President Obama spoke to reporters in the Diplomatic Reception Room this afternoon about the historic activities happening around health insurance reform and climate change. Here’s an excerpt from the President's remarks:
…On health care, with today’s developments it now appears that the American people will have the vote they deserve on genuine reform that offers security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those for do not. And so I want to thank Senator Harry Reid and every senator who’s been working around the clock to make this happen.There’s still much work left to be done, but not a lot of time left to do it. But today is a major step forward for the American people. After a nearly century long struggle we are on the cusp of making health care reform a reality in the United States of America.As with any legislation, compromise is part of the process. But I'm pleased that recently added amendments have made this landmark bill even stronger. Between the time the bill passes and the time when the insurance exchange gets up and running there will now be penalties for insurance companies that arbitrarily jack up rates on consumers. And while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions once the exchange is open, in the meantime there will be a high risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage.And a recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. Insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. There’s also explicit language in this bill that will protect a patient’s choice of doctor. And small businesses will get additional assistance as well.These protections are in addition to the ones we’ve been talking about for some time. No longer will insurance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for treatments that you need.Under this bill families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we don’t act will save money now and in the future. This bill with strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. Because it’s paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our health care system this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. In fact, we just learned from the Congressional Budget Office that this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade of the program, and more than one trillion dollars in the decade after that.Finally, this reform will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who don’t have it -- over 30 million Americans.As I said before, these are not small changes. These are big changes. They’re fundamental reforms. They will save money. They will save lives. And I look forward to working with the Senate and the House to finish the work that remains so that we can make this reform a reality for the American people…
Copenhagen has been the epicenter of intense negotiations for the past two weeks about the necessity for global action to address the threat of climate change. President Obama arrived in Denmark on Friday. After remarks at the morning plenary session and several bilateral meetings, the President helped forge a last-minute agreement with China, India, South Africa and Brazil that now forms the basis of the Copenhagen Accord.
During a press conference Friday night (Copenhagen time), President Obama called the Accord “a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough” because “for the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.” That fact was echoed by the United Nations' top climate official, Yvo de Boer, who told the Washington Post the Accord was "politically incredibly significant," because so many world leaders personally participated in drafting it. The Accord is not a binding agreement – and in the President’s own words, “we know that this progress alone is not enough” – but it does represent a significant step forward.
The talks hinged on three major issues – transparency (clear goals, monitoring and reporting), mitigation (a commitment to limit a rise in the Earth’s temperature) and financing (to help poorer nations adapt to climate change). From the New York Times:
The accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard. It calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to flow from wealthy nations to those countries most vulnerable to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050, implying deep cuts in climate-altering emissions over the next four decades.
Grist has a round up of the provisions included in the Accord:
1. A commitment by developed nations to invest $30 billion over the next three years to help developing nations adapt to climate change and pursue clean energy development.2. A provisional commitment by developed nations to develop a long-term $100 billion global fund by 2020 to assist developing nations in responding to climate change and become part of the clean energy economic transition.3. A goal to pursue emissions reductions that are sufficient to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.4. Pledges by nations to commit to concrete emissions reductions, though the specific levels of reduction were not set.5. A general goal to subject participating countries to international review of their progress under the accord. 6. Diplomatic space for the United States and China to work together to solve climate change. 7. A commitment to complete an assessment of the effectiveness of the accord in reducing emissions by the end of 2015.
According to the New York Times, Senator John Kerry (MA), the lead author of clean energy and climate legislation in the Senate, said the Accord would drive Congress to pass climate change legislation early next year. “This can be a catalyzing moment,” he said Friday. “President Obama’s hands-on engagement broke through the bickering and sets the stage for a final deal and for Senate passage this spring of major legislation at home.”
Read President Obama's full remarks . . .
This morning, President Obama addressed a plenary session of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
The President called on world leaders to come together, seize the moment and forge an agreement on climate. As the New York Times reported:
“President Obama speaking to world leaders gathered here at the frenzied end of two weeks of climate talks, urged them to come to an agreement — no matter how imperfect — to address global warming and monitor whether countries are in compliance with promised emissions cuts.”
President Obama reaffirmed America’s commitment to addressing the climate crisis and pledged to move keep moving forward, at home – by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in a clean energy economy – and abroad, by helping to build a $100 billion fund that would assist poorer countries adapt to climate change.
Here’s an excerpt from his remarks:
…So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That's why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear…Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet…
…So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That's why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.
After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear…
Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.
Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet…
After the plenary session, President Obama met leaders from around the world, including officials from European nations, India, China and Mexico. The two-week conference ends tonight. Here’s a roundup from the Washington Post.
From the Washington Post:
The Obama administration named 18 projects Thursday that would receive a portion of the $7.4 billion in stimulus funds set aside to bring high-speed Internet to poor and rural areas that have been overlooked by Internet service providers…Analysts say the first batch of funds suggests the federal government is targeting "middle mile" projects that may not bring lines directly to the home, but could have even greater impact by connecting entire communities that have been off the Internet grid…Vice President Biden announced the awards during a speech in Dawsonville, Ga. The government plans to distribute about $2 billion over the next 2 1/2 months. The remainder of the $7.4 billion has been spent on mapping projects or will be distributed in a final round of grants in coming months."New broadband access means more capacity and better reliability in rural areas and underserved urban communities around the country. Businesses will be able to improve their customer service and better compete around the world," Biden said. "This is what the Recovery Act is all about -- sparking new growth, tapping into the ingenuity of the American people and giving folks the tools they need to help build a new economy in the 21st century…"
The Obama administration named 18 projects Thursday that would receive a portion of the $7.4 billion in stimulus funds set aside to bring high-speed Internet to poor and rural areas that have been overlooked by Internet service providers…
Analysts say the first batch of funds suggests the federal government is targeting "middle mile" projects that may not bring lines directly to the home, but could have even greater impact by connecting entire communities that have been off the Internet grid…
Vice President Biden announced the awards during a speech in Dawsonville, Ga. The government plans to distribute about $2 billion over the next 2 1/2 months. The remainder of the $7.4 billion has been spent on mapping projects or will be distributed in a final round of grants in coming months.
"New broadband access means more capacity and better reliability in rural areas and underserved urban communities around the country. Businesses will be able to improve their customer service and better compete around the world," Biden said. "This is what the Recovery Act is all about -- sparking new growth, tapping into the ingenuity of the American people and giving folks the tools they need to help build a new economy in the 21st century…"
From the New York Times:
President Obama called on world leaders to come to an agreement on climate change, no matter how imperfect, and pressed for an accord that would monitor whether countries — primarily China — are complying with promised emissions cuts.Speaking just hours after arriving here for what is supposed to be the last day of difficult talks to address global warming, and clearly frustrated by the absence of any agreement, Mr. Obama was both emphatic and at times impatient.“The time for talk is over,” he said.Mr. Obama arrived here prepared to lend his political muscle to secure an agreement on climate change that has eluded world leaders for two weeks. But the tone of his remarks to the plenary session at the Bella Center on Friday indicated that the accord was still plagued by distrust over how nations would hold each other accountable.“I don’t know how you have an international agreement where you don’t share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory…”In his speech to the plenary session, Mr. Obama expressed his urgency to secure a climate deal, no matter how “imperfect” it might have to be.“We are running short on time,” Mr. Obama warned. “And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. Whether we prefer posturing to action.”“We can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years.” But, he warned that such a course would leave leaders “back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade—all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”And in a challenge to the assembled national leaders, though not mentioning China directly, he said that America is “ready to get this done today...”
President Obama called on world leaders to come to an agreement on climate change, no matter how imperfect, and pressed for an accord that would monitor whether countries — primarily China — are complying with promised emissions cuts.
Speaking just hours after arriving here for what is supposed to be the last day of difficult talks to address global warming, and clearly frustrated by the absence of any agreement, Mr. Obama was both emphatic and at times impatient.
“The time for talk is over,” he said.
Mr. Obama arrived here prepared to lend his political muscle to secure an agreement on climate change that has eluded world leaders for two weeks. But the tone of his remarks to the plenary session at the Bella Center on Friday indicated that the accord was still plagued by distrust over how nations would hold each other accountable.
“I don’t know how you have an international agreement where you don’t share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory…”
In his speech to the plenary session, Mr. Obama expressed his urgency to secure a climate deal, no matter how “imperfect” it might have to be.
“We are running short on time,” Mr. Obama warned. “And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. Whether we prefer posturing to action.”
“We can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years.” But, he warned that such a course would leave leaders “back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade—all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”
And in a challenge to the assembled national leaders, though not mentioning China directly, he said that America is “ready to get this done today...”
Former president Bill Clinton waded in the debate on the health-care reform bill Thursday, urging support for its passage and warning "America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.""This is a good bill," he wrote in a statement released by the William J. Clinton Foundation. "It increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers…""Take it from someone who knows: these chances don't come around every day. Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party and, far more important, for the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country."
Former president Bill Clinton waded in the debate on the health-care reform bill Thursday, urging support for its passage and warning "America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
"This is a good bill," he wrote in a statement released by the William J. Clinton Foundation. "It increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers…"
"Take it from someone who knows: these chances don't come around every day. Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party and, far more important, for the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country."
Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to use every available tactic to delay voting on the health-care bill as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) scrambled to unify Democrats in support of the legislation.Meanwhile, on the Senate floor, Republicans showed they were prepared to extend the health-care debate as long as possible, with Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) demanding that a Senate clerk read aloud a 767-page Democratic amendment sponsored by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).The GOP bid was foiled about three hours later, when Sanders withdrew his long-shot proposal to create a Canadian-style single-payer system. But Republicans are expected to make a similar move when Reid introduces the revised Senate bill, which is likely to top 2,000 pages and which cannot be similarly withdrawn…Democrats decried the maneuver and predicted that the stalling effort would fail. "The decision by the Senate Republican leadership today to have the Sanders amendment read clearly tells us what their strategy is," said Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "It is to slow down or stop this bill at any cost."Durbin said the Dec. 25 deadline for passage remains in place, provided Reid can lock down the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. "I think that we can get this done in time for each of us to be home for Christmas. That's our goal," Durbin said.
Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to use every available tactic to delay voting on the health-care bill as Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) scrambled to unify Democrats in support of the legislation.
Meanwhile, on the Senate floor, Republicans showed they were prepared to extend the health-care debate as long as possible, with Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) demanding that a Senate clerk read aloud a 767-page Democratic amendment sponsored by Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.).
The GOP bid was foiled about three hours later, when Sanders withdrew his long-shot proposal to create a Canadian-style single-payer system. But Republicans are expected to make a similar move when Reid introduces the revised Senate bill, which is likely to top 2,000 pages and which cannot be similarly withdrawn…
Democrats decried the maneuver and predicted that the stalling effort would fail. "The decision by the Senate Republican leadership today to have the Sanders amendment read clearly tells us what their strategy is," said Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "It is to slow down or stop this bill at any cost."
Durbin said the Dec. 25 deadline for passage remains in place, provided Reid can lock down the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. "I think that we can get this done in time for each of us to be home for Christmas. That's our goal," Durbin said.
From ABC News:
Obama administration officials tonight outlined how the next six months of the $787 billion stimulus program will focus on infrastructure projects - such as roads, water projects, broadband, and housing – as the push continues to create jobs across the country.The two-year program has three phases – relief, recovery, and reinvestment – and with the first two parts of the program coming to a close as the one-year anniversary of the stimulus approaches in February, the focus will now turn to reinvestment. Most of the $394 billion spent as of December 4 has been payments in the form of direct aid to states, cities, and individuals in need, but the second half of the funds will be geared towards projects, with monthly spending on projects more than tripling in 2010…“This is sort of like jumpstarting your car,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “Your car has stalled, you’ve hooked up the jumper cables – this isn’t a one-shot jolt to get your engine going. This is a sustained stimulus. It’s a sustained jolt into the economy because you don’t want to get to this point where after only a short period of time you’ve injected everything in and then you fall short.”Administration officials also vigorously defended the program’s progress up to this point, noting a recent report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that said the Recovery Act has saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs as of the end of the third quarter. The nation’s economy grew during the third quarter and job losses have slowed from 652,000 in March to only 11,000 in November."There is no question in my mind that the private-sector US economy will begin generating robust employment at some point in the near future," said Jared Bernstein, chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden. "Precisely when that is, no one can say, but what we can say is that point is a lot closer now because of the Recovery Act."
Obama administration officials tonight outlined how the next six months of the $787 billion stimulus program will focus on infrastructure projects - such as roads, water projects, broadband, and housing – as the push continues to create jobs across the country.
The two-year program has three phases – relief, recovery, and reinvestment – and with the first two parts of the program coming to a close as the one-year anniversary of the stimulus approaches in February, the focus will now turn to reinvestment. Most of the $394 billion spent as of December 4 has been payments in the form of direct aid to states, cities, and individuals in need, but the second half of the funds will be geared towards projects, with monthly spending on projects more than tripling in 2010…
“This is sort of like jumpstarting your car,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “Your car has stalled, you’ve hooked up the jumper cables – this isn’t a one-shot jolt to get your engine going. This is a sustained stimulus. It’s a sustained jolt into the economy because you don’t want to get to this point where after only a short period of time you’ve injected everything in and then you fall short.”
Administration officials also vigorously defended the program’s progress up to this point, noting a recent report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that said the Recovery Act has saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs as of the end of the third quarter. The nation’s economy grew during the third quarter and job losses have slowed from 652,000 in March to only 11,000 in November.
"There is no question in my mind that the private-sector US economy will begin generating robust employment at some point in the near future," said Jared Bernstein, chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden. "Precisely when that is, no one can say, but what we can say is that point is a lot closer now because of the Recovery Act."
From the Plum Line:
This seems significant: Obama’s political operation, Organizing for America, is on track tonight to make its one-millionth call to members of Congress since last August, OFA spokesman Brad Woodhouse confirms to me.It’s a reminder that even as the the infighting among Dems over health care grew to a dull media roar in recent days, OFA has been quietly plugging away — and is now on track to reach a milestone. The question is whether it can put enough general pressure on Congress to get them to overcome their specific differences.
This seems significant: Obama’s political operation, Organizing for America, is on track tonight to make its one-millionth call to members of Congress since last August, OFA spokesman Brad Woodhouse confirms to me.
It’s a reminder that even as the the infighting among Dems over health care grew to a dull media roar in recent days, OFA has been quietly plugging away — and is now on track to reach a milestone. The question is whether it can put enough general pressure on Congress to get them to overcome their specific differences.
From Salon:
Organizing for America, the post-campaign version of the Obama for America campaign's juggernaut website/mailing list/organizing tool that compiled and rallied more than 3 million supporters during Obama's 2008 presidential run, is asking its supporters to help rally their home-state senators on the health care reform package with calls to Washington.A version of the script found here has gone out by direct email, and those who go to the OFA site are immediately greeted by an appeal to take action. That script reads in part:If we don't pass health reform, millions of Americans will be trapped in a broken status quo, unable to pay their bills or see a doctor when they need one.More and more employers will drop coverage for employees. And Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget.There's too much at stake not to get this done. That's why, as of this morning, OFA supporters have made 849,856 calls to Congress in support of health reform since August.And that's why today, with the Senate locked in last-minute negotiations, our goal is to hit one million calls.OFA says it's approaching a million calls, which is impressive…
Organizing for America, the post-campaign version of the Obama for America campaign's juggernaut website/mailing list/organizing tool that compiled and rallied more than 3 million supporters during Obama's 2008 presidential run, is asking its supporters to help rally their home-state senators on the health care reform package with calls to Washington.
A version of the script found here has gone out by direct email, and those who go to the OFA site are immediately greeted by an appeal to take action. That script reads in part:
If we don't pass health reform, millions of Americans will be trapped in a broken status quo, unable to pay their bills or see a doctor when they need one.
More and more employers will drop coverage for employees. And Medicare and Medicaid will blow a hole through our budget.
There's too much at stake not to get this done. That's why, as of this morning, OFA supporters have made 849,856 calls to Congress in support of health reform since August.
And that's why today, with the Senate locked in last-minute negotiations, our goal is to hit one million calls.
OFA says it's approaching a million calls, which is impressive…
Click here to call your Senators and ask them to ring in Health Reform.
An analysis released today by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities determined that the nation’s current budget deficits are largely a consequence of the previous administration’s policies. According to the Center, the Bush-era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic downturn account for almost the entire deficit over the next 10 years:
…The events and policies that have pushed deficits to astronomical levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term…
The Center continues:
Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. But those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit…Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and $7.1 trillion in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts) do not fade away as the economy recovers.Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook…
Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. But those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit…
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and $7.1 trillion in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts) do not fade away as the economy recovers.
Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook…
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report confirms what conservative and independent sources have already reported. David Leonhardt of the New York Times wrote: “President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying… The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office.” And recent analysis by the right-wing CATO Institute agreed arguing, “don’t blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 deficit.”
The Center also determined President Obama’s first budget proposed responsible steps that will help to reduce deficits by approximately $750 billion over the next 10 years.
At the White House, Mr. Obama declared himself “cautiously optimistic” after a meeting with the entire Senate Democratic caucus, where he urged senators to put aside their differences and “seize the moment,” to pass a measure that would extend health coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.“Now, let’s be clear,” Mr. Obama said after the hourlong private meeting. “The final bill won’t include everything that everybody wants. No bill can do that. But what I told my former colleagues today is that we simply cannot allow differences over individual elements of this plan to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to solve a longstanding and urgent problem for the American people.”The meeting underscored the sense of urgency for Mr. Obama, who has made passing a health care overhaul his highest legislative priority. He is leaving on Thursday night for Copenhagen to attend a conference on climate change, and he acknowledged that “there are still disagreements that have to be ironed out” and “work to be done in the next few days.”In the Senate, Democratic leaders said they were confident they could resolve those disagreements because liberals seemed willing to make concessions to get a bill passed…“We are very disappointed,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who is a leading liberal in the Senate. Still, Mr. Brown said, “I’m going to vote for the bill — there’s too much at stake.”
At the White House, Mr. Obama declared himself “cautiously optimistic” after a meeting with the entire Senate Democratic caucus, where he urged senators to put aside their differences and “seize the moment,” to pass a measure that would extend health coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.
“Now, let’s be clear,” Mr. Obama said after the hourlong private meeting. “The final bill won’t include everything that everybody wants. No bill can do that. But what I told my former colleagues today is that we simply cannot allow differences over individual elements of this plan to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to solve a longstanding and urgent problem for the American people.”
The meeting underscored the sense of urgency for Mr. Obama, who has made passing a health care overhaul his highest legislative priority. He is leaving on Thursday night for Copenhagen to attend a conference on climate change, and he acknowledged that “there are still disagreements that have to be ironed out” and “work to be done in the next few days.”
