American people, and particularly those who are out of work, cannot afford to wait while politics-as-usual blocks an effective, bipartisan plan to stimulate the economy and restore growth,” he said in a statement. ‘Imperfect Agreement’
Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, told reporters in a briefing that a failure by Congress to adopt what he called an “imperfect agreement” would raise the risk of a double-dip recession. “I don’t think at the end of the day the Congress will take a step that materially increases the risk of this economy stalling,” Summers said.
President Barack Obama at December 7, 2010 Press Conference: At his hastily called news conference, Obama bristled at times, casting himself in the role of compromiser-in-chief with the best interests of the economy and public in mind. “I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of the economy,” Obama said of his day-old deal, which is designed to avert a scheduled Jan. 1 expiration of tax cuts at all income levels. “This isn’t an abstract debate. This is real money, It will make a real difference in the lives of people who sent us here,” Obama said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, yesterday termed the estate tax provision “a bridge too far.” She also said that in general, “the response has not been very good” among House Democrats to the deal.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev: The compromise is “something that’s not done yet. We’re going to have to do some more work,” he said after a closed door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.
Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that said: “Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3%, do not create jobs and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit…. We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”
Text Obama’s Remarks on the Tax Compromise: Following is a text of President Obama’s remarks on Monday in which he announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, as released by the White House:For the past few weeks there’s been a lot of talk around Washington about taxes and there’s been a lot of political positioning between the two parties. But around kitchen tables, Americans are asking just one question: Are we going to allow their taxes to go up on January 1st, or will we meet our responsibilities to resolve our differences and do what’s necessary to speed up the recovery and get people back to work? Now, there’s no doubt that the differences between the parties are real and they are profound. Ever since I started running for this office I’ve said that we should only extend the tax cuts for the middle class. These are the Americans who’ve taken the biggest hit not only from this recession but from nearly a decade of costs that have gone up while their paychecks have not. It would be a grave injustice to let taxes increase for these Americans right now. And it would deal a serious blow to our economic recovery. Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy. This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit. We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there’s no reason to believe that this stalemate won’t continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts. I am not willing to let that happen. I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can’t reach a compromise. But I’m not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I’m not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we’re pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. I’m not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe. So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. They would much rather have the comfort of knowing that when they open their first paycheck on January of 2011, it won’t be smaller than it was before, all because Washington decided they preferred to have a fight and failed to act…. – NYT, 12-7-10
HISTORIANS & ANALYSTS’ COMMENTS

White House Photo, Samantha Appleton, 12/10/10
Scott Sandage: Obama “not a naturally tough character”: As angry Democrats beat a path to television cameras Wednesday to denounce a White House tax compromise with Republicans, President Obama was making a show of being presidential…. “He is certainly straining to prove that he is tough,” said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist. “But there is a real threat to the White House now in that it is officially open season on the administration from the left and the right…. “The key risk in all of this for Obama is that he is not a naturally tough character. Scott Sandage, a professor of history at Carnegie Mellon University, said Obama’s short stint in the Senate didn’t give him a killer instinct for legislative wrangling. “It often seems like when Obama recedes, he is trusting the process to drive itself — and it just doesn’t work that way,” Sandage said…. – Washington Examiner (12-8-10)
K.C. Johnson: “No incentive” for politicians to be contrite: In Washington, shame isn’t what it used to be. That was the lesson of the showdown Thursday between Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and the rest of the House of Representatives. Rangel’s colleagues voted overwhelmingly to censure him for ethics violations – a punishment that included a public scolding in the House chamber. But Rangel didn’t cooperate. The rebuke would only work if he felt ashamed. And he didn’t…. “If you show shame, or show an honest contriteness, that’s likely to appear in a campaign commercial against you,” said KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College in New York. “The fact is that there’s really no incentive to admit to any wrongdoing in this kind of environment.”… – WaPo (12-4-10)
As Obama faces Democratic ire over tax deal, some recall Carter years: Nonetheless, “there are certainly parallels,” said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and the author of “Jimmy Carter,” a book about Carter’s presidency. “There is a real level of discomfort among Democrats that Obama is not giving them policy that is good for the party and he’s putting them in political trouble, something Carter dealt with right off the bat,” Zelizer said Wednesday. “Liberals have a feeling that the administration has simply abandoned the principles that brought them to office.” Similar ire from within his own party helped sound a death knell for Carter, Zelizer said, as the late Ted Kennedy, in particular, worked to undermine him at every turn. Kennedy even mounted a challenge to Carter’s leadership, unsuccessfully running for the Democratic nomination in 1980 — a headache Obama isn’t realistically expected to face, despite anger from congressional Democrats. Both Carter and Obama also dealt with an economic crisis they couldn’t hose down, said Zelizer — in Carter’s case, stagflation and an energy crisis. “Carter faced this underlying stagnant economy that he couldn’t do much about; he couldn’t figure out how to stimulate it. It ate away at his administration and his presidency, and that’s happening to Obama as well.” Zelizer, however, said the White House ignores Carter’s experiences at its own peril. “The problem is if you alienate your supporters, and you alienate congressional Democrats, and you have an opponent that is vowing to attack you no matter what you do, you end up an isolated president, and that’s very dangerous,” he said. “That’s what happened to Carter, and what could happen to Obama.” – Winnipeg Free Press, 12-8-10
As Obama faces Democratic ire over tax deal, some recall Carter years: Stephen Hess, a longtime Washington political operative who once advised Carter in addition to several Republican presidents, said he sees few similarities between the two men, either personally or in terms of their political situation. “Of all the presidents I’ve known since Dwight D. Eisenhower, these two are about as far apart as any two I’ve seen,” Hess said. “Carter was an engineer; he was involved in all the joints and connections. Obama is much more of an intellectual, and much more broadly engaged. They look at life from opposite ends of the telescope, one looking at it widely and the other quite narrowly.” Obama has also had many more legislative accomplishments in his two years in the Oval Office than Carter ever did, Hess adds. “His record of achievement is tremendous, much greater than anybody else in a long, long time,” he said. “He got three major pieces of legislation through in his first Congress; nothing like that ever happened for Carter.” As well, Hess added, Obama’s “bring it on” strategy against critics in his own party might actually turn out to be a cunning bit of political gamesmanship, whereas Carter’s fumbles were exactly that. “With the tax deal, Obama landed basically where the American people want to be, he got as much as he could for his position, and he might have created some groundwork for future deals,” Hess said. “Sure, the liberals are mad at him but it’s the independents in the middle that he’s going to need. Appearing to be fighting back against liberal Democrats could be useful to him because it shows independents that he’s a centrist, despite conservatives trying to portray him as something he isn’t — a socialist, a communist.” – Winnipeg Free Press, 12-8-10
Krugman: Obama’s Tax Defense ‘Enormously Self-Indulgent’: President Obama used a White House news conference to make the case for a new tax cut compromise and appeal to supporters unhappy with the plan. Jeffrey Brown talks to Paul Krugman and Stephen Moore for reaction to the deal…. – PBS Newshour, 12-7-10
Julian Zelizer: Focusing on deficit a lose-lose move for Obama: The political pressure on the administration to tackle deficit reduction is mounting. Even before he began negotiations with Republicans last week, President Obama conceded ground by announcing a federal pay freeze. He has given indications that, like President Jimmy Carter in 1978, he intends to shift his focus from unemployment to deficits in response to the “message” from the midterms. Yet Obama should be extremely cautious before he shifts the focus of his agenda. Emphasizing deficits over unemployment threatens to carry huge political costs for Democrats. The latest unemployment numbers are a stark reminder of the terrible shape of the economy. Regardless of the conventional wisdom, moreover, the move won’t leave him in a stronger political position. At a time when many economists believe that the time is not right to move toward deficit reduction, given that the economy is still fragile and unstable, Obama is heading into a political trap. The major political problem for Obama is that making deficit reduction an immediate priority is unlikely to win over Republican support. The record since 2008 has been that even when Obama gives ground to the GOP on issues like health care and economic policy, Republicans have rarely offered their support in return. Rather, the GOP has demanded more from the president, while continuing to attack the administration as left-of-center…. The moves will not win over Republicans and at the same time threaten to deepen the rift between Obama and congressional Democrats. All of this will happen and the levels of unemployment won’t abate. Like Carter, Obama can find himself in the worst of both worlds, angering his supporters and doing nothing to appease his opponents, thus becoming increasingly isolated as the 2012 elections approach. – CNN, 12-6-10

bonniekaryn.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/political-highlights-12-13-10-obama-clinton-tax-cut-extension/

