Obama's Afghanistan plan to pull the troops greet

Illustration. Army specialist from C 3/82 Companny MEDEVAC Dustoff Nicole Derk make cross stitch when his shift in Logar Province, Eastern Afghanistan. (INTERMEDIATE/REUTERS/Umit Bektas/ox/11.)

Kabul (Reuters)-the Government of Afghanistan on Wednesday, welcoming the announcement of President Barack Obama, who said that the United States will pull soldiers from 34 thousand war-torn countries in the next year.

"We welcome this," said Defence Ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, "we will take all security responsibility by the end of 2013."

"Our troops will replace them," he said, as quoted by AFP.

Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai has long supported the withdrawal of United States combat forces schedule and NATO by the end of 2014.

He says Afghanistan forces are capable of taking responsibility for the fight against Taliban guerrillas.

Obama, who gave the announcement of withdrawal of troops in his State, said that the withdrawal would continue and "at the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will end."

The Taliban called the withdrawal of the troops was not enough.

"The problem will not be completed by reducing or increasing the number of troops," said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

"During the invasion force remains in Afghanistan, the jihad (holy war) continues to progress. The problem is finished with the withdrawal of the occupation forces and the return of the overarching Afghanistan to Afghanistan people. "

Obama's move effectively halving the number of 66 thousand United States soldiers who are in Afghanistan, while NATO forces prepare to hand over control of security operations in Afghanistan security forces 352 thousand by the end of 2014.

NATO, which has about 40 thousand soldiers in Afghanistan, will also pull their troops gradually before the end of 2014.

(G003/B002)

News; Finance; Insurance; Health; Cancer

News; Finance; Insurance; Health; Cancer; Car Insurance; Health Insurance

Read More

Obama's Turn to Bash the Media

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

A day after President Obama's anger at the media bubbled up at a televised press conference, his campaign today proudly touted their quarterly fundraising success while bashing the "media circus" that had suggested they'd fall short of their goals.

"Just six days before the last fundraising deadline, one major newspaper ran a story under the headline, 'Small donors are slow to return to the Obama fold,'" wrote Rufus Gifford, Obama's finance director. "You and a whole lot of other supporters turned that headline upside down," he wrote, adding, "Sometimes the media gets so caught up in its own echo chamber that the storyline separates from the facts."

Just Thursday, Obama put down Fox White House Correspondent Ed Henry who quoted Obama foe Mitt Romney in a question at a press conference. "I didn't know you were the spokesman for Mitt Romney," said Obama. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

In his memo, printed in full below, Gifford also slammed the media and it's tendency to follow, like a pack of dogs, one story line even if it is thin.

"No matter what happens in the inside-the-beltway media circus, or what the pundits are predicting, we've got to stay focused on building this campaign from the ground up, one grassroots donation at a time. When each of us takes responsibility as a supporter, the combined impact sends a stronger message than any single newspaper story," he wrote. [Read: Obama Says Dinner Offer Is No Joke.]

Below is the Obama campaign's latest fundraising note.

Paul,

Just six days before the last fundraising deadline, one major newspaper ran a story under the headline "Small donors are slow to return to the Obama fold."

You and a whole lot of other supporters turned that headline upside down. Today we filed a report with the FEC that shows this movement isn't just as strong as ever—it's growing.

Sometimes the media gets so caught up in its own echo chamber that the storyline separates from the facts.

The great thing about building a grassroots organization based outside of Washington is that the press won't decide what happens here—you will.

In fact, right now, just shy of 1 million people like you have taken ownership of this campaign by pitching in whatever they can afford.

You can help us all get to that milestone today.

Another supporter is going to match whatever you're able to give right now. If you pitch in, you'll see who that person is, and where they're from. They may even leave a note for you.

Donate today and own a piece of this movement.

No matter what happens in the inside-the-beltway media circus, or what the pundits are predicting, we've got to stay focused on building this campaign from the ground up, one grassroots donation at a time.

When each of us takes responsibility as a supporter, the combined impact sends a stronger message than any single newspaper story.

You can do that right now.

Become one of the first million people giving, and your donation will be matched—doubling your impact:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Million-Match

Thanks,

Rufus

Rufus Gifford

National Finance Director

Obama for America

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Senate Republicans Vote to Defeat Obama's Jobs Bill

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON (AP) — United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy.

Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447 billion plan. Fifty Democrats had voted for it, but the vote was not final. The roll call was kept open to allow Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. to vote. The likely 51-48 eventual tally would be far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive in the 100-member Senate.

[What Obama Can and Can't Do to Create Jobs]

The demise of Obama's $447 billion jobs package was expected, despite his campaign-style efforts to swing the public behind it. The White House and leaders in Congress were already moving on to alternative ways to address the nation's painful 9.1 percent unemployment, including breaking the legislation into smaller, more digestible pieces and approving long-stalled trade bills.

The White House appears most confident that it will be able to continue a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and to extend emergency unemployment benefits to millions of people — if only because, in the White House view, Republicans won't want to accept the political harm of letting those provisions expire.

White House officials are also hopeful of ultimately garnering votes for the approval of infrastructure spending and tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans.

Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana — both up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose — broke with their party on Tuesday night's vote. Every Republican present opposed the plan.

[11 Things Wrong With Congress]

Earlier in the day, Obama capped his weekslong campaign for the measure in an appearance typical of the effort — a tough-talking speech in a swing state crucial to his re-election. In fact, it seemed aimed more at rallying his core political supporters heading into the election than changing minds on Capitol Hill.

"Any senator who votes no should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to," Obama said to a union audience in Pittsburgh. "I think they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill — other than the fact that I proposed it."

Democrats were not wholly united behind the measure. In addition to Nelson and Tester, Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said they oppose the underlying measure despite voting to choke off the filibuster.

Obama's plan would combine Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure, as well as unemployment assistance and help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.

Obama said that the plan — more than half the size of his 2009 economic stimulus measure — would be an insurance policy against a double-dip recession and that continued economic intervention was essential given slower-than-hoped job growth.

[Political Cartoons on President Obama]

"Right now, our economy needs a jolt," Obama said. "Right now."

Unlike the 2009 legislation, the current plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. That would be expected to raise about $450 billion over the coming decade.

"Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked — along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday, saying there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. "Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" McConnell said.

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Democrats See Obama's Jobs Bill as Rallying Point

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Home > Politics & Policy > Ken Walsh's Washington > Democrats See Obama's Jobs Bill as Rallying Point

October 7, 2011 Print

President Obama's job-creation bill has been a turning point, Democratic strategists say. They argue that the measure draws a sharp contrast to GOP proposals to pull back from federal activism in strengthening the economy, and it has energized the Democratic party and the president himself.

In addition, GOP efforts to block the jobs bill show "craven partisanship" and an intransigence that repels many voters, especially independents, says a senior Democratic strategist. "From the perspective of charging up the troops, people have really rallied around the plan," the strategist says.

[Check out political cartoons about the Democrats.]

Democratic insiders also have been buoyed by recent focus groups conducted for the party that show Obama's 2008 supporters who have doubts about him becoming more supportive because of the jobs measure. "It could be a game changer," says another senior Democrat.

Tags:democratic party, politics, Barack Obama, Congress, employment

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Why Obama's No Truman and Cain's No Eisenhower

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Herman Cain is dreaming if he thinks the public will make him president and Barack Obama's plan of repeating Harry S. Truman's come-from-behind 1948 victory is fatally flawed, says political expert Larry Sabato.

The University of Virgnia's political pundit's latest "Crystal Ball" drives a stake into both Obama's and Cain's presidential hopes.

First Obama, who appears to be copying Truman's campaign against a "do-nothing Congress." Writing for Sabato's Crystal Ball, Dartmouth College government professor Brendan Nyhan says that conventional reporting credits that campaign against the GOP Congress for Truman's victory.

[See political cartoons about President Obama.]

But those reporters are wrong, he adds. "Unfortunately, the dramatic narrative of Truman's victory doesn't hold up to scrutiny," Instead, says Nyhan, Truman's "comeback was fueled by sizzling growth in the year before the election." Revised figures show that the economy was growing at a 6.8 percent rate. Current growth is 1.5 percent.

"This well-timed surge in economic growth is likely to have played an important role in the success of Truman's campaign," says Nyhan.

He adds that economic growth could change, though even the White House isn't predicting any major uptick. "Obama could enjoy an unexpected surge in growth that would propel him to re-election. But in its absence, he will face a much more difficult path to re-election than Truman did," says Nyhan.