In the Senate, Democratic leaders said they were confident they could resolve those disagreements because liberals seemed willing to make concessions to get a bill passed…
“We are very disappointed,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who is a leading liberal in the Senate. Still, Mr. Brown said, “I’m going to vote for the bill — there’s too much at stake.”
From the Washington Post blogs:
The core of this legislation is as it always was: $900 billion, give or take, so people who can't afford health-care insurance suddenly can. Insurance regulations paired with the individual mandate, so insurers can't discriminate against the sick and the healthy can't make insurance unaffordable by hanging back until the moment they need medical care. The construction of health insurance exchanges so the people currently left out of the employer-based market are better served, and the many who will join them as the employer system continues to erode will have somewhere to go…A lot of progressives woke up this morning feeling like they lost. They didn't. The public option and its compromised iterations were a battle that came to seem like a war. But they weren't the war. The bill itself was. When liberals talked about the dream of universal health-care insurance 10, 20 and 30 years ago, they talked about the plight of the uninsured, not the necessity of a limited public option in competition with private insurers."This is a good bill," Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Countdown last night. "Not a great bill, but a good bill." That's about right. But the other piece to remember is that more than it's a good bill, it's a good start. With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before we'd tried regulation and a new competitive structure. With 95 percent of the country covered, it's easier to go the final 5 percent. And with a health-care reform bill actually passed, it's easier to convince legislators that passing such bills is possible.
The core of this legislation is as it always was: $900 billion, give or take, so people who can't afford health-care insurance suddenly can. Insurance regulations paired with the individual mandate, so insurers can't discriminate against the sick and the healthy can't make insurance unaffordable by hanging back until the moment they need medical care. The construction of health insurance exchanges so the people currently left out of the employer-based market are better served, and the many who will join them as the employer system continues to erode will have somewhere to go…
A lot of progressives woke up this morning feeling like they lost. They didn't. The public option and its compromised iterations were a battle that came to seem like a war. But they weren't the war. The bill itself was. When liberals talked about the dream of universal health-care insurance 10, 20 and 30 years ago, they talked about the plight of the uninsured, not the necessity of a limited public option in competition with private insurers.
"This is a good bill," Sen. Sherrod Brown said on Countdown last night. "Not a great bill, but a good bill." That's about right. But the other piece to remember is that more than it's a good bill, it's a good start. With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before we'd tried regulation and a new competitive structure. With 95 percent of the country covered, it's easier to go the final 5 percent. And with a health-care reform bill actually passed, it's easier to convince legislators that passing such bills is possible.
From USA Today:
As President Obama heads to Copenhagen this week to convince world leaders of the United States' commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he's getting help from an unexpected quarter.In the Senate, where partisan feuding engulfs Obama's health care bill, an unusual group of lawmakers is working across party lines on a compromise bill that would boost domestic energy production while reducing pollution that causes global warming.Described by participants as "tripartisan," the effort unites Sens. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat; Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent; and Lindsey Graham, an outspoken South Carolina Republican…The three are touting their alliance as proof that Congress is prepared to approve significant reductions in carbon emissions…Kerry has a pointed message of his own for the Chinese in a speech he plans to deliver in Copenhagen today after an all-night flight from Washington."Some of my colleagues in Washington remain — like some leaders elsewhere — reluctant to grapple with a climate crisis mostly measured in future dangers and parts per million, when they're confronted every day with the present pain of hard-working people in a tough economic time," Kerry says, in remarks prepared for delivery."To pass a bill, we must be able to assure a senator from Ohio that steelworkers in his state won't lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measureable, reportable and verifiable," he adds.Obama has offered a 17% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The House approved the same target in June, with just eight GOP votes and 44 Democrats opposed.On Tuesday in Copenhagen, former vice president Al Gore— a Democrat who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change — called on Congress to approve a climate change bill by April 22, the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day.
As President Obama heads to Copenhagen this week to convince world leaders of the United States' commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he's getting help from an unexpected quarter.
In the Senate, where partisan feuding engulfs Obama's health care bill, an unusual group of lawmakers is working across party lines on a compromise bill that would boost domestic energy production while reducing pollution that causes global warming.
Described by participants as "tripartisan," the effort unites Sens. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat; Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent; and Lindsey Graham, an outspoken South Carolina Republican…
The three are touting their alliance as proof that Congress is prepared to approve significant reductions in carbon emissions…
Kerry has a pointed message of his own for the Chinese in a speech he plans to deliver in Copenhagen today after an all-night flight from Washington.
"Some of my colleagues in Washington remain — like some leaders elsewhere — reluctant to grapple with a climate crisis mostly measured in future dangers and parts per million, when they're confronted every day with the present pain of hard-working people in a tough economic time," Kerry says, in remarks prepared for delivery.
"To pass a bill, we must be able to assure a senator from Ohio that steelworkers in his state won't lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measureable, reportable and verifiable," he adds.
Obama has offered a 17% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The House approved the same target in June, with just eight GOP votes and 44 Democrats opposed.
On Tuesday in Copenhagen, former vice president Al Gore— a Democrat who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change — called on Congress to approve a climate change bill by April 22, the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day.
President Obama pressured the heads of the nation’s biggest banks on Monday to take “extraordinary” steps to revive lending for small businesses and homeowners, prompting assurances from some financial institutions that they would do more even as they continued to shed their supplicant status in Washington.Meeting with top executives from 12 financial institutions, Mr. Obama sent a clear message that the industry had a responsibility to help nurse the economy back to health and do more to create jobs in return for the huge federal bailout last year that kept Wall Street and the banking system afloat…During the hourlong meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Mr. Obama prodded the executives to stop fighting the regulation legislation intended to deal with the problems that led to the financial crisis, White House officials said.“I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people,” Mr. Obama said in remarks after the meeting. “If they wish to fight common sense consumer protections, that’s a fight I’m more than willing to have…”
President Obama pressured the heads of the nation’s biggest banks on Monday to take “extraordinary” steps to revive lending for small businesses and homeowners, prompting assurances from some financial institutions that they would do more even as they continued to shed their supplicant status in Washington.
Meeting with top executives from 12 financial institutions, Mr. Obama sent a clear message that the industry had a responsibility to help nurse the economy back to health and do more to create jobs in return for the huge federal bailout last year that kept Wall Street and the banking system afloat…
During the hourlong meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Mr. Obama prodded the executives to stop fighting the regulation legislation intended to deal with the problems that led to the financial crisis, White House officials said.
“I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people,” Mr. Obama said in remarks after the meeting. “If they wish to fight common sense consumer protections, that’s a fight I’m more than willing to have…”
From the Wall Street Journal:
Senate Democrats on Monday evening dropped a plan to expand Medicare, winning the support of moderates and the reluctant acquiescence of liberals, in another major step toward building enough support to pass a health-care overhaul…At an evening caucus of all 58 Democrats and the two independents who sit with the party, including Sen. Lieberman, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other party leaders made clear they wanted to head off the dispute.Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) said Democrats agreed that the dispute over Medicare shouldn't hold up legislation that would extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans."There are a lot of good things here," he said. "To use an old cliché, the general consensus was we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good..."Mr. Reid wants to vote on the legislation by Christmas, setting the stage for House-Senate negotiations on a final compromise bill in January. Among other things, the bill would expand Medicaid, which serves the poor, and create tax subsidies to help families purchase insurance…Senate Democrats are set to visit the White House Tuesday to meet President Barack Obama, who is also pressing for action before Christmas…Liberal Democrats suggested they would reluctantly go along with Mr. Lieberman's position. "There's enough good in this bill...that we ought to move it," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)…
Senate Democrats on Monday evening dropped a plan to expand Medicare, winning the support of moderates and the reluctant acquiescence of liberals, in another major step toward building enough support to pass a health-care overhaul…
At an evening caucus of all 58 Democrats and the two independents who sit with the party, including Sen. Lieberman, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other party leaders made clear they wanted to head off the dispute.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) said Democrats agreed that the dispute over Medicare shouldn't hold up legislation that would extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
"There are a lot of good things here," he said. "To use an old cliché, the general consensus was we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good..."
Mr. Reid wants to vote on the legislation by Christmas, setting the stage for House-Senate negotiations on a final compromise bill in January. Among other things, the bill would expand Medicaid, which serves the poor, and create tax subsidies to help families purchase insurance…
Senate Democrats are set to visit the White House Tuesday to meet President Barack Obama, who is also pressing for action before Christmas…
Liberal Democrats suggested they would reluctantly go along with Mr. Lieberman's position. "There's enough good in this bill...that we ought to move it," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)…
A solid majority of Americans support the idea of a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, although many also express concern about the potential impact on the economy.The results provide some encouragement for President Obama, who attends the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen on Friday. By 55%-38%, those surveyed endorse a binding accord to limit the gases tied to global warming…There's a lot of public support for various climate policy approaches that diminishes as you begin to put a specific dollar figure with it," says Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan political scientist who studies public opinion on the environment. He says the findings show many Americans open to persuasion…Young people, those 18 to 29 years old, are by far the most supportive of a treaty, backing the idea by 66%-26%...
A solid majority of Americans support the idea of a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, although many also express concern about the potential impact on the economy.