[sandi66]

Elimination of Loopholes for Pentagon Contractors Could Create Thousands of Jobs, According to the American Small Business League

December 13, 2010 07:50 AM Eastern Time

PETALUMA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The following is a statement by the American Small Business League:


The elimination of a potentially fraudulent Pentagon subcontracting program could help spur job creation by increasing the amount of federal subcontracting dollars available for middle class firms.

The Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program (CSPTP) was established over 20 years ago with the stated mission of increasing subcontracts for small businesses. The American Small Business League (ASBL) has long maintained that the program actually allows large defense contractors to circumvent small business subcontracting goals. As established, the program eliminates subcontracting reports available to the public, the media, and Congress, as well as eliminating all penalties for non-compliance with subcontracting goals.

The ASBL estimates that elimination of the CSPTP would redirect approximately $10 billion a year in additional subcontracting opportunities for middle class firms. Research conducted by the ASBL has shown that over the past 21 years, small businesses have been defrauded of more than $200 billion in federal subcontracts due to the CSPTP.

When first coming into office, President Obama estimated that every billion dollars spent on federal infrastructure projects would create 40,000 jobs. Based on these estimates, ending the CSPTP would create roughly 400,000 new jobs. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?fta=y) According to the U.S. Census Bureau, small businesses are responsible for more than 90 percent of all net new jobs, 50.2 percent of the non-farm private sector workforce, 50 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 90 percent of exports and innovations. (http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs359.pdf)

In October, five members of the House of Representatives, lead by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY) requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) to investigate and evaluate the CSPTP to determine if the program was meeting its stated goals. After being in place for over two decades, the CSPTP has never been evaluated by the Pentagon or any federal agency. (http://www.asbl.com/documents/DoDCSPTPLetter.pdf)

“This program has done the antithesis of what Congress said it would. It needs to be eliminated and investigated to determine how much fraud has occurred over the past 21 years,” ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. “If President Obama and Congress were serious about job creation, they would end programs like the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program and ensure that federal contracts meant for small businesses actually go to middle class firms who create over 90 percent of all new jobs.”


Contacts
American Small Business League
Christopher Gunn, 707-789-9575
Communications Director
[e-mail]

www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101213005421/en/Elimination-Loopholes-Pentagon-Contractors-Create-Thousands-Jobs

[sandi66]

Va. Judge to Rule on Health Care Legislation

Judge Considers Constitutionality of 'Individual Mandate' in Health Care Law

Dec. 13, 2010

A federal judge in Virginia today is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Obama Administration's recently passed health care legislation.

United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson is expected to issue a ruling targeting a provision of the act that requires individuals to either obtain a minimum level of health insurance coverage, or pay a penalty for failing to do so. The provision is set to go into effect in 2014.

Virginia is challenging the law, arguing that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the legislation and that the law conflicts with a state law already on the books that says residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

"This is the first case in which a judge will actually enter a decision on the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate at the behest of a state," says Tim Jost of Washington and Lee University Law School. "Virginia has adopted a statute that attempts to nullify the federal law. It cannot do that if the federal law is found to be constitutional."

The Obama administration contends that Congress was well within its authority, under the Commerce Clause, to pass the so called "individual mandate" because the costs of the uninsured translate to interstate economic activity. In court briefs government lawyers argue that in 2009 alone 45 million people—an estimated 15% of the population—went without health insurance.

"The uninsured shift $43 billion in the cost of their care annually to other market participants," argued lawyers for Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in court briefs, "including providers, patients (in the form of higher costs) insurers, and the insured population (in the form of higher premiums)."

The government lawyers argue "Congress has the authority under Commerce power to take measures to ensure the success of its larger reforms of the interstate market."

In October a Florida federal judge ruled that a similar challenge brought by 20 states could go forward. Virginia filed its lawsuit separately from those states because it is one of a few states that already have a law -- the Virginia Health Freedom Act -- which states that residents cannot be ordered to buy insurance.

The Virginia case is being carefully watched because Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, has expressed some skepticism on the administration's position.

In October, Hudson allowed Virginia's challenge to the law to go forward finding that the challenge to the individual mandate "literally forges new ground and extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark."

Hudson said that the case raised complex constitutional issues that "Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed."

In his opinion, however, the judge noted that he is only one federal judge reviewing the issue.

"While this Court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case," he wrote, "it will certainly not be the final word."

abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-legislation-fire-va/story?id=12377565&page=2

[sandi66]

Obama needs two presidents to offset one Pelosi


December 13, 2010 – 8:00 am

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton spent 90 minutes together on Friday, before heading to the White House press room where – after someone came along to let them in – Mr. Clinton spent another half hour giving his blessing to Mr. Obama’s tax-cut compromise with the Republicans .

Mr. Clinton talked so long that the current president excused himself to go meet his wife at a Christmas function. Mr. Clinton carried on happily without him. Mr. Obama was glad to leave him to it: so tenuous is his grip on his party’s Congressional caucus these days that it takes two Democratic presidents to wheedle party members into supporting their own side.
When Mr. Obama eventually departs the presidency – whether in two years or six – it’s entirely possible historians will write that his greatest trials were not brought on by Republicans, but the fractious and hard-to-please Democrats who are supposedly helping shepherd his agenda into law. Mr. Obama is author of some of his own troubles, but he can thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – for contributing enormously to the midterm drubbing from which Mr. Obama is now trying to recover. By turning his health care plan into a mammoth self-serving spend-a-thon of Democratic pork projects they tacked billions on billions of unnecessary expense onto the the final price tag. By holding out against any sensible compromise they ensured not a single Republican voted for the bill. By making clear they viewed the Obama presidency as an opportunity to seize Washington and hustle it off to the farthest corners of the leftist agenda, they helped scare voters into backing a Republican comeback, even if the Republicans have nothing to sell but anger and discredited bromides.

Now the same people who served him so poorly in the first half of his term are making it clear they intend to be no more helpful in the second. Nancy Pelosi – deaf to the message sent by the electorate when she was Speaker – corralled enough support from the rump group of leftists who survived the midterm slaughter to get herself elected House minority leader, where she will be able to continue “helping” her president by scaring the bejesus out of moderate Americans. Her troops – so reasonable, these people – are already screeching about the package Mr. Obama put together with the Republicans and signalling he can’t count on their backing when it comes to the House. Hence the appearance by Mr. Clinton, who experienced a similar midterm debacle in his own presidency and managed to fight back and win a second term by learning to get along with his Republican opponents. Mr. Obama’s message is that it can happen again if Democrats in Congress can learn to quit demanding total surrender from a country in which the have the support of only a limited minority. The midterms cleared many of the moderates out of the House, leaving behind the diehard true believers, i.e. the ones least likely to be sensible.