As for Cain, Sabato's Crystal Ball political analyst Kyle Kondik says history shows the former Godfather's Pizza boss doesn't stand a chance.

[See photos of 2012 GOP hopefuls on the campaign trail]

"Will the Republican Party—especially in light of Chris Christie's decision not to run—opt for Cain, who has never held public office, and who lost his only prior election (a 2004 GOP U.S. Senate primary in Georgia)? Almost certainly not. A Cain nomination would be an aberration of historic proportions: American political parties typically don't nominate people without previous office holding experience for president," he says.

Kondik notes that while major parties have chosen non-politicians as their nominees, most have been military men. "Needless to say, Herman Cain is not Dwight D. Eisenhower," he says.

[Read: Herman Cain is Booming, But Many GOPers Are Leery of a Bust.]

But Kondik notes that this primary season has been zany. "Perhaps the good showings by the non-politician politicians in senatorial and gubernatorial races were precursors to the biggest upset winner in American presidential history. Or perhaps Cain, like [Donald] Trump before him, will come crashing back to Earth by the time the real voting starts."

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Michelle Obama's Africa Trip Cost More Than $432,142

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
October 4, 2011 Print

First lady Michelle Obama's family trip to South Africa and Botswana in June cost taxpayers well over $424,000, according to new accounting based on Air Force manifests obtained by Judicial Watch, a taxpayer watchdog group.

The use of Air Force aircraft alone for the June 21-27 trip cost $424,142, said the group, and that doesn't include the food, lodging, and ground transportation for the 21 family and staff members.

[See photos of the Obamas abroad.]

Judicial Watch said it based the jet costs on the Pentagon's hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip. The documents don't give exact cost calculations, which is typical for presidential and first family trips.

The White House this afternoon disputed the costs calculated by Judicial Watch. "The number stated is misconstrued and out of context. The hourly rate is not the marginal cost of operation the plane - it is an accounting figure that prices in a number of fixed costs from maintaining the Air Force fleet for this kind of plane over a year," said an official. "For example, it includes estimated replacement parts, depreciation, repairs, and costs that would have been incurred regardless of this flight. Also, for security reasons Mrs. Obama must fly on military aircraft." Also, during her good-will mission, the first lady attended five to seven official events daily.

Obama is like many first ladies, spending summers traveling on good-will missions, sometimes with family and friends. On the June trip, during which she was accompanied by her daughters and mother, the first lady urged young people to engage with their governments and she pushed her education and wellness agenda. They also took a safari in South Africa, well known for its beautiful Lion King-like settings.

The costs of the trips have often won media scorn, as did her trip to Spain the previous summer.

[See photos of Michelle Obama.]

But presidential experts say that the value of first lady visits is priceless, especially in cases like Obama's to Africa where the first family has special ties and where the president has been pursuing a personal agenda, especially in Kenya, the home of his father.

Here is a link to the Judicial Watch files and their release:

Charges for the Aircraft and Crew Alone Amount to $424,142

Contact Information:

Washington, DC -- October 4, 2011

Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained mission expense records and passenger manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by First Lady Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Air Force (No. 11-1496)). Judicial Watch is investigating the purpose and itinerary of the trip as well as a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.

On June 28, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings, transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama's Africa trip. Documents were only provided after Judicial Watch filed suit:

• According to U.S. Department of Defense's published hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip, Judicial Watch calculated the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for use of the aircraft (34.8 flight hours x $12,188 per hour). (The C-32 is a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses - meals (off the plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. - have yet to be disclosed.

• The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama's daughter's, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as "Senior Staff." The manifests also list Mrs. Obama's mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama's makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright).

• The expense records also show $928.44 was spent for "bulk food" purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21 passengers on board.

The professed purpose of Michelle Obama's trip to South Africa and Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues.

The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as "surreal." The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned to Washington on June 27.

"This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information."

Previously, Judicial Watch uncovered that the First Couple's 2009 "date night" trip to New York for dinner and a Broadway show cost taxpayers over $11,000 in Secret Service costs alone.

Updated 10/4/11: This post has been updated to include a White House response

Tags:Michelle Obama, Africa, first ladies

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Michelle Joins Team Obama's Dining For Dollars

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The urgency for donations inside the Obama-Biden campaign was stepped up a notch today when first lady Michelle Obama was tapped to plead with the president's supporters for just $3.