The results provide some encouragement for President Obama, who attends the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen on Friday. By 55%-38%, those surveyed endorse a binding accord to limit the gases tied to global warming…
There's a lot of public support for various climate policy approaches that diminishes as you begin to put a specific dollar figure with it," says Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan political scientist who studies public opinion on the environment. He says the findings show many Americans open to persuasion…
Young people, those 18 to 29 years old, are by far the most supportive of a treaty, backing the idea by 66%-26%...
From the Michigan Post-Bulletin:
This holiday season children are not the only ones writing letters with their Christmas wishes.Supporters and opponents of the Democrats' health care reform proposals are launching holiday letter-writing campaigns. Organizing for America, a political group run by the Democratic National Committee, has set up a Web site where supporters can send lawmakers an e-mail that says, "I am a constituent, and this holiday season, my wish is for health reform…"
This holiday season children are not the only ones writing letters with their Christmas wishes.
Supporters and opponents of the Democrats' health care reform proposals are launching holiday letter-writing campaigns. Organizing for America, a political group run by the Democratic National Committee, has set up a Web site where supporters can send lawmakers an e-mail that says, "I am a constituent, and this holiday season, my wish is for health reform…"
President Barack Obama lashed out at Wall Street, calling bankers "fat cats" who don't get it, in an escalation of tensions with the industry.Mr. Obama, speaking on the eve of Monday's meeting with the heads of major banks at the White House, said he would try to persuade bankers to free up more credit to businesses, with the aim of boosting job growth. But the president also expressed frustration with banks that the government has assisted."I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Mr. Obama said in an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" program on Sunday."They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see," he said. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in -- in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got 10% unemployment."Mr. Obama is scheduled on Monday morning to meet with bankers to exchange ideas on ways to increase lending; to review the financial-industry regulatory bill moving through Congress; and to discuss bankers' compensation, the White House and industry representatives said…White House economic adviser Larry Summers also criticized Wall Street Sunday. "Here is what I think they don't get...It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse," Mr. Summers, who chairs the National Economic Council, said on CNN's "State of the Union."Mr. Summers knocked big banks for opposing the bill in Congress that would tighten regulatory controls over the financial industry. The House passed a version of the measure on Friday.
President Barack Obama lashed out at Wall Street, calling bankers "fat cats" who don't get it, in an escalation of tensions with the industry.
Mr. Obama, speaking on the eve of Monday's meeting with the heads of major banks at the White House, said he would try to persuade bankers to free up more credit to businesses, with the aim of boosting job growth. But the president also expressed frustration with banks that the government has assisted.
"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Mr. Obama said in an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" program on Sunday.
"They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see," he said. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in -- in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got 10% unemployment."
Mr. Obama is scheduled on Monday morning to meet with bankers to exchange ideas on ways to increase lending; to review the financial-industry regulatory bill moving through Congress; and to discuss bankers' compensation, the White House and industry representatives said…
White House economic adviser Larry Summers also criticized Wall Street Sunday. "Here is what I think they don't get...It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse," Mr. Summers, who chairs the National Economic Council, said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Mr. Summers knocked big banks for opposing the bill in Congress that would tighten regulatory controls over the financial industry. The House passed a version of the measure on Friday.
From the New York Times oped page, by Paul Krugman:
…with the meltdown caused by a runaway financial system still fresh in our minds, and the mass unemployment that meltdown caused still very much in evidence — every single Republican and 27 Democrats voted against a quite modest effort to rein in Wall Street excesses.Let’s recall how we got into our current mess.America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted…Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have been wrong.Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime loans…But it also reflects the extent to which the modern Republican Party is committed to a bankrupt ideology, one that won’t let it face up to the reality of what happened to the U.S. economy.So it’s up to the Democrats — and more specifically, since the House has passed its bill, it’s up to “centrist” Democrats in the Senate. Are they willing to learn something from the disaster that has overtaken the U.S. economy, and get behind financial reform?
…with the meltdown caused by a runaway financial system still fresh in our minds, and the mass unemployment that meltdown caused still very much in evidence — every single Republican and 27 Democrats voted against a quite modest effort to rein in Wall Street excesses.
Let’s recall how we got into our current mess.
America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system. The regulations worked: the nation was spared major financial crises for almost four decades after World War II. But as the memory of the Depression faded, bankers began to chafe at the restrictions they faced. And politicians, increasingly under the influence of free-market ideology, showed a growing willingness to give bankers what they wanted…
Given this history, you might have expected the emergence of a national consensus in favor of restoring more-effective financial regulation, so as to avoid a repeat performance. But you would have been wrong.
Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime loans…
But it also reflects the extent to which the modern Republican Party is committed to a bankrupt ideology, one that won’t let it face up to the reality of what happened to the U.S. economy.
So it’s up to the Democrats — and more specifically, since the House has passed its bill, it’s up to “centrist” Democrats in the Senate. Are they willing to learn something from the disaster that has overtaken the U.S. economy, and get behind financial reform?
From the Seattle Times:
They gathered, 300 strong, in Seattle's Occidental Park to rally for President Obama's health care reform today."The most humane way is to give everyone the same set of benefits and pay for it together," said Congressman Jim McDermott, speaking to the crowd. "Obama is creating a house of health. We're going to get a bill."The Seattle rally was one of nine statewide put on by Organizing for America, a group formed by Obama and working to support his proposals, as health care reform…Those at the rally waved their signs, "health care can't wait," and volunteers collected Christmas cards addressed to Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, urging them to support health care reform…"It's taking us too long to address it," said Seattle mayor-elect Mike McGinn. "But now it's within reach."
They gathered, 300 strong, in Seattle's Occidental Park to rally for President Obama's health care reform today.
"The most humane way is to give everyone the same set of benefits and pay for it together," said Congressman Jim McDermott, speaking to the crowd. "Obama is creating a house of health. We're going to get a bill."
The Seattle rally was one of nine statewide put on by Organizing for America, a group formed by Obama and working to support his proposals, as health care reform…
Those at the rally waved their signs, "health care can't wait," and volunteers collected Christmas cards addressed to Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, urging them to support health care reform…
"It's taking us too long to address it," said Seattle mayor-elect Mike McGinn. "But now it's within reach."
This afternoon the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4173, the Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act. The bill passed 223 to 220, with no Republican votes.
The Act takes on the “reckless risk-taking unrestrained by regulation” at the root of financial crisis last fall that is still wreaking havoc on our economy. The New York Times said the bill is “the most significant legislative act to confront the financial crisis that exploded last year.” According to the Times:
The bill’s principal provisions establish a process for dismantling large, failing financial institutions; set up a council to identify and regulate firms that are so big, interconnected or risky that they need heightened supervision to keep them from bringing down the whole financial system; create a new consumer financial-protection agency to squelch unfair and abusive practices; and for the first time, regulate over-the-counter derivatives markets. The bill also contains provisions on executive pay, investor protection, credit ratings, hedge funds and insurance.
The Washington Post said the Act’s passage “marked a milestone in the Obama administration's efforts to rein in the abuses that contributed to the current crisis and to revamp the current patchwork of regulators to prevent similar failures in the future." In a statement released to the press, President Obama said:
I commend the House of Representatives for passing The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors.The Senate is working on similar legislation, and I urge both houses of Congress to pass this necessary reform as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. I look forward to signing a strong bill that establishes and enforces clear rules; closes the loopholes that allowed Wall Street firms and other creditors to game the system and evade accountability; protects consumers and investors from predatory lending and deceptive financial practices; and gives the government the necessary tools to prevent any institution from posing a risk to the whole system or making the American taxpayer collateral damage in the event of future turmoil.The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington. We have a responsibility to learn from it, and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation, and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again. That's how we will build a stronger foundation for our lasting growth.
I commend the House of Representatives for passing The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. This legislation brings us another important step closer to necessary, comprehensive financial reform that will create clear rules of the road, consistent and systematic enforcement of those rules, and a stronger, more stable financial system with better protections for consumers and investors.
The Senate is working on similar legislation, and I urge both houses of Congress to pass this necessary reform as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. I look forward to signing a strong bill that establishes and enforces clear rules; closes the loopholes that allowed Wall Street firms and other creditors to game the system and evade accountability; protects consumers and investors from predatory lending and deceptive financial practices; and gives the government the necessary tools to prevent any institution from posing a risk to the whole system or making the American taxpayer collateral damage in the event of future turmoil.
The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington. We have a responsibility to learn from it, and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation, and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again. That's how we will build a stronger foundation for our lasting growth.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support Thursday for a Senate Democratic proposal to expand Medicare, raising prospects that the two chambers of Congress can work out differences on health-care legislation.The proposal would open Medicare to some people ages 55 to 64, and is a key feature of a deal among senior Senate Democrats that would abandon efforts to enact a big government-run health-insurance program. The deal would also empower the government's Office of Personnel Management to contract with private insurers to offer new low-cost insurance plans….Ms. Pelosi (D., Calif.) stopped short of endorsing the full Senate compromise, saying she needed to see "something in writing." But she said "there is certainly a great deal of appeal" in expanding Medicare…The House speaker said she would be willing to begin negotiations on a House-Senate compromise bill the weekend of Dec. 19-20 if the Senate is done by then…Ms. Pelosi said the House and Senate bills "are probably 75% compatible," and suggested efforts to reconcile differences could go quickly. "We have just a few issues we have to deal with," she said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed support Thursday for a Senate Democratic proposal to expand Medicare, raising prospects that the two chambers of Congress can work out differences on health-care legislation.