They are upset that Obama agreed to extend the tax cuts to the rich as well as the middle class and lower incomes. He did it because it was the only way to secure passage. The deal will add $900 billion to the U.S. debt, but it’s not that figure that angers Democrats. They’re happy to pile debt on debt. Obama would have added most of the $900 billion even without the Republican compromise, since by far the biggest portion will go to tax breaks and unemployment benefits he wanted to push through anyway. But Democrats wanted the whole cake for themselves and nothing for anyone else, so they’re muttering darkly about refusing to support a president who agreed to give at least a couple slices to the opposition.

What, you wonder, was the alternative? Why, glorious failure, of course. Holding out would likely have led to a standoff, and government shutdown, just like the one Mr. Clinton endured (and which led to his near-fatal tryst with Monica Lewinsky). No one would have got anything – no breaks for middle class, no benefits for the jobless, none of the other perks Mr. Obama loaded into the bill.

That might have been the best result, since at least it would have spared future generations from struggling to pay back the money their elders borrowed. But you can imagine the Democrats’ reaction at getting nothing, given how outraged they are at getting two-thirds of what they asked for.

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/13/kelly-mcparland-obama-needs-two-presidents-to-offset-one-pelosi/

[sandi66]

Vatican Bank under scrutiny re money-laundering allegations.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Vatican Bank is under fresh scrutiny today after allegations of money-laundering caused police to confiscate £19 million from an account held with the private bank.

On 21 September, a team from the financial investigation arm of the Italian police seized the £19 million from an account at the Vatican Bank due to the bank’s refusal to comply with money-laundering laws by providing information on the origin and destination of the amount.

Investigators also suspect members of the Vatican-based clergy may have been acting as front men for the Mafia and corrupt businessmen. Documents highlight two unreported transactions, the first in 2009 using a false name and involving a large sum and the second in 2010 involving a withdrawal of 650,000 euros without disclosure of the money’s final destination.

It appears the bulk of the first amount, 20 million euros, was headed for a JP Morgan branch in Frankfurt, with the rest going to an account held at the Italian Banca del Fucino. Prosecutors allege regulations stating foreign banks must inform the Italian authorities of the origins of funds transferred were ignored by the banks involved, which are at present declining to comment.

The seizure of assets is being referred to by the Vatican as a ‘misunderstanding’ with its officials expecting the matter to be resolved at an early date. However, prosecutors state they are in possession of documents which clearly show the bank deliberately flouted strict money-laundering legislation by hiding the origin, destination and ownership of the money.

The allegations come at a bad time for the Vatican, no stranger to financial and Mafia-linked scandals. Reeling from revelations it sheltered priests accused of paedophilia and legal action by Holocaust survivors on Nazi loot allegedly stored in its bank’s strong-rooms, this latest move is a reminder of the 1980s, when two Vatican bankers died in highly suspicious circumstances.

news.carrentals.co.uk/vatican-bank-under-scrutiny-re-money-laundering-allegations-34228467.html

[sandi66]

Real estate opportunities starting to grow
Investors with much-needed cash are getting the cream of the crop

By Arleen Jacobius

December 13, 2010, 12:01 AM ET

Real estate is starting to yield solid investment opportunities that are expected to grow considerably over the next two years, industry insiders say.

So far, the land rush that industry professionals had expected at the beginning of the global economic meltdown has not materialized.

“The debt crisis of 2008, 2009 and 2010 is the best opportunity that never happened,” quipped Mike Straneva, Americas and global director of transaction real estate in the Phoenix office of Ernst & Young LLC.

Investors with pools of capital are poised to purchase properties that lenders do not want to own through foreclosure, as well as properties that owners can't afford to keep when loans come due.

Jeff Giller, managing partner of Clairvue Capital Partners, a real estate investment firm in San Francisco, said an estimated $230 billion will be needed to rebalance the roughly $1 trillion in commercial mortgages coming due over the next three years and $50 billion for the approximately $125 billion of debt maturing in real estate private equity funds.

Money managers, real estate investment trusts and consortiums that include institutional investors are swooping in with much-needed cash to pick the best properties. Money managers, real estate investment management firms and hedge funds have amassed capital to buy real estate debt and rescue beleaguered property owners.

The owners include private equity real estate funds that bought properties using mostly debt in the high-flying days that reached a crescendo in 2007.

Institutional investors also are getting in on the buying, forming joint ventures to pick up substantial interests in mostly core properties with steady cash flows that have hit hard times.

One such investor is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which entered into joint ventures to buy 45% stakes in several properties this year. The CPPIB acquired a 45% interest in 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, for US$576 million in debt and equity. At the same time, it formed a joint venture with SL Green Realty Corp. to purchase a 45% stake in 600 Lexington Ave., also in New York, for US$87 million.

Officials at the Toronto-based board, with C$138.6 billion (US$138.2 billion) in total assets, have estimated the properties had a combined value of US$1.45 billion.

“We're definitely seeing more creative acquisition work” as investors look to invest in the debt in order to get the property, said Jason Kopcak, managing director and head of whole loans at Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., New York, which started an investment banking business in 2008. “Private equity and hedge funds are buying the debt with the ultimate goal of buying the assets.”

Mr. Kopcak works with banks and hedge funds to helpwith dispositions of the real estate loans they own.

However, instead of buying a bag of miscellaneous real estate debt as they did in 2007 and 2008, hedge funds and other investors are becoming more specialized, only investing in the debt of certain real estate property types with which they are most comfortable, he said.

Speaking about banks that extended mortgages in hopes the real estate market would turn around, Jahn Brodwin, senior managing director at real estate consultant FTI Schonbraun McCann Group in New York, said: “We're just at the tip of it. The "extend and pretend' eventually has to come to an end.

By next year, as properties are sold, “there will be a big shuffling of the deck in the ownership of real estate,” said Mr. Brodwin.

“It looks like it did in the mid-1990s, when public REITs were buying everything,” he said.

Not for pennies
But don't look for the clock to rewind further to 1989, when the Resolution Trust Corp. was created. Real estate debt is not being unloaded wholesale for pennies on the dollar, as happened then.

Today's marketplace is different, said Ernst & Young's Mr. Straneva. Recent regulatory changes shifted the power to debtors from creditors. Banks do not have to write down loans as long as owners are paying the interest, even when the loan exceeds the property's value; low interest rates made making the interest payments on mortgages easier.

Interest rates are so low that Mr. Straneva said he's seen owners of land that was purchased to build an office building still able to make the interest payments on the mortgage by turning the property into a parking lot.

During the RTC days, debtors could fund a bankruptcy from property cash flows. But now a missed mortgage payment often starts a process that leads to the sale of the property by a receiver, and the debtor loses everything, he said.

“The owner must decide pretty quickly whether he will fund the bankruptcy out of his own pocket or bring in new capital,” he said. This creates an opportunity for those with new money.

What's more, new regulations allow lenders to divide troubled loans into good and bad tranches. Banks then can extend the good tranche and open the door for new capital to rescue the bad tranche, Mr. Straneva said. Institutions will invest in the bad tranches and get a piece of the ownership stake in return.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has begun selling off larger batches of commercial debt held by failed banks. According to the FDIC, there are now 860 failed banks on the agency's problem list that hold $379 billion in total assets.