After a week of sometimes desperate sounding E-mails as the campaign wraps up its latest fundraising quarter, Michelle Obama today joined her husband, campaign staff and even the vice president, in promoting a dinner offer with the president in return for a few bucks.

"Paul,

Not everyone knows how to prepare for a dinner like this. As someone who's eaten countless meals with my husband, I want to tell you the one thing to do if you're selected to join him.

Just relax. Barack wants this dinner to be fun, and he really loves getting to know supporters like you.

I hope you'll take him up on it before Friday's deadline.

Will you donate just $3 today and be entered to have dinner with Barack?

These dinners mean a lot to Barack. They're a chance for him to talk with a few of the people who are driving the campaign—and a chance for him to say thank you.

So come prepared to tell your story, and say whatever's on your mind.

Don't miss the opportunity to be there. Donate $3 or more today, before the September 30th deadline:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner

Thanks,

Michelle

No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by midnight on 9/30/11. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor at https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-Barack-Sept or go here, http://my.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-Barack-Alt-Sept, to enter without contributing. Four winners will each receive the following prize package: one round-trip ticket from within the fifty U.S. States, DC, or Puerto Rico to a destination to be determined by the Sponsor; hotel accommodations for one; and dinner with President Obama on a date to be determined by the Sponsor (approximate combined retail value $1,050). Odds of winning depend on number of entries received. Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law). Promotion subject to Official Rules, http://my.barackobama.com/Dinner-Rules-Sept, and additional restrictions on eligibility. Sponsor: Obama for America, 130 E. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

8 Things Missing From Obama's Debt-Cutting Plan

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

President Obama has finally rolled out his plan to slash the national debt. One thing it's not is timely: At least half-a-dozen other groups have published their own debt-reduction plans since Obama took office in 2009.

One of those efforts was a commission set up by Obama himself. The "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform," led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, issued a detailed report  last year on how to cut the debt by $3.9 trillion by 2020. It proposed about $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, a proportion that generated bipartisan support. Many economists now consider that plan a baseline against which to measure others.

[See who would lose most under Obama's deb-cutting plan.]

Obama's own plan borrows some ideas from the Bowles-Simpson effort, such as cuts in agricultural subsidies and a call for tax reform that would lower rates and eliminate loopholes. But Obama also left out some prominent suggestions made by his own panel. Those omissions indicate what Obama is willing to fight for—or not—and also reveal how he's positioning himself for the 2012 presidential election. Here are eight ideas Obama left out of his own debt-cutting plan, even though they were included among the Bowles-Simpson recommendations:

A Congressional pay freeze. The fiscal commission pointed out that "unlike most Americans, members of Congress benefit from an automatic salary increase every single year--deserved or not." So it suggested that a three-year Congressional pay freeze—which only Congress itself can authorize--would set an example of austerity. Obama isn't seconding the suggestion, however, perhaps because he doesn't want to pick a personal fight with Congress. Or maybe he doesn't want to provoke demands for a similar pay freeze at the White House.

Cuts in the White House and Congressional budgets. The commission also felt it would be a fitting gesture for Congressional and White House policymakers to cut their own budgets by 15 percent before asking for cuts in other parts of the budget. That shouldn't be too tough, since spending on the legislative branch, for instance, rose by 50 percent between 2000 and 2010, even though Congress itself is the same size it has been for years. But austerity, apparently, doesn't start at home, so Obama kept his hands off the Congressional and White House budgets.

[See who would win under Obama's jobs plan.]

Middle-class tax increases. Obama wants tax increases on households earning more than $250,000, while also endorsing broader tax reform that would include lower rates. His commission went one big step further, by outlining specific elements of a tax-reform plan that would lower income-tax rates for everybody but slightly raise the tax burden on most taxpayers, because it would shrink or end deductions taken by many families. On average, the commission's plan would raise the tax bill for the typical filer by about $1,700 per year, with the middle 20 percent of filers paying about $700 more. Many economists feel the national debt is so large that middle-class tax hikes are inevitable to help bring it down. But Obama surely knows that proposing middle-class tax hikes would be a suicidal election move. So either he plans to pretend they'll never happen, or wait until a second term, if he gets one, to break the bad news to voters.