The proposal would open Medicare to some people ages 55 to 64, and is a key feature of a deal among senior Senate Democrats that would abandon efforts to enact a big government-run health-insurance program. The deal would also empower the government's Office of Personnel Management to contract with private insurers to offer new low-cost insurance plans….
Ms. Pelosi (D., Calif.) stopped short of endorsing the full Senate compromise, saying she needed to see "something in writing." But she said "there is certainly a great deal of appeal" in expanding Medicare…
The House speaker said she would be willing to begin negotiations on a House-Senate compromise bill the weekend of Dec. 19-20 if the Senate is done by then…
Ms. Pelosi said the House and Senate bills "are probably 75% compatible," and suggested efforts to reconcile differences could go quickly. "We have just a few issues we have to deal with," she said.
From the Associated Press:
President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners with humble words Thursday, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious prize to "reach for the world that ought to be."Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war's use and prevention. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks — at about 4,000 words — were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address…The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified — in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region…He also emphasized alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of both diplomatic outreach and sanctions with teeth to confront nations such as Iran or North Korea that defy international demands to halt their nuclear programs or those such as Sudan, Congo or Burma that brutalize their citizens.
President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners with humble words Thursday, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious prize to "reach for the world that ought to be."
Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war's use and prevention. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks — at about 4,000 words — were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address…
The president laid out the circumstances where war is justified — in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation and on humanitarian grounds, such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government or a civil war threatens to engulf an entire region…
He also emphasized alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of both diplomatic outreach and sanctions with teeth to confront nations such as Iran or North Korea that defy international demands to halt their nuclear programs or those such as Sudan, Congo or Burma that brutalize their citizens.
WDAF-TV, Kansas City, MO:
Thousands of people braved the cold over the last two days to come to a free health care clinic at Bartle Hall. But the event is also stirring up a lot of political debate about national health care reform.For many people attending the free clinic, politics took a back seat to more immediate health care concerns."I'm 50 and haven't had a physical in probably 20 years," said patient Ron Thompson, who says that he doesn't qualify for insurance at his job yet…Outside of Bartle Hall, the group Organizing for America rallied in support of health care reform legislation."There are so many Missourians who don't have access to health care, whether it's due to pre-existing conditions or high premiums," said Dan Herman, Missouri director of Organizing for America.Casey Pointer of Organizing for America says that he was diagnosed with cancer at age 26, and was fortunate to have health insurance. But he says that he is now speaking out for those who aren't so fortunate."There's no doubt in my mind that I would not be alive today to be here had it not been for the generosity of my employer," said Pointer…
Thousands of people braved the cold over the last two days to come to a free health care clinic at Bartle Hall. But the event is also stirring up a lot of political debate about national health care reform.
For many people attending the free clinic, politics took a back seat to more immediate health care concerns.
"I'm 50 and haven't had a physical in probably 20 years," said patient Ron Thompson, who says that he doesn't qualify for insurance at his job yet…
Outside of Bartle Hall, the group Organizing for America rallied in support of health care reform legislation.
"There are so many Missourians who don't have access to health care, whether it's due to pre-existing conditions or high premiums," said Dan Herman, Missouri director of Organizing for America.
Casey Pointer of Organizing for America says that he was diagnosed with cancer at age 26, and was fortunate to have health insurance. But he says that he is now speaking out for those who aren't so fortunate.
"There's no doubt in my mind that I would not be alive today to be here had it not been for the generosity of my employer," said Pointer…
WFLX-TV in Albany, GA:
Southwest Georgian women gathered to let their voices be heard about the healthcare debate and what’s at stake for Southwest Georgia women. Tens of millions of Americans are not insured, and thousands lose coverage every day…Women were the center of attention for many reasons says Dr. Tania Smith.“Women are the backbone, women are the people who also that are neglected in healthcare because they’re constantly taking care of other people and also they’re working part time and they’re not receiving full benefits,” said Dr. Smith.
Southwest Georgian women gathered to let their voices be heard about the healthcare debate and what’s at stake for Southwest Georgia women. Tens of millions of Americans are not insured, and thousands lose coverage every day…
Women were the center of attention for many reasons says Dr. Tania Smith.
“Women are the backbone, women are the people who also that are neglected in healthcare because they’re constantly taking care of other people and also they’re working part time and they’re not receiving full benefits,” said Dr. Smith.
Washington Post:
In a brief appearance shortly before the ceremony, Obama reiterated his surprise at being chosen to receive the prestigious [Nobel Peace Prize] less than nine months after becoming president, and said he would use the honor "to continue on the path" of pushing for nuclear disarmament, addressing climate change and mobilizing an international coalition to fight terrorism around the globe. …I have no doubt that there are others who may be more deserving," Obama told reporters covering his trip. “The goal has been to advance America's interests, to strengthen our economy at home, and to make ourselves a continuing force for good in the world." Aides said the speech he will deliver after receving the award will confront the seeming paradox of receiving the prestigious peace prize while serving as a war president. Aides said the president will also explain his duty to pursue both security and peace -- goals that sometimes make war unavoidable. "He will address at the very beginning of his speech being a president involved in two wars accepting an award for peace," press secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview… In his speech, Obama is expected to repeat a point he made after the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee stunned him and many others by selecting him for the award less than nine months into his presidency: that he is being recognized less for his achievements than for his aspirations. "I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement," Obama told reporters hours after winning the award Oct. 9. "It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes." Aides said the president views the award -- which has gone in the past to such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Elie Wiesel -- as a call to action…
New York Times:
Rank-and-file Democrats said the preliminary agreement — reached among a group of 10 senators, 5 liberals and 5 centrists — suggested that they would be able to resolve some seemingly intractable differences over the public plan, insurance coverage for abortions and other disputes, including how to pay for the nearly$1 trillion bill. President Obama was more enthusiastic. He hailed the tentative deal as a breakthrough and said he would support it. “The Senate made critical progress last night,” he said, “with a creative new framework that I believe will help pave the way for final passage and a historic achievement on behalf of the American people…”
Syracuse News 10:
It's a grass roots effort by seniors, aimed at other seniors. And it's part of the campaign to win approval of health care reform. Mirroring efforts at homes across the country, seniors in the Syracuse area gathered to create their own phone bank, contacting people in others states, urging them to support the bill now making its way through the U.S. Senate. "There's a lot of disinformation out there and the AARP itself has said that there are scare tactics being used against seniors. And so our purpose is to inform people of the actual facts regarding what's going on with health care reform," said Jane Humbert…
Los Angeles Times:
The Treasury Department formally extended the life of the controversial $700-billion bailout fund to October, saying it planned to sharply scale back use of the money, even as a government audit found the program lost $41.4 billion in the last fiscal year.The Troubled Asset Relief Program had major losses through September on some of its highest-profile investments -- $30.4 billion on the bailout of American International Group and another $30.4 billion combined on investments in General Motors and Chrysler, according to a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office.But those losses were offset by about $19.4 billion in income from dividends, interest, early repayments and the sale of stock warrants given to the government when it injected money into banks.Over the next 10 years, the administration estimates that TARP will lose about $141 billion. But that is about $200 billion less than projected in August, giving the administration the ability to spend more on new job-creation efforts without increasing the huge budget deficit…In a brief talk Wednesday morning, President Obama, pushing for job-creation legislation, said the administration was winding down TARP."This program has served its original purpose, and the cost has been much lower than we expected, giving us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought at the time, and also allowing us to invest in job creation on Main Street rather than on Wall Street," he said.
President Obama outlined a response to the nation's intensifying job crisis Tuesday that encourages businesses to hire new workers by easing the flow of credit and implementing a series of tax cuts, but leaves important details -- including the cost of the plan -- to be hashed out by Congress.Obama's job-creation ideas build largely on elements of the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed this year, including tax cuts for small businesses, incentives to hire new workers and a fresh round of infrastructure spending.The president also recommended that Congress pass a "cash for caulkers" plan that would offer financial incentives for home weatherization. Senior administration officials said the program, based on the popular "cash for clunkers" automobile rebate program, would leverage hiring in construction and manufacturing -- sectors especially hard hit by the recession -- while promoting energy efficiency, resulting in long-term savings for homeowners…
President Obama outlined a response to the nation's intensifying job crisis Tuesday that encourages businesses to hire new workers by easing the flow of credit and implementing a series of tax cuts, but leaves important details -- including the cost of the plan -- to be hashed out by Congress.
Obama's job-creation ideas build largely on elements of the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed this year, including tax cuts for small businesses, incentives to hire new workers and a fresh round of infrastructure spending.
The president also recommended that Congress pass a "cash for caulkers" plan that would offer financial incentives for home weatherization. Senior administration officials said the program, based on the popular "cash for clunkers" automobile rebate program, would leverage hiring in construction and manufacturing -- sectors especially hard hit by the recession -- while promoting energy efficiency, resulting in long-term savings for homeowners…
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said Tuesday night that he and a group of 10 Democratic senators had reached “a broad agreement” to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, which has posed the biggest obstacle to passage of sweeping health care legislation…Under the agreement, people ages 55 to 64 could “buy in” to Medicare. And a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health benefit plans, similar to those offered to federal employees, including members of Congress.If these private plans did not meet certain goals for making affordable coverage available to all Americans, Senate Democratic aides said, then the government itself would offer a new insurance plan, somewhat like the “public option” in the bill Mr. Reid unveiled three weeks ago…The White House praised the announcement. “Senators are making great progress, and we’re pleased that they’re working together to find common ground,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director…
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said Tuesday night that he and a group of 10 Democratic senators had reached “a broad agreement” to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, which has posed the biggest obstacle to passage of sweeping health care legislation…
Under the agreement, people ages 55 to 64 could “buy in” to Medicare. And a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health benefit plans, similar to those offered to federal employees, including members of Congress.