Although the FDIC has sold half as many total loans so far this year than in all of 2009, a greater percentage this year have been for commercial real estate. Some 13% ($12.1 billion) of the $88 billion of loans sold through Oct. 31 were commercial real estate loans. By comparison, 9% ($15 billion) of the $171 billion of loans sold in 2009 were commercial real estate loans, said LaJuan Williams-Young, FDIC spokeswoman.Investors are bidding on bigger pools of real estate debt sold by the FDIC, especially now that more commercial loans are being sold. Besides the FDIC sales, smaller healthy banks also are considering selling real estate debt because rising prices on certain properties are making a sale more palatable, Mr. Straneva said.

The possibilities are tremendous, said Alan Feldman, CEO of Resource Real Estate Inc., a Philadelphia-based real estate investment firm. Banks, life insurance companies and commercial mortgage-backed securities special servicers are holding mortgages on properties that are not worth the debt. “All of those loans need to be replaced and the property has to be recapitalized,” Mr. Feldman said.

But not all properties are the same. Real estate right now is a persnickety marketplace. “There's a bell curve. There's a flight to quality and people are paying record prices,” Mr. Feldman said.

Property values in gateway cities such as New York and Washington are coming back faster because of more investor demand, said Clairvue's Mr. Giller. So far, banks are hanging tough on the most desirable properties, neither foreclosing nor cutting a deal because they still perceive value in the properties. Banks are most likely to foreclose on properties they can manage.

Undesirable properties
At the other end of the spectrum are the undesirable properties. “Hotels are a hybrid of real estate and operating businesses and are very tough to manage, (so) banks will hang in with the borrowers. Foreclosed-on shopping centers and hotels can turn into nightmares very quickly,” Mr. Giller said.

Mr. Giller said the vast middle between the more stable core and the riskier opportunistic assets is ripe for workouts because most money is chasing core for the income and opportunistic real estate for the anticipated higher returns.

“The real opportunity we see is debt assets, especially on multifamily properties that require things to be fixed,” Mr. Feldman said. He prefers to work with lenders because owners often no longer own an equity interest in the property. Clairvue primarily assists borrowers by offering rescue capital, mostly to private equity owners of real estate with troubled properties in their portfolios, Mr. Giller said.

Both Mr. Feldman and Mr. Giller agree that the next couple of years will be big.

Mr. Feldman added that he only sees the velocity of the loan defaults to begin to increase, with much of the sellers being special servicers.

“2011 and 2012 will be big years for debt restructuring,” Mr. Giller said. “Twenty percent to 40% of the commercial real estate debt that was issued in the middle of last decade is in trouble and will need to be worked out.”

www.pionline.com/article/20101213/PRINTSUB/312139982

[sandi66]

National Review: Tax Fight On The Right?

December 13, 2010
Robert Costa is a political reporter for National Review.

Bill Clinton, more than most, knows how to stir up Republicans. After shambling into the White House briefing room on Friday for an impromptu Q&A, he noted that "a lot of the hard-core conservatives think that Republicans gave too much" on the deal with President Obama to extend Bush-era tax rates.

"Read Charles Krauthammer's column in the Post today — he's a brilliant man," a thin-grinned Clinton advised. "He pointed out that they got the divisive tax cuts, but most of them were targeted to middle-class working people." Numerous Republicans, Clinton mused, think "Democrats got more out of this than Republicans did."

Clinton's comments hint at growing discontent on the right over the deal, which was brokered by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. While a broad swath of the GOP has backed the compromise, conservative lawmakers appear to be proceeding uneasily: Most are unhappy with aspects of the deal, but only a few are willing to completely shun it.

Extending the tax rates, of course, garners near-universal acclaim. But Republicans view other parts of the deal, such as the temporary payroll-tax deduction, the $56 billion toward jobless benefits, and myriad Obama-favored tax credits, as hold-your-nose compromises.

For an example of the grumbling, see Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who wrote in a Twitter message Friday that he has "serious concerns." Nevertheless, he will support the agreement because "Americans can't afford tax increases."

While McCain's grudging acceptance appears to reflect the caucus consensus, the whip count is far from certain. Indeed, with the Senate ready to vote Monday on whether to take up the tax agreement, Republicans, especially those who are Tea Party darlings, face a pressing decision: Will they fight?

As they mull their options, Krauthammer's Friday column is quickly becoming a rallying cry for critics. In arguing that Obama "won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010" and orchestrated the "swindle of the year" by securing the "biggest stimulus in American history," the columnist has provided ammunition for those who at first blush were simply uncomfortable with the premise of the deal and its caveats.

Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA) echoed Krauthammer in a recent Fox News interview. "I think that the president didn't do too bad a job in negotiating this deal," he said. "He made one little concession and in return he got all kinds of spending that he wanted that's not offset — extended unemployment without spending offsets."

With the Congressional Budget Office estimating that the deal will add over $857 billion to the deficit over the next decade, Toomey is not the only conservative politician making noise. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina says the deal should be scuttled. He would prefer a deal with spending cuts and an agreement to make the tax-cuts permanent.

"Most of us who ran this election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit," DeMint said last week on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. "This does. It raises taxes, it raises the death tax. I don't think we needed to negotiate that aspect of this thing away. I don't think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it, and without making some modifications such as turning it into a loan at some point."

DeMint argues that by waiting until January to negotiate with Obama, Republicans can craft a better deal, with more cuts and less pork, thanks to the GOP's increased numbers in the next Congress. DeMint's GOP colleagues, though respectful of his argument, are unmoved by it.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a member of GOP leadership, tells National Review Online that DeMint is making a "valid point," but he believes that there will be "broad support" for the deal in the conference this week. "We all have mixed feelings," he says.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has a similar take. He tells us that DeMint is advocating an "economically sound policy," but urges his colleagues to back the compromise, due to the uncertainty in the economy and the absence of available alternatives.

Even Oklahoman Jim Inhofe, who notes that he has been rated the most conservative member of the Senate, says that he is "trying to be realistic about this" and will support the deal. Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, two potential 2012 presidential contenders, have offered similar statements.

Though support for DeMint's campaign against the deal may be lacking in the Republican cloakroom, grassroots conservative activists are encouraging GOP senators to align themselves with DeMint. Erick Erickson, the publisher of the popular RedState website, has called the tax deal a "TARP baby" and says that it "must now die." In a blog post, he asks his readers to call their senators and urge them to form a bloc against it.

Other conservative stars, such as Sarah Palin and Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky, have followed suit. On Twitter, Palin told her thousands of followers that she expects "fiscal conservatives" to "fight for us and America's solvency" in coming days. Paul says he would "lean against voting for it."

"The most important thing government can do right now for the economy is to extend the Bush tax cuts," Paul said last week on CNN. "I would be for extending them permanently… If you're going to extend and add new tax cuts, you should couple them with cuts in spending. Instead, we're coupling them with increases in spending, and I think that's the wrong thing to do."

As Monday's vote nears, DeMint and company are looking for recruits to the cause. But with fiscal hawk Paul Ryan and tax-cut honcho Grover Norquist supportive of the deal's tenets, the climb is steep. Consequences for backing the deal are small, at least politically. As David Weigel of Slate reports, even the Club for Growth, the group famous for backing primary challengers to big-spending Republicans, is not interested in tangling with Republicans who back this deal.

In one sense, Obama already has won a minor victory: By splitting conservatives, he created a confusing Rorschach test for the GOP. Some see swindle, others a compromise, others a win. Quite the political dance, and positively Clintonian.

www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132021458/national-review-tax-fight-on-the-right

[sandi66]

At least one justice to attend Obama's State of the Union

Dec 13, 2010, 10:29 AM ET

Well, it looks like at least one Supreme Court justice will attend President Obama's next State of the Union address.