Eliminating all earmarks. These pet spending projects for favored members of Congress cost taxpayers about $16 billion per year, while usually evading accountability procedures that would surely find that most of them fail to serve the national interest. Obama's fiscal commission said they should be banned completely, but Obama didn't even mention earmarks in his own debt-cutting plan. Yet he still itemized more than three dozen other measures that would save less than the fiscal commission says ending earmarks would save. Those Congressional spending perks must be awfully touchy.

[See how to escape the middle-class squeeze.]

Medical malpractice reform. According to the fiscal commission, "most experts agree that the current tort system in the United States leads to an increase in health care costs." That's why it suggested reforms that would rein in jury awards and costs for malpractice insurance, at a projected savings of $17 billion. Obama has staked his entire presidency on improving the healthcare system for most Americans, yet his debt plan makes no mention of malpractice reform. Trial lawyers are traditional Democratic backers, and Obama, a lawyer himself, may not be willing to risk the loss of a well-heeled constituency.

An increase in the retirement age. The fiscal commission recommended a gradual increase in the age at which people would qualify for Social Security and Medicare, beyond the increases that are already scheduled to happen. Under that proposal, the retirement age would rise to 68 by 2050 and to 69 by 2075. Such a change would slightly reduce the outflows from these two programs and help keep them solvent. Obama proposed a few minor cuts in Medicare benefits but favors holding the retirement age where it is. He proposed virtually no changes to Social Security.

[See how the debt fiasco damaged the economy.]

Higher payroll taxes. One of the tax increases the commission suggested was raising the cutoff point for the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Right now, the payroll tax applies to about 86 percent of all taxable wages; the commission recommended raising the cap so it applies to about 90 percent of all wages. But that would amount to a middle-class tax hike, since it would apply to many taxpayers who earn less than $250,000. So Obama wants nothing to do with it (for now).

A different cost-of-living formula for Social Security. Another way to raise a few bucks is to change the formula used to determine the cost-of-living increases that Social Security recipients get every year. The commission argued that switching to something called the "chained consumer price index" would provide a more accurate measure of inflation. But it would also cut benefits slightly, which is why it would save the government money. The months before an election are probably the wrong time to nickel-and-dime seniors, so Obama took a pass on the chained CPI. Like many other debt-cutting ideas, however, it may surface another day.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

AFL-CIO Threatens Obama's Re-Election Over Jobs

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The AFL-CIO, worried that President Obama's long-awaited September jobs announcement will be inadequate, is threatening to boycott the Democratic National Convention and maybe the 2012 elections unless bold action is taken to ease unemployment.

"If they don't have a jobs program I think we'd be better to use our money doing other things," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

[Check out editorial cartoons about the economy.]

The leader of the nation's largest union, who regularly visits the White House to talk with Obama, sounded a warning today that he is worried that the president will simply propose "nibbly" things to spark some job creation instead of laying out a bold plan and promising to challenge Republicans in Congress to pass it.

"People are frustrated and the more jobs aren't created, the more they're gonna get frustrated with everybody," he said in a Christian Science Monitor newsmaker roundtable breakfast.

"This is going to be a moment when history and our members are going to judge him and they are going to be making an opinion. And if he puts all of his emphasis and focus on jobs creation, it's going give them one picture," said Trumka. "And if he continues to do little nibbly things around the end that aren't going to make a difference and aren't going to solve a problem, that will give another picture." [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

Besides suggesting that his national union won't attend the convention unless a big new jobs program is proposed, he also indicated that his union won't do much for Obama or Democrats in the 2012 elections.

Asked if union participation in the election will drop, he said, "I think yes. I think the overall population participation will drop. Because people, if they think there's not going to be any solution they get upset."

Oddly, he said that the union hasn't decided if it will participate in the convention though he said some affiliates already aren't going. That would be a slap at Obama. [See pictures of Obama behind the scenes.]

He demanded that the president not make any more spending cuts because it costs jobs. He also said that the union would oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare and he cited a new government report to suggest that the deficit problem could be eased if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to die. [Check out political cartoons about the deficit and debt.]

And in advising the president on a jobs program, Trumka said that the president should stiffen his spine and propose a bold plan that challenges Republicans on the issue. "Do not look at what is possible [to win passage in Congress.] Look at what is necessary," said Trumka.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

The Biggest Losers Under Obama's Debt-Cutting Plan

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Who will pay?