If these private plans did not meet certain goals for making affordable coverage available to all Americans, Senate Democratic aides said, then the government itself would offer a new insurance plan, somewhat like the “public option” in the bill Mr. Reid unveiled three weeks ago…
The White House praised the announcement. “Senators are making great progress, and we’re pleased that they’re working together to find common ground,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director…
From the Boston Globe:
Attorney General Martha Coakley easily captured the Democratic nomination for the US Senate last night and took a giant step toward smashing the state’s political glass ceiling, as she parlayed her straightforward style and strong appeal among women into an overwhelming victory against a trio of male opponents.Rolling up large margins in nearly every community in the state, Coakley, 56, became the first woman nominated by a major party for the US Senate in Massachusetts. She will face state Senator Scott P. Brown, who won the Republican Party’s nomination yesterday, in a Jan. 19 special election to fill the seat held for 47 years by the late Edward M. Kennedy…“They said that women don’t have much luck in Massachusetts politics - we believed that it was quite possible that that luck was about to change. And change it did tonight!’’ Coakley told jubilant supporters at the Sheraton Boston, spurring enthusiastic applause and chants of “Martha!’’ “Martha!’’Coakley asked the crowd to acknowledge Kennedy not with a moment of silence, but with a round of applause. The crowd obliged…
Attorney General Martha Coakley easily captured the Democratic nomination for the US Senate last night and took a giant step toward smashing the state’s political glass ceiling, as she parlayed her straightforward style and strong appeal among women into an overwhelming victory against a trio of male opponents.
Rolling up large margins in nearly every community in the state, Coakley, 56, became the first woman nominated by a major party for the US Senate in Massachusetts. She will face state Senator Scott P. Brown, who won the Republican Party’s nomination yesterday, in a Jan. 19 special election to fill the seat held for 47 years by the late Edward M. Kennedy…
“They said that women don’t have much luck in Massachusetts politics - we believed that it was quite possible that that luck was about to change. And change it did tonight!’’ Coakley told jubilant supporters at the Sheraton Boston, spurring enthusiastic applause and chants of “Martha!’’ “Martha!’’
Coakley asked the crowd to acknowledge Kennedy not with a moment of silence, but with a round of applause. The crowd obliged…
The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation…In Monday's much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions."These are reasonable, common-sense steps," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, adding that they would protect the environment "without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy…”
The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation…
In Monday's much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.
"These are reasonable, common-sense steps," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, adding that they would protect the environment "without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy…”
President Obama on Tuesday will announce three proposals intended to turn around the nation’s beleaguered job market, including strengthening investments to small businesses that have struggled to expand because of the credit crunch in America…The speech, according to a senior administration official, will outline a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new staff. The president also will call for increasing the investment in infrastructure through building and modernizing highways, railways, bridges and tunnels. He also will propose a new program that provides rebates for consumers who retrofit their homes to become more energy efficient…
President Obama on Tuesday will announce three proposals intended to turn around the nation’s beleaguered job market, including strengthening investments to small businesses that have struggled to expand because of the credit crunch in America…
The speech, according to a senior administration official, will outline a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new staff. The president also will call for increasing the investment in infrastructure through building and modernizing highways, railways, bridges and tunnels. He also will propose a new program that provides rebates for consumers who retrofit their homes to become more energy efficient…
From the Los Angeles Times:
President Obama is looking to use bailout money that banks are returning to the government to help tackle two of the nation's biggest problems -- unemployment and the budget deficit.As he prepared to unveil job creation ideas in a major economic speech today, Obama said he was considering tapping the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for some of them. Additional money flowing back into TARP, leading to new projections lowering the fund's long-term cost, would help reduce the ballooning deficit…Major banks are returning the bulk of the money given them more quickly than anticipated. Bank of America Corp. said last week that it won federal approval to return $45 billion it had received, raising to $116 billion the amount expected this year from banks."It means that some of that money can . . . be devoted to deficit reduction," Obama said. "And the question is, are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP -- for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending -- that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?…"Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, sees little difference between using the TARP money to pay for job-creation programs and using it to reduce the deficit, which would then force Congress to appropriate more money for job programs. The net result is the same, he said…
President Obama is looking to use bailout money that banks are returning to the government to help tackle two of the nation's biggest problems -- unemployment and the budget deficit.
As he prepared to unveil job creation ideas in a major economic speech today, Obama said he was considering tapping the $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to pay for some of them. Additional money flowing back into TARP, leading to new projections lowering the fund's long-term cost, would help reduce the ballooning deficit…
Major banks are returning the bulk of the money given them more quickly than anticipated. Bank of America Corp. said last week that it won federal approval to return $45 billion it had received, raising to $116 billion the amount expected this year from banks.
"It means that some of that money can . . . be devoted to deficit reduction," Obama said. "And the question is, are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP -- for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending -- that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?…"
Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, sees little difference between using the TARP money to pay for job-creation programs and using it to reduce the deficit, which would then force Congress to appropriate more money for job programs. The net result is the same, he said…
Today was a big day in environmental news. Three things:
First, former Vice President Al Gore met with President Obama about climate change this afternoon in a private meeting in the Oval Office. Gore is one of the most prominent Americans and thought leaders in favor of U.S. action on climate change.
Second, today the much anticipated U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen got underway. The Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the White House announced that President Obama would join the U.S. delegation to Copenhagen (last weekend, officials said the President would be in Copenhagen on December 18, instead of December 9). President Obama is expected to commit the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Senator John Kerry (MA), who has been spearheading the effort to craft bipartisan legislation in the Senate, said the Administration’s decision to target specific climate goals amounts to, “a global game changer with big reverberations here at home."
A much-anticipated global meeting of nearly 200 nations - all seeking what has so far been elusive common ground on the issue of climate change - began here on Monday with an impassioned airing of what leaders here called the political and moral imperatives at hand.“The clock has ticked down to zero,” said the United Nations' climate chief, Yvo de Boer. “After two years of negotiation, the time has come to deliver.”From now until December 18, delegates will try to hammer out some of the most vexing details involved in the pursuit of a global climate accord…Jonathan Pershing, the State Department’s special climate envoy, who represented the United States at the opening plenary, said he saw strong signs that the conference would prove critical in getting traction on curbing emissions and helping poor countries that are urgently threatened by climate change — particularly given the decision by more than 100 leaders, including President Obama, to attend.
A much-anticipated global meeting of nearly 200 nations - all seeking what has so far been elusive common ground on the issue of climate change - began here on Monday with an impassioned airing of what leaders here called the political and moral imperatives at hand.
“The clock has ticked down to zero,” said the United Nations' climate chief, Yvo de Boer. “After two years of negotiation, the time has come to deliver.”
From now until December 18, delegates will try to hammer out some of the most vexing details involved in the pursuit of a global climate accord…
Jonathan Pershing, the State Department’s special climate envoy, who represented the United States at the opening plenary, said he saw strong signs that the conference would prove critical in getting traction on curbing emissions and helping poor countries that are urgently threatened by climate change — particularly given the decision by more than 100 leaders, including President Obama, to attend.
And third, today the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gas emissions, formally declaring that carbon and other greenhouse gases are harmful to the public’s health and welfare. The finding lays the groundwork for the future regulation of greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide, including mobile (e.g. transportation) and stationary (e.g. power plants, factories) sources.
From Politico:
"The threat is real,” [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson] said. “Climate change has now become a household issue.”Monday’s ruling forces the EPA to begin mandating greenhouse gas emissions reductions from industrial polluters like power plants, factories, and auto makers. The EPA, Jackson said, “is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Energy Act.”The EPA announcement comes two and half years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to reconsider whether greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants. The EPA then ruled that the emissions endangered public welfare, but the White House refused to sign off on the decision, leaving it in regulatory limbo until the Obama administration took office last January.
"The threat is real,” [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson] said. “Climate change has now become a household issue.”
Monday’s ruling forces the EPA to begin mandating greenhouse gas emissions reductions from industrial polluters like power plants, factories, and auto makers. The EPA, Jackson said, “is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Energy Act.”
The EPA announcement comes two and half years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to reconsider whether greenhouse gas emissions are pollutants. The EPA then ruled that the emissions endangered public welfare, but the White House refused to sign off on the decision, leaving it in regulatory limbo until the Obama administration took office last January.
And from the Washington Post:
"There are no more excuses for delay," [Jackson] said. "This administration will not ignore science and the law any longer.Jackson will speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled "Taking Action at Home." President Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal. The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.
"There are no more excuses for delay," [Jackson] said. "This administration will not ignore science and the law any longer.
Jackson will speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled "Taking Action at Home." President Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal.
The endangerment finding stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which the court ordered the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases qualify as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.