Justice Stephen Breyer told Fox News Sunday that last year's flap between Obama and some of the (conservative) justices will not dissuade him from attending Obama's next State of the Union, which will probably be in late January.

"I'll go next year," Breyer said. "I've gone every year."


At last year's event, Obama took the relatively unusual step of criticizing justices over a campaign finance case: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections."

Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the word "no" during Obama's comments, which brought Democratic lawmakers to their feet.



Some weeks later, Chief Justice John Roberts indicted he may skip future State of the Union speeches:



The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless I think is very troubling.

In his Fox News interview, Breyer said it's important for the justices to keep attending such events.

"People today, as you know, are more and more visual," Breyer said. "I'd like them to read, but they are visual."



"And what they see in front of them in that State of the Union is the federal government -- every part, the president, the Congress, the cabinet, (and) the military," Breyer added. "And I would like them to see the judges, too, because federal judges are also part of that government."

What Breyer did not say is that, with respect to the campaign finance decision, he basically agreed with Obama's criticism -- Breyer dissented from the opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, and the court's other conservative members.

In addition to Breyer, it's easy to imagine Obama's two appointees to the Supreme Court -- Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- also attending the next State of the Union.

And if that is the case, it's hard to imagine that the court's Republican appointees such as Roberts and Alito won't want to have some kind of representation at the nationally televised event.

But we shall see.

content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obamas-state-of-the-union-to-include-at-least-one-high-court-justice/1

[sandi66]

Michael Gerson: America midwifing the birth of a new nation
South Sudan will approve an independence referendum on Jan. 9. This success also represents the bipartisan continuity of American foreign policy.

By Michael Gerson, Washington Post Writers Group
Memphis Commercial Appeal

Posted December 13, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.

WASHINGTON --

The Obama administration, elsewhere challenged by Iranian nuclear ambitions and North Korean brinksmanship, is on the verge of a major diplomatic achievement in Sudan. Barring technical failures that delay the vote, or unexpected violence, South Sudan will approve an independence referendum on Jan. 9. Six months later, a new flag will rise, a new anthem will be played. It is a rare, risky, deeply American enterprise: midwifing the birth of a new nation.

Even six years ago, this outcome seemed impossible. The mainly Muslim north and the mainly Christian south were engaged in a two-decade civil war that unleashed genocide, produced millions of refugees and took about three times as many lives as the American Civil War. But in 2005, the Bush administration brokered the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which created a government of national unity and promised an independence referendum for the south in 2011.

Even six months ago, the implementation of the CPA seemed unlikely. Electoral abuses in local contests had widened bitter, sometimes violent, divisions within the south. And Obama administration policy on Sudan was uncoordinated, ineffective and widely criticized.

But the summer of 2010 was a turning point. The administration was sobered by a prospect of a referendum in less than 200 days for which no one was prepared. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing to elevate the issue to the presidential level, demanding, according to one official, "one team, one fight." In August, President Barack Obama declared that Denis McDonough, then the chief of staff on the National Security Council and now deputy national security adviser, would coordinate a unified government response. The administration's common approach, dubbed "the road map," publicly promised the regime in Khartoum a series of carrots -- reviewing its status on the state sponsors of terrorism list, beginning the lifting of sanctions and starting discussions on debt relief -- in exchange for allowing the south to go quietly. Sen. John Kerry carried messages and applied pressure in both Khartoum and the southern capital of Juba. It was an effective full-court press.

Southern leaders rose to the moment, encouraging an internal dialogue that has reduced the level of conflict and violence in the south. And elements of the regime in Khartoum seem prepared for sullen acceptance of southern independence, calculating that the road map might lessen Sudan's isolation as a pariah state, and probably convinced that military re-conquest of the south is not an option anyway.

Every diplomatic achievement is rewarded by new complexities. Between the independence referendum in January and full independence on July 9, 2011, a variety of issues -- concerning borders, citizenship, security and the distribution of oil revenues -- will need to be resolved. This will be a high-stakes, trust-building exercise between two powers more accustomed to war. South Sudan will require considerable help to avoid the fate of a failed state -- particularly to build its capacity to govern and fight corruption. The issue of what to do with southern refugees in the north -- there are between 1.5 million and 2 million -- will be especially sensitive. It would be easy for these refugees to become hostages. And another Sudanese region in revolt -- Darfur in the west -- remains a muddle of open warfare and fragile negotiations, in which civilians continue to suffer.

But even partial diplomatic successes are worth celebrating -- and this is less partial than most. Assuming the last lap of a long race is completed, southern independence will allow these long-suffering people to govern and defend themselves -- a development that remains satisfying to a revolutionary power such as America. And southern sovereignty will permanently limit the ability of Khartoum to do harm in a vast region it has harmed for too long. This success also represents the bipartisan continuity of American foreign policy -- a peace process launched in one administration and continued by another.

The most timely message sent by this achievement concerns the nature of the diplomatic task. It was the intention of recent WikiLeaks disclosures to reveal the names of American diplomats and expose their malign influence in the world. Well, here is a leak of my own. People such as McDonough, Michelle Gavin and Samantha Powers in the White House, along with Johnnie Carson, Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman at the State Department, are employing American power to noble purpose. I mention their names (none of them secret) because they represent how skilled, effective government officials can shape history, improve the lives of millions and bring honor to the country they serve.

www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/dec/13/michael-gerson-america-midwifing-the-birth-of-a/

[sandi66]

Trahant: What a difference a year makes: Tribal Nations Summit 2.0
By Mark Trahant

Story Published: Dec 13, 2010

(Story Updated: Dec 13, 2010 )

President Barrack Obama set a high standard for tribal-federal relations last year. “Today’s summit is not lip service,” he said at the summit. “We’re not going to go through the motions and pay tribute to one another, and then furl up the flags and go our separate ways. Today’s sessions are part of a lasting conversation that’s crucial to our shared future.”

That lasting conversation is continuing as promised. It’s remarkable enough for a president and cabinet officers to meet with tribal leaders once during an administration – but this second round means that the standard is now an annual event.

So what should we be saying about our shared future?

I’d use this as an opportunity to prepare for the coming financial storm – serious and long-term budget cuts that are coming from Congress – as a way to reconfigure federal services to Indian country.

Take Medicaid and Children’s health programs. One of the best ideas coming out of the health care reform process is a feasibility study exploring the treatment of the Navajo Nation as a state. In tough budget times this is huge because state governments want to limit enrollment in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance to save money. But eligible American Indian and Alaska Natives do not cost the states money – it’s a 100 percent federal match. By moving the administration to the Navajo Nation, it makes it much more likely that eligible patients will be enrolled in Medicaid or children’s health adding critical revenue to the Indian health system.

The Navajo Nation feasibility project is only step one. This should be the beginning of a process that singles out other tribes, or regional associations, into administrative units that could manage Medicaid programs without a state roll. Or as I have put it before, treat Indian country as a 51st state.

As the federal budget gets tighter and tighter it makes sense to look for ways to cut administrative costs. A small office directly funding tribal programs at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare is a lot more efficient than distributing money through some 37 state programs when the end payment eventually goes to either the Indian Health Service or a tribal contractor anyway. (If pitched smartly, states might even like this idea.)

The president has done a great job of protecting budgets directed at Indian country during his two years in office. But that is going to be impossible in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. In this environment, political rewards will go to those members of Congress who are the most aggressive, most passionate, most zealous about a creating a smaller federal government.