When it comes to cutting the national debt, that's what the whole fight is about.

[See who would win under Obama's jobs plan.]

Republicans want to reduce the nearly $15 trillion national debt entirely through spending cuts, which by definition would have the biggest impact on those who get the most federal money: Medicare and Medicaid recipients, government workers, and the beneficiaries of hundreds of government programs. Congressional Democrats want to limit cuts in aid to the retired and the needy, while raising taxes on the wealthy to bring down the debt. Now, President Obama has finally shown his hand, with a White House debt cutting plan that would shave more than $3 trillion off the debt over the next 10 years, in addition to about $1 trillion in savings that came from the controversial debt deal finalized over the summer.

Nearly half of Obama's debt paydown would come from new taxes on high-income Americans and corporations, and from fewer deductions for such taxpayers. Those would kick in starting in 2013. Determined Republican opposition to any tax hikes means there's virtually no chance Obama's debt plan will pass in the form he's presented it. But the plan represents Obama's opening bid in debt negotiations that could last for years. And if Obama wins re-election in 2012, he'll have a stronger hand to push Congressional negotiators toward his version of a debt reduction. Here's who would bear the biggest costs if Obama got his way:

Wealthy taxpayers. The biggest part of Obama's plan, in terms of dollars, is a return to higher tax brackets for households with income higher than $250,000 per year, as would have happened if the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 had expired as planned at the end of 2010. That would push tax rates up by about four percentage points for high earners. Obama would also cut the deductions for charitable donations and mortgage interest for high earners, and raise estates taxes. These measures alone would raise about $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

[See how the debt fiasco damaged the economy.]

Wall Street. There are two proposals that would hit big banks. First, Obama wants financial firms with assets of more than $50 billion to pay fees meant to reimburse the government for losses associated with the bank bailouts of 2008, under the unpopular TARP program. Many banks paid back their TARP loans with interest, but some firms, like AIG, haven't. Total TARP losses are now projected to be about $48 billion, and the new Obama fees would be in effect until that money has been recouped. Obama also wants to raise the fees that mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge private lenders to guarantee mortgages they issue. That would raise another $28 billion.

Tax cheats. You'd think that the government was already tough on tax evaders, but apparently not. Obama says better enforcement could net $30 billion.

Big Oil. Obama loves "green" energy, but oil firms are another frequent target of his. So he'd repeal tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are worth $41 billion, and change accounting rules that benefit oil companies and other types of firms, saving another $52 billion. Also on Obama's list: Ending a coal industry subsidy worth $2 billion.

[See how to escape the middle-class squeeze.]

Big Pharma. Two different measures would make it easier for patients in government healthcare programs to get generic drugs instead of more-expensive proprietary brands. Savings: $6.2 billion.

Federal workers and retirees, including veterans. Federal workers would pay a bit more toward their own pension. For members of the military and veterans who participate in the government's TRICARE program, there would be a new fee for a certain type of coverage after the age of 65, plus higher co-pays for some drugs. Total savings for all changes affecting government workers: About $39 billion.

Farmers. Agricultural subsidies have been losing support in Washington, especially with crop prices rising and the value of farmland booming. Obama would cut about $6 billion worth of subsidies and payments to farmers, many of them corporate operations.

Wealthy Medicare recipients. Obama's proposal would barely touch the popular Medicare program. One common idea, for instance, is raising the eligibility age, yet it's notably absent from Obama's debt reduction plan. But he's still calling for wealthier seniors to pay higher premiums to participate in Medicare Part B and Part D. That wouldn't start until 2017, and it would be limited to the top 25 percent of recipients, for a savings to the government of $20 billion.

[See why big companies are axing jobs.]

Corporate jet owners. Obama has complained that corporate jet owners don't pay their fair share, and he's putting their money where his mouth is. Under Obama's plan, corporate jet owners would pay an extra $100 per flight to use airspace controlled by the FAA. Obama would also eliminate special depreciation rules for companies that purchase aircraft. Total savings: $16 billion.

Air travelers. Obama would raise the Aviation Passenger Security Fee from $2.50 to as high as $7.50 by 2017. Instead of charging travelers "per emplanenement," there would only be one fee on every one-way trip. Overall, the new fee structure would raise about $25 billion in additional revenue. The corporate jet still looks good by comparison, if you can snag a ride.

Twitter: @rickjnewman

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More