President Obama used a rare meeting on Capitol Hill on Sunday to urge Senate Democrats to consider the historic significance of revamping the nation's health care system as his legislation faced a crucial second week of debate…“That wasn't a negotiation, that was a pep talk," Obama said later. "They're doing great..."Still, divisions remain in the Democratic caucus over how to structure the proposed government insurance program, known as the public option. Moderates, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., oppose the idea while Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and other liberals say it is necessary to provide competition to private insurance companies.Lieberman said Obama, who was joined by Vice President Biden, did not discuss the issue in detail Sunday despite a new proposal circulating among senators to create non-profit insurance plans administered by the federal government. Lieberman said he is waiting to see details of the idea…"Progress is being made and that's not just talk," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after leaving the meeting with Obama…
President Obama used a rare meeting on Capitol Hill on Sunday to urge Senate Democrats to consider the historic significance of revamping the nation's health care system as his legislation faced a crucial second week of debate…
“That wasn't a negotiation, that was a pep talk," Obama said later. "They're doing great..."
Still, divisions remain in the Democratic caucus over how to structure the proposed government insurance program, known as the public option. Moderates, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., oppose the idea while Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and other liberals say it is necessary to provide competition to private insurance companies.
Lieberman said Obama, who was joined by Vice President Biden, did not discuss the issue in detail Sunday despite a new proposal circulating among senators to create non-profit insurance plans administered by the federal government. Lieberman said he is waiting to see details of the idea…
"Progress is being made and that's not just talk," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said after leaving the meeting with Obama…
From Bloomberg:
The Obama administration expects the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to be $200 billion less than projected, helping to reduce the size of the budget deficit, a Treasury Department official said yesterday.The administration forecast in August that the TARP would ultimately cost $341 billion, once banks had repaid the government for capital injections and other investments. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program in October 2008.Banks have paid back $71 billion so far, and a planned repayment by Bank of America Corp. would bring that figure to $116 billion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in an interview last week that he expects the TARP to get as much as $175 billion in repayments from banks by the end of 2010.“The fact that they are spending less TARP money means that recovery is better and stronger than expected, and that’s all positive for growth,” said Mitul Kotecha, Hong Kong-based head of global foreign-exchange strategy at Calyon, the investment banking unit of France’s Credit Agricole SA. “It shows that things are progressing in the right direction…”
The Obama administration expects the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to be $200 billion less than projected, helping to reduce the size of the budget deficit, a Treasury Department official said yesterday.
The administration forecast in August that the TARP would ultimately cost $341 billion, once banks had repaid the government for capital injections and other investments. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program in October 2008.
Banks have paid back $71 billion so far, and a planned repayment by Bank of America Corp. would bring that figure to $116 billion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in an interview last week that he expects the TARP to get as much as $175 billion in repayments from banks by the end of 2010.
“The fact that they are spending less TARP money means that recovery is better and stronger than expected, and that’s all positive for growth,” said Mitul Kotecha, Hong Kong-based head of global foreign-exchange strategy at Calyon, the investment banking unit of France’s Credit Agricole SA. “It shows that things are progressing in the right direction…”
From Burnt Orange:
It's heartbreaking to think that in a nation as wealthy as ours, there are so many folks struggling to meet their most basic needs here in our communities.Luckily, here in Central Texas, some of our grassroots volunteers have put together a way to make a difference for some needy families. A group of activists, working with Organizing for America, Texans for Obama, and the Travis County Democratic Party, have organized a really wonderful "HOPE for the Holidays" project to encourage our local volunteers to help many folks in need across Central Texas this winter. These all-star volunteers have partnered with non-profits and faith-based organizations across our city to help under-served communities have a happy holiday season.Tube socks. Sleeping bags. A chocolate bar. The very basic things that folks across our community have asked for is humbling. A bus pass. Gloves. Gas cards. Children's shoes. Very basic necessities-even food and underwear…Rosanne, one of the organizers, said that as she collected the lists of needed items, it was hard to see the desperate level of need of many folks in our community. "The bad part about this is that I see this stuff, and I just want to buy everything these people ask for. I am so blessed…”
It's heartbreaking to think that in a nation as wealthy as ours, there are so many folks struggling to meet their most basic needs here in our communities.
Luckily, here in Central Texas, some of our grassroots volunteers have put together a way to make a difference for some needy families. A group of activists, working with Organizing for America, Texans for Obama, and the Travis County Democratic Party, have organized a really wonderful "HOPE for the Holidays" project to encourage our local volunteers to help many folks in need across Central Texas this winter. These all-star volunteers have partnered with non-profits and faith-based organizations across our city to help under-served communities have a happy holiday season.
Tube socks. Sleeping bags. A chocolate bar. The very basic things that folks across our community have asked for is humbling. A bus pass. Gloves. Gas cards. Children's shoes. Very basic necessities-even food and underwear…
Rosanne, one of the organizers, said that as she collected the lists of needed items, it was hard to see the desperate level of need of many folks in our community. "The bad part about this is that I see this stuff, and I just want to buy everything these people ask for. I am so blessed…”
…Obama convenes a summit here [in Washington] on jobs, then flies Friday to Allentown, PA, for the first in what will be periodic listening tours on the economy. The goal is to develop new spending and tax proposals to help many of the nation's nearly 16 million unemployed people find work in 2010."Though the job losses we were experiencing earlier this year have slowed dramatically, we're still not creating enough new jobs each month to make up for the ones we're losing," Obama said last week. "For families and communities across the country, this recession will not end until we completely turn that tide."The new focus on jobs comes as the first stimulus plan's impact remains unclear. The Obama administration says more than 640,000 jobs have been saved or created by employers who received funds. The Congressional Budget Office this week put the figure at 600,000 to 1.6 million after considering other factors, such as the impact on consumer demand from tax cuts, unemployment insurance extensions and spending by the newly employed. It said unemployment would have been up to 0.9 percentage points higher without the stimulus…
…Obama convenes a summit here [in Washington] on jobs, then flies Friday to Allentown, PA, for the first in what will be periodic listening tours on the economy. The goal is to develop new spending and tax proposals to help many of the nation's nearly 16 million unemployed people find work in 2010.
"Though the job losses we were experiencing earlier this year have slowed dramatically, we're still not creating enough new jobs each month to make up for the ones we're losing," Obama said last week. "For families and communities across the country, this recession will not end until we completely turn that tide."
The new focus on jobs comes as the first stimulus plan's impact remains unclear. The Obama administration says more than 640,000 jobs have been saved or created by employers who received funds. The Congressional Budget Office this week put the figure at 600,000 to 1.6 million after considering other factors, such as the impact on consumer demand from tax cuts, unemployment insurance extensions and spending by the newly employed. It said unemployment would have been up to 0.9 percentage points higher without the stimulus…
A month ago, Donnie Jones, a 40-year-old Republican who lives outside Dallas, told pollsters that he was not sure President Obama had a plan for the war in Afghanistan. But after hearing the president speak Tuesday night, Mr. Jones feels reassured that Mr. Obama not only has a plan, but also one he can generally support.Margaret Gilbert, 62, a Democrat from Portsmouth, Va., told the same pollsters that she did not want the United States to send more troops to Afghanistan. But after listening to Mr. Obama, Ms. Gilbert now believes that he has no choice…Mr. Obama intended his speech on Tuesday at West Point to rally Americans behind his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and to set an 18-month timetable for starting a withdrawal. And interviews on Wednesday suggested that, while opinions on the war remained wildly diverse, Mr. Obama managed to persuade a significant number of people on both sides of the political aisle, though it was impossible to know how many.Many Democrats who opposed the war said they now understood the need for escalation, in some cases to the point of supporting it. And Republicans who had thought Mr. Obama unwilling or unable to send more troops praised his decision, though many also criticized him for articulating a timetable for bringing troops home…
A month ago, Donnie Jones, a 40-year-old Republican who lives outside Dallas, told pollsters that he was not sure President Obama had a plan for the war in Afghanistan. But after hearing the president speak Tuesday night, Mr. Jones feels reassured that Mr. Obama not only has a plan, but also one he can generally support.
Margaret Gilbert, 62, a Democrat from Portsmouth, Va., told the same pollsters that she did not want the United States to send more troops to Afghanistan. But after listening to Mr. Obama, Ms. Gilbert now believes that he has no choice…
Mr. Obama intended his speech on Tuesday at West Point to rally Americans behind his plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and to set an 18-month timetable for starting a withdrawal. And interviews on Wednesday suggested that, while opinions on the war remained wildly diverse, Mr. Obama managed to persuade a significant number of people on both sides of the political aisle, though it was impossible to know how many.
Many Democrats who opposed the war said they now understood the need for escalation, in some cases to the point of supporting it. And Republicans who had thought Mr. Obama unwilling or unable to send more troops praised his decision, though many also criticized him for articulating a timetable for bringing troops home…
Also from USA Today:
Scaring seniors about losing their Medicare benefits is deceptive and irresponsible, but it's a political winner… it's Republicans who are doing it, and it's as if they're trying to set a new, lower bar for demagoguery. How else to explain why Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a doctor who ought to know better, would warn seniors that the Medicare cuts in the health reform plan being debated in the Senate mean "you're going to die sooner." Or why Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., would plead: "Don't cut Grandma's Medicare…"Tellingly, even the nation's leading advocacy group for the aging, AARP, opposes McCain's amendment, noting that the Senate plan "does not reduce any guaranteed Medicare benefits…"…What's scary isn't what will happen to seniors and their Medicare benefits. They'll be fine. What's frightening is how many people will continue to suffer with bad insurance or none at all if the scare tactics succeed.
Scaring seniors about losing their Medicare benefits is deceptive and irresponsible, but it's a political winner… it's Republicans who are doing it, and it's as if they're trying to set a new, lower bar for demagoguery.