That very notion is an opportunity. Tribal governments are smaller and more efficient than either the federal or state governments and operate with a workforce that is less expensive both now and in the future. Just last month the White House announced a two-year freeze on federal pay. Again the pressure to cut administrative costs is an opportunity for Indian country because tribes and other Native organizations can provide direct services at a lower cost.

Another way to think about that is by comparing pension obligations from state and federal governments to those of tribal governments. There is not good comprehensive data, but few tribes have benefits that are anywhere near as generous as those in state or federal programs.

President Obama will listen to many ideas at the Tribal Nations Summit. He’ll probably even get calls to protect federal spending as it currently stands. That would be a wasted opportunity because future budgets will be smaller no matter what. My hope is instead a focus on the practical. What can be done in the current political climate to the serve American Indian and Alaska Native people? What’s the best way to effectively manage the resources required? What’s a fair share when there’s fewer dollars coming from the treasury?

The answers ought to come from a lasting conversation about our shared future.

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. Trahant’s new book, “The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars,” is the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.


www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/Trahant-What-a-difference-a-year-makes-111784334.html

[sandi66]

Top US officer says risk of war rising in Koreas

By ANNE GEARAN - Dec 13, 2010 11:17 AM ET

BAGHDAD (AP) — The top US military officer says the danger of war or hostilities is rising on the Korean peninsula.

Adm. Mike Mullen says North Korea has raised the ante in its aggression against South Korea.

Mullen told troops on Monday that the old tit for tat pattern with North Korea has changed. He said the North’s provocations are tied to preparations for leader Kim Jong Ill's son to take power.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/top-us-officer-says-risk-of-war-rising-in-koreas.html

[sandi66]

Virginia healthcare ruling expected to set stage for Supreme Court battle
By Jason Millman - 12/13/10 11:46 AM ET

A federal judge in Virginia is expected to issue a decision on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law Monday afternoon, marking the first major step in a lawsuit destined for the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson will decide whether the Constitution's commerce clause prevents the federal government from requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. Legal observers say Hudson, a President George W. Bush appointee, is likely to rule against the Obama administration in the lawsuit filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R).

The decision will come at the beginning of an eventful week for influential healthcare reform challenges. A district court in Florida is scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday on a 21-state lawsuit that also challenges the law’s individual mandate. Both the Virginia and Florida cases are expected to wind up in the Supreme Court.

Republicans prepared to take over the House next month are expected to seize on today's decision as they argue the healthcare law should be repealed, something that is highly unlikely with the Senate controlled by Democrats and President Obama in the White House.

Advocates on both sides of the debate Monday morning prepared talking points ahead of the decision. The liberal Health Care for America Now downplayed the ruling's significance, writing “it is no more important than the many other rulings by judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional or have issued dismissals on procedural grounds.”

Meanwhile, a number of legal challenges have already been rejected and more will be decided later.

A federal judge in Virginia last month rejected a lawsuit that also challenged the law’s mandate that people buy insurance – the second time the mandate was been upheld after a federal judge in Michigan ruled the same way in October.

The White House, which last week pointed to a number of cases against the reform law that have been dismissed, said the Virginia and Michigan decisions made the case for the individual mandate. The Obama administration argues that healthcare is different from other commercial markets, because — illness being both inevitable and involuntary — everyone ultimately requires some form of care.

Successful challenges to the reform law could have repercussions for Democrats in conservative districts, Robert Alt, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told the The Hill last month

"If you start to see a drumbeat from the courts that yes, some of these provisions are unconstitutional, that's going to create very uncomfortable circumstances for some members,” Alt said.

Most recently, a U.S. District Judge in New Jersey judge last week rejected a reform law challenge filed by a nonprofit physicians group. The judge in that case ruled against the group’s claim that the law prevents doctors from accepting direct payment from a patient.


thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/133357-virginia-ruling-expected-to-set-stage-for-supreme-court-battle









JUST NOW RULING CAME OUT... UNLAWFUL - Fed Judge rules in favor of VA challenge to health care law

Unconstitutional

[sandi66]

U.S. judge rejects key part of Obama healthcare law


11:17 a.m. CST, December 13, 2010



A federal judge in Virginia has found a key provision of the healthcare law unconstitutional, the first such ruling on President Obama's landmark reform.

Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District Court in Richmond, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the law's mandate that all Americans have a minimum level of coverage, or pay a fine if they do not, exceeds federal authority.

Virginia's Republican Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, challenged the law by rejecting the federal government's view that the mandate is enforceable under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The state was seeking an injunction against the entire healthcare act if the mandate was found unconstitutional.

Virginia has passed a law stating that residents cannot be ordered to buy insurance.

A federal judge in Florida ruled in October that a separate suit challenging the law brought by 20 states and the National Federation of Interdependent Business could move forward. But a Michigan judge had dismissed a third suit earlier that month.



www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-healthcare-ruling-20101214,0,7880541.story

[sandi66]

Justice Widening Insider-Trading Probe to Include Corporate America
By Charlie Gasparino

Published December 13, 2010

| FOXBusiness



The Justice Department has subpoenaed dozens of companies across the country in its massive insider trading investigation, expanding the focus of the probe beyond the trading activities at major hedge funds to include whether corporate executives shared potentially market moving data with traders or other intermediaries, FOX Business has learned.

Sources close to the investigation say that, so far, the Justice Department has asked for company information and communications surrounding major events, such as mergers, acquisitions and major corporate announcements. According to one person with direct knowledge of this aspect of the probe, the DoJ has subpoenaed 50 or more companies as part of the probe.

It is unclear if company officials -- or possible "tippers" of allegedly illegal insider information -- are actual targets of the burgeoning probe, but this person said they are clearly on the DoJ's radar screen.

The possibility that company officials on a large scale may have shared potentially illegal insider information adds a new twist to the probe, which has so far focused on hedge funds like SAC capital, mutual funds, and expert networks, such as John Kinnucan's Broadband Research for possibly passing insider information to their clients.

Kinnucan, whose clients included SAC and other hedge funds and mutual funds, has told FOX Business that he expects to be charged in the investigation, though he also says he believes he's done nothing wrong.



However, following the information trail from companies to the expert networks to the trading desks will be key to proving cases, people close to the inquiry say.

A little more than a year ago, federal officials arrested Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam for trading on inside information, a charge he continues to deny. Several weeks ago, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bhrara signaled more arrests are coming. But so far only one person has been arrested in the latest leg of the wide-ranging investigation, though a senior regulator source says additional arrests could be made before the end of the year.

People close to the investigation tell FOX Business that the Justice Department officials are using the threat of arrests during the holiday season as leverage to gain cooperation among potential targets.

On Friday, speculation swirled that arrests could be made as early as this week, but a senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the probe said "it's impossible for anyone to know" the exact timing, since Justice Department officials rarely share such information even with the people they are about to arrest.



www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/13/justice-widening-insider-trading-probe-include-corporate-america/

[sandi66]

EXCLUSIVE: Published for the first time, the papers which could finally force full inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly

By Miles Goslett

Last updated at 10:46 AM on 13th December 2010

Today, the Daily Mail publishes for the first time the legal document which could trigger a full coroner's inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.
The document, formally known as a memorial was written by group of campaigning doctors who have been trying to secure an inquest since 2004.
It lists the sequence of events which led up to Dr Kelly's death and the legal reasons they believe an inquest ought to be held.
It was sent to Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC by the doctors' lawyers, Leigh Day & Co., in September. Mr Grieve, who has read the document, is now considering whether to allow an application to the High Court for an inquest. The Mail has learnt that he has recently appointed a medical expert to assist him. His decision is expected shortly.
Dr Kelly, a world-renowned weapons inspector, is said to have killed himself after being named as the prime source of a BBC report accusing Tony Blair’s government of lying to take Britain into war.

