democrats: 2011

2011年6月27日星期一

Ann Coulter takes on Howard Dean about Wal-Mart SCOTUS decision (Daily Caller)

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday by a 5-4 decision that a class action lawsuit filed in California had failed to prove gender discrimination was a widespread policy of Wal-Mart. The markets rallied after the suit was dismissed and it was heralded as a positive sign for business in the United States by some observers.

On Monday’s “The Kudlow Report” on CNBC, conservative pundit and “Demonic” author Ann Coulter took on former Democratic National Committee chairman and CNBC contributor Howard Dean on the merits of the decision. Coulter explained the circumstances where a class action lawsuit would have been appropriate, such as when a broad range of individuals in similar circumstances are affected in a way that each individual case would not make financial sense to try separately.

“[H]ere you have none of that,” Coulter said. “You have, as you bring up, absolutely individual circumstances with each employee — not only that, you have individual circumstances with each manager. All of these employees have different managers determining what they get paid, how long they work, what their work treatment is like. The reason they wanted a class action in California was because of the Ninth Circuit, which is very anti-employer. It’s an insane case for a class-action case. And not surprisingly, 9-0, the court reject this had case, although at the risk of having the market collapse again, it was 5-4 with the four liberals saying that they could have brought a class-action under a different theory.”

Dean was less impressed with the Court’s decision and declared it an “anti-worker court,” but noted that the decision didn’t absolve Wal-Mart of the discrimination charges.

“Look, first