How else to explain why Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a doctor who ought to know better, would warn seniors that the Medicare cuts in the health reform plan being debated in the Senate mean "you're going to die sooner." Or why Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., would plead: "Don't cut Grandma's Medicare…"
Tellingly, even the nation's leading advocacy group for the aging, AARP, opposes McCain's amendment, noting that the Senate plan "does not reduce any guaranteed Medicare benefits…"
…What's scary isn't what will happen to seniors and their Medicare benefits. They'll be fine. What's frightening is how many people will continue to suffer with bad insurance or none at all if the scare tactics succeed.
From the Lehigh Express Times:
Brew Works co-owner Jeff Fegley said he offers health insurance to his employees because it would be immoral if he didn't.When his family business at the start of this year faced an unaffordable $65,000 cost increase to cover 200 employees, he said, he found a different, cheaper policy -- one that still cost him $15,000 more than he paid last year. He took it."We felt it was the morally right thing to do to continue to offer insurance to our staff," said Fegley, whose family owns the brew pubs and restaurants in the city and Bethlehem."How do I just say, 'I'm not going to let you be on my plan because it would cost too much?'" he asked. "I sleep better at night knowing that, gosh, if something did happen to one of my employees, at least I did what I should."Fegley and other small-business owners in the Lehigh Valley say the U.S. government should adopt a similar standard.Organizing for America, a Democratic National Committee organization that advances President Barack Obama's agenda, held a roundtable on health care reform among five small-business owners Wednesday at Allentown Brew Works. The roundtable was held in advance of Obama's visit Friday to the Lehigh Valley…
Brew Works co-owner Jeff Fegley said he offers health insurance to his employees because it would be immoral if he didn't.
When his family business at the start of this year faced an unaffordable $65,000 cost increase to cover 200 employees, he said, he found a different, cheaper policy -- one that still cost him $15,000 more than he paid last year. He took it.
"We felt it was the morally right thing to do to continue to offer insurance to our staff," said Fegley, whose family owns the brew pubs and restaurants in the city and Bethlehem.
"How do I just say, 'I'm not going to let you be on my plan because it would cost too much?'" he asked. "I sleep better at night knowing that, gosh, if something did happen to one of my employees, at least I did what I should."
Fegley and other small-business owners in the Lehigh Valley say the U.S. government should adopt a similar standard.
Organizing for America, a Democratic National Committee organization that advances President Barack Obama's agenda, held a roundtable on health care reform among five small-business owners Wednesday at Allentown Brew Works. The roundtable was held in advance of Obama's visit Friday to the Lehigh Valley…
In a live address to the nation last night from the Military Academy in West Point, NY, President Obama laid out his decision for the way forward in Afghanistan. The President committed an additional 30,000 troops to the war, said the era of “blank checks” was over and articulated a clear plan for the transition of responsibility to Afghan security forces.
Here are several excerpts from the President’s remarks. You can read the full text of his address and watch it here.
On how we got to this point in Afghanistan:
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world…
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world…
On the current challenge in Afghanistan and the region:
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people…Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable…Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them. These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people…
Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable…
Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.
On the decision:
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home…If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow…I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home…
If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow…
I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
On the way forward:
Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.. To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future…The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans…We will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over… The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country… We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border. In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust…These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future..
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans…
We will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over…
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country…
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust…
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
On financing the effort:
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
On America’s role in the world:
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings. We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty. For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age…It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people…
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age…
President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitment.Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering…”The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead…
President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitment.
Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
“America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering…”
The scene in the hall was striking and somber: row after row of cadets, in their blue-gray uniforms, listening intently to a strategy that could put many of them in harm’s way. “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said. “So no, I do not make this decision lightly.” He called on foreign allies to step up their commitment, declaring, “This is not just America’s war.”
He delivered a pointed message to Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, saying, “The days of providing a blank check are over.”
Addressing critics who have likened Afghanistan to Vietnam, Mr. Obama called the comparison “a false reading of history.” And he spoke directly to the American people about the tough road ahead…
Senators prepared to cast their first votes Wednesday on health-care reform, but even as partisan divisions hardened and contentious amendments stacked up, Democrats increasingly expressed optimism that they would succeed in passing a bill before Christmas…Centrist Democrats, who will probably decide the fate of the bill, appeared to be reassured by a Congressional Budget Office report released Monday refuting insurance industry assertions that the Senate bill would add thousands of dollars to the average family's insurance bill. The CBO found that Reid's package would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for most Americans who get coverage through their jobs…Despite their differences, Democrats said they remained optimistic that they can move quickly. "We're all talking to one another right now," Schumer said. "Every Democrat, every single one, wants to get a bill done. Everyone realizes that we're going to have to come together on a whole myriad of different issues."
Senators prepared to cast their first votes Wednesday on health-care reform, but even as partisan divisions hardened and contentious amendments stacked up, Democrats increasingly expressed optimism that they would succeed in passing a bill before Christmas…
Centrist Democrats, who will probably decide the fate of the bill, appeared to be reassured by a Congressional Budget Office report released Monday refuting insurance industry assertions that the Senate bill would add thousands of dollars to the average family's insurance bill. The CBO found that Reid's package would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for most Americans who get coverage through their jobs…
Despite their differences, Democrats said they remained optimistic that they can move quickly. "We're all talking to one another right now," Schumer said. "Every Democrat, every single one, wants to get a bill done. Everyone realizes that we're going to have to come together on a whole myriad of different issues."
From CBS News:
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he's "absolutely supportive" of the 18-month timeline for President Obama's troop surge even if Taliban forces try to wait out the increased U.S. commitment. Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters Wednesday that even if the Taliban lay low, the 18-month period allows time to bolster Afghan military and governing capability to make it harder for the militants to return…Shortly after Obama's speech, Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters, "I am absolutely supportive of the timeline," and that the time ahead would be used to build up Afghan forces to convince the people of this war-ravaged country that they can eventually take care of their own security. "In a counterinsurgency, what we're really trying to do is protect the people," he said. McChrystal added that if the Afghan government used the time to increase its capabilities "then it makes it much more difficult for the insurgents returning…""I really believe that everybody's got a focus now that's sharper than it was 24 hours ago…"
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says he's "absolutely supportive" of the 18-month timeline for President Obama's troop surge even if Taliban forces try to wait out the increased U.S. commitment.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters Wednesday that even if the Taliban lay low, the 18-month period allows time to bolster Afghan military and governing capability to make it harder for the militants to return…
Shortly after Obama's speech, Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters, "I am absolutely supportive of the timeline," and that the time ahead would be used to build up Afghan forces to convince the people of this war-ravaged country that they can eventually take care of their own security.
"In a counterinsurgency, what we're really trying to do is protect the people," he said. McChrystal added that if the Afghan government used the time to increase its capabilities "then it makes it much more difficult for the insurgents returning…"
"I really believe that everybody's got a focus now that's sharper than it was 24 hours ago…"
The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point…For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law.Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority.“The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo…”
The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.
The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.
Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point…
For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law.
Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority.
“The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo…”
The Congressional Budget Office late Monday said it estimates that the federal stimulus package sustained between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter, and raised gross domestic product by 1.2 to 3.2 percentage points higher than it would have been without the program.The CBO said the figures were estimates made "using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a blog post, said stimulus recipients have reported that about 640,000 jobs "were created or retained" with stimulus funding through Sept. 30. "However, such reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law's impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports)," Mr. Elmendorf wrote. The CBO is required to comment on the figures released by stimulus recipients…
The Congressional Budget Office late Monday said it estimates that the federal stimulus package sustained between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter, and raised gross domestic product by 1.2 to 3.2 percentage points higher than it would have been without the program.
The CBO said the figures were estimates made "using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy."
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a blog post, said stimulus recipients have reported that about 640,000 jobs "were created or retained" with stimulus funding through Sept. 30. "However, such reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law's impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports)," Mr. Elmendorf wrote. The CBO is required to comment on the figures released by stimulus recipients…
After almost a year of maneuvering over policies and politics, the Senate on Monday officially began debate on the landmark legislation to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, but it remained uncertain how long the deliberations would last or how much the bill would change before it comes to a vote…"While each of us may not say 'yes' to each word in this bill as it currently reads, let us at least admit that simply saying 'no' is not enough," said Reid, opening debate on legislation that marks the most ambitious effort in decades to provide near-universal health insurance coverage, slap new regulations on insurance companies and curb the skyrocketing costs of healthcare…The CBO, which is the arm of Congress that analyzes federal budget and spending proposals, found that under the Senate bill, premiums for most people -- those in group plans provided by their employers -- would remain unchanged or even drop.The CBO report was produced at the request of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and other wavering centrist Democrats whose support for the bill is crucial to passage…
After almost a year of maneuvering over policies and politics, the Senate on Monday officially began debate on the landmark legislation to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, but it remained uncertain how long the deliberations would last or how much the bill would change before it comes to a vote…
"While each of us may not say 'yes' to each word in this bill as it currently reads, let us at least admit that simply saying 'no' is not enough," said Reid, opening debate on legislation that marks the most ambitious effort in decades to provide near-universal health insurance coverage, slap new regulations on insurance companies and curb the skyrocketing costs of healthcare…
The CBO, which is the arm of Congress that analyzes federal budget and spending proposals, found that under the Senate bill, premiums for most people -- those in group plans provided by their employers -- would remain unchanged or even drop.
The CBO report was produced at the request of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and other wavering centrist Democrats whose support for the bill is crucial to passage…