His body was found in woods close to his home in Oxfordshire on July 18 2003. Uniquely, for an unexpected death such as his, no coroner’s inquest has ever been held.

The Hutton inquiry into his death found that he killed himself after slashing his wrist with a blunt knife and overdosing on painkillers.
On Monday the Mail revealed that no fingerprints were found on the blister packs of pills which Dr Kelly supposedly took. No fingerprints were recovered either from the knife or a bottle of water found by his side. He was not wearing gloves when his body was found, nor were there gloves anywhere near the body.
The memorial argues that Dr Kelly’s death was not sufficiently investigated and claims that there are a large number of irregularities surrounding it.
It names Lord Falconer, once Tony Blair's flatmate and in June 2003 appointed Lord Chancellor, as the architect of the public inquiry into Dr Kelly's death chaired by Lord Hutton.


More...READ THE FULL REPORT INTO DR KELLY'S DEATH HERE

It was Falconer who proposed the controversial decision to abandon a coroner's inquest, where witnesses would be cross-examined under oath, and replace it with a non-statutory examination of the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death. As a result no witness, including Tony Blair and his press secretary Alastair Campbell, swore an oath or was cross-examined.
Dr Nicholas Hunt, the Home Office forensic pathologist who carried out the autopsy on Dr Kelly, is also criticised in the memorial for having breached professional guidelines by giving a newspaper interview earlier this year in which he called Dr Kelly's death a 'textbook suicide'. His failure to properly carry out his duties at the scene where Dr Kelly's body was found is outlined.
The memorial addresses - and answers - each of the six legal points necessary for a coroner's inquest to be re-opened. Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 only one of these points has to be satisfied for an inquest to take place.
The 10,000-word document was co-authored by doctors Stephen Frost, Martin Birnstingl, Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin and Andrew Rouse.
It also requests that if an inquest is held a new coroner should be appointed to oversee it, replacing Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner.
Dr Michael Powers QC, who has been instructed to represent the doctors in their legal action, said: 'The circumstances of this case are highly unusual. Evidential issues have been debated in public for want of an inquest.

'The Attorney General's department has had three months to consider the matter. The time has come for the doctors’ Memorial also to be put into the public domain.

'It is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the process and the legal reason why there should be an inquest.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337199/David-Kelly-Papers-finally-force-inquest.html

[sandi66]

* Lyndon LaRouche: World Economic System Collapse Discussion (Video)
December 13, 2010 04:30 pm · Posted in NEWS · Comments Off
This is a link to a Lyndon LaRouche video where he states the global economy will collapse by December 24.

larouchepac.com/node/16785

Watch the first 7 minutes or so. Let’s hope our investment and its potential pushes the world’s economic minds to ensure it happens within this timeframe.



******************************



* Allawi’s List: Our Share of 9 and Ministries, Including Defense, Finance
December 13, 2010 03:22 pm · Posted in NEWS · Comments Off
December 13, 2010

Announced a senior source in the Iraqi List led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi for the resolution of nine ministries, including defense, finance.

For the list that have accepted these ministries before the enactment of the National Council Strategic policy dedicated to Allawi. And other ministries are to work and communication, sports and youth, power and displacement and migration, agriculture, education.

The source said in a statement to the newspaper “Middle East” of London published Monday that there are some candidates for these ministries are Falah al-Naqib and Alexander, berry and Mohammed Allawi and the beauty of watermelon and Qutaybah Jubouri, without identifying any ministries that may received by those with the exception of watermelon, which he said could receive the Ministry of Agriculture, and berries, and the Chairman of the Ministry of Defence.

But the MP for the Iraqi List, Talal Zobaie confirmed that the Ministry of Finance will be the share of the Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Issawi, and the Defense Ministry will go to the captain, likely to go the Ministry of Health Qutaybah Jubouri, and communication Mohammed Allawi, and Displacement and Migration of Ahmed al-Karbouli.

In a related context, it was announced Hassan Sinead, a leading figure in the National Alliance for the Committee from the problem to determine the ministries on the findings and described the task.

He said in a press statement that the course of forming the government “is evolving in a positive and proportionate with the 30-day period specified in the Constitution,” the government’s announcement, which ends on 24 current.



theiraqidinar.com/category/news/

[sandi66]

Mona Lisa’s pupils offer real life Da Vinci Code

Posted by Staff on Dec 13th, 2010

The Mona Lisa may hold clues to the real life Da Vinci code. Letters were found in the left and right eyes of the painting. Art analysts have found that the left eye contains the letters L and V. CE or B comprise the script in the right eye. Theorist belief that the left eye may be the painter’s initials. They are not quite sure what the letter in the right eye means.

ABC news, who asked Silvano Vinceti of Italy’s National Committee for Cultural Heritage, said the number 72 or an L2 found in the painting. The findings of the number in the letters do not shed any light on who the model used for the painting actually was. For the moment, artist and historians are left with a real-life Da Vinci Code to solve.


www.ecanadanow.com/curiosity/2010/12/13/mona-lisas-pupils-offer-real-life-da-vinci-code/

[sandi66]

Subject: Congressman Paul's Texas Straight Talk
To: [e-mail]

Audit the Fed in 2011

Since the announcement last week that I will chair the congressional subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the media response has been overwhelming. The groundswell of opposition to Fed actions among ordinary citizens is reflected not only in the rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill, but also in the tremendous interest shown by the financial press. The demand for transparency is growing, whether the political and financial establishment likes it or not. The Fed is losing its vaunted status as an institution that somehow is above politics and public scrutiny. Fed transparency will be the cornerstone of my efforts as subcommittee chairman.

Click here to read the entire article: paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1807&Itemid=69

[sandi66]

Reports: Richard Holbrooke, noted diplomat, dies at 69

December 13, 2010 07:40 PM

US diplomat Richard Holbrooke has died, ABC News and CNN are reporting. Holbrooke, who was President Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was 69.

Holbrooke had undergone surgery in recent days for a torn aorta after collapsing at a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday.

The feisty and sometimes abrasive diplomat -- whose forceful style earned him nicknames such as "The Bulldozer" or "Raging Bull -- was perhaps best known for helping broker the 1995 agreement that ended the war in Bosnia.

He served as ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration. He also was ambassador to Germany from 1993 to 1994 and then assistant secretary of state for European affairs.

Holbrooke's career with the foreign service dates back to his posting in South Vietnam in 1962 and included time as a member of the US delegation to the Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam.

www.boston.com/news/source/2010/12/reports_richard.html

[sandi66]

* Security Council will cancel some of the Chapter VII resolutions as a prelude to normalizing relations with Iraq

December 14, 2010 12:50 pm ·
Posted in NEWS · Comments Off

Posted 14/12/2010
NEW YORK (Agencies): At the sign of normalization of relations with Iraq, will the UN Security Council on Wednesday, an end to the “oil for food” and the limitations imposed on the arms contained in resolutions dating back to the reign of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. And extend the UN Security Council the other hand, for a period of six months, the decision made by the Development Fund for Iraq, which was established in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Will be chaired by U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, the Council meeting so that the United States assumes the presidency in December, December.
And decisions of the three expected to be adopted by the council on Wednesday will allow cancellation of the decisions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the resort to sanctions, or the use of force.
Will allow these decisions to restore Iraqi sovereignty, he said a diplomat at the United Nations. And said the diplomat, “everyone (in the Security Council) agree” not to return to Iraq under the sanctions.
In this context, “said Ali al-Moussawi Advisor Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that” Iraq is counting on this meeting to take him out of pointless Chapter VII, “noting that there is” too much hope, especially as there are signals that informal China it joined the States in favor of it. ”
And the “oil for food” and put the UN Security Council in 1995 in a resolution with the number 986. And allowed the resolution, which ran from 1996 to 2003, to Baghdad to sell oil for humanitarian assistance, while Iraq was under an international embargo imposed after it invaded Kuwait in 1990.
The work was completed this program in practice in December 31, 2007 but the question pop up from contracts linked to earlier and took place under the former regime, remained pending.
With regard to weapons of mass destruction, forcing the UN Security Council resolution No. 687 of 1991 Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction and not to use or develop, manufacture or purchase of chemical and biological weapons or nuclear weapons. The resolution also ban missiles.
Iraq wrote to the UN Security Council July 28, 2010 to inform him of a number of measures have been taken to prove its commitment to the principles in the field of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.
In this context, said Lapid Abawi, Undersecretary of the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told AFP that “the Security
Council meeting will be dedicated to refer to what Iraq has made during the last period of the implementation of its obligations under Security Council resolutions falling within Chapter VII especially with regard to the recognition of the work accomplished by Iraq in a weapons of mass destruction and its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the implementation Brcol guarantees and letters exchanged Energy Agency. ”
He said he expected to announce the Security Council in a letter “acknowledging the successes of Iraq in this aspect as it no longer threatens international peace and security due to its location, which was practiced as a sovereign state and does not threaten security.”
As to the Development Fund for Iraq, it is intended to deposit Iraq’s oil resources and its mission requires the assistance of the Iraqi government to manage the country’s resources in a transparent manner and is responsible for the Iraqi people. Has been established pursuant to resolution 1483 adopted by the UN Security Council.
The text of resolution 1905 to end its work in December 31, 2010. But the Iraqi government and sent to the Council a request to extend it for a year. The UN Security Council will decide in this regard Wednesday under a new resolution on this subject with the possibility of renewal for the decision six months.
Will not address the resolutions Wednesday to the relations between Iraq and Kuwait. But Iraqi and Kuwaiti authorities have registered progress during the bilateral talks that took place under the auspices of the United Nations, in such sensitive issues as the demarcation of maritime and land borders of the two countries.
On the issue of Kuwait, Ali al-Moussawi, the Iraqi adviser to the Prime Minister that “Kuwait was aware that
the Iraqi government want to remove the effects of the past and the issues between the two countries.”
It is said that Saddam Hussein was hanged in December 2006 after being convicted of the massacre committed against the Shi’ite villagers in the early eighties, who ruled Iraq with an iron fist for more than twenty years.

theiraqidinar.com/2010/12/14/security-council-will-cancel-some-of-the-chapter-vii-resolutions-as-a-prelude-to-normalizing-relations-with-iraq/

[sandi66]

(youtube) Judge Napolitano- cartoon film: The American Dream

Judge Andrew Napolitano comments and interviews film maker, Tad Lumpkin on the continuing scam known as The Federal Reserve System.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFj_r9Oi1VQ

Here is the two minute preview:
www.theamericandreamfilm.com/




The American Dream - Trailer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SOW7u...

www.theamericandreamfilm.com/

Animated short illustrates Fed looting of America

Freedom Watch
Fox
December 14, 2010

Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano welcomed Tad Lumpkin to discuss his recent animated short that exposes the corrupt origins of The Federal Reserve and government systems used to exploit taxpayers.

music clip by clutch

INFOWARS.COM
PRISONPLANET.COM
PRISONPLANET.TV

OATHKEEPERS.ORG
AE911TRUTH.ORG

[sandi66]

Thursday, December 16 2010
All Times ET Next .9:30 am

The President delivers remarks at the White House Tribal Nations Conference

U.S. Department of the Interior
Pooled TV, Open to Correspondents
Travel Pool Gather Time 9:00AM – North Doors of the Palm Room

10:00 am The President and the Vice President receive the Presidential Daily Briefing
Oval Office
Closed Press

11:45 am The President delivers a statement to the press on the Afghanistan-Pakistan Annual Review
Press Briefing Room
Open Press

12:05 pm Briefing by Press Secretary Gibbs, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates and General Cartwright
James S. Brady Briefing Room
Open Press

3:15 pm The Vice President and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke present three U.S. organizations with the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
Open Press



www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2010-12-16

[sandi66]

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, December 15, 2010Attorney General Holder Hosts Inaugural Meeting of Tribal Nations Leadership Council
Fourteen Tribal Leaders Convene to Advise Justice Department on Bi-annual Basis
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder today convened the inaugural meeting of the Justice Department’s Tribal Nations Leadership Council (TNLC), a group of tribal leaders from around the country who will advise him on issues critical to tribal communities. The TNLC marks the first time a council composed of tribal leaders selected by tribal governments will advise a cabinet member on an ongoing basis.



TNLC members include one tribal leader from each of the 12 regions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, chosen by the tribes of that region, and two members from the Office of Justice Program’s Tribal Justice Advisory Group. The creation of the TNLC fulfills a pledge made by Attorney General Holder at the department’s Tribal Nations Listening Session in October 2009.



In addition to Attorney General Holder, tribal leaders met with senior leadership from numerous department components.



“The Tribal Nations Leadership Council will play an important role in continuing the critical government to government dialogue between the department and tribal governments on matters including public safety,” said Attorney General Holder. “The creation of the council has been a priority for me since my visit with tribal leaders last year and I believe it is a critical step in our work to improve coordination and collaboration with tribal communities.”



The TNLC is expected to meet bi-annually, and TNLC members will have a term of service of two years. The tribal leaders who comprise the initial council include:



Tribal Nations Leadership Council Members

•Marge Anderson, Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, Minnesota
•John Barrett, Jr., Chairman, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma
•Roman Duran, Lieutenant Governor, Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico
•Diane Enos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Arizona
•Lynn Malerba, Chief, The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, Connecticut
•Willie Noseep, Co-Chair, Eastern Shoshone Business Council, Wyoming
•Ben Shelly, Vice President and President-Elect, Navajo Nation, Arizona
•Robert Smith, Chairman, Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California
•Ron Sparkman, Chairman, Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma
•John F. Stensgar, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and Colville Business Council, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington
•Michael J. Stickman, First Chief, Nulato Village, Alaska
•Roger Trudell, Chairman, Santee Sioux Tribe, Nebraska
Co-Chairs of the Tribal Justice Advisory Group

•Juana Majel Dixon, 1st Vice President-NCAI/TJAG Pacific Region, Pauma Yuima Band of Mission Indians, California
•Hope MacDonald-Lone Tree, Council Delegate/TJAG Navajo Region, Navajo Nation, Arizona
•This meeting marks another step in the Justice Department’s ongoing initiative to increase engagement, coordination and action on public safety in tribal communities. This effort is driven largely by input gathered from the department’s 2009 Tribal Nations Listening Session, the department’s annual tribal consultation on violence against women, and from written comments submitted by tribal governments, groups and organizations to the Justice Department.
The meeting was also a valuable informational tool, a day in advance of the White House Tribal Nations Conference, at which Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division Ignacia Moreno, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs Mary Lou Leary and Office of Tribal Justice Director Tracy Toulou will co-host panels on tribal issues ranging from law enforcement to environmental concerns to education and social services.



To review the Department of Justice’s Tribal Nations Leadership Council Charter, visit: Tribal Nations Leadership Council Charter.



10-1443Attorney General

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/December/10-ag-1443.html


ty allrich

www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/December/10-ag-1443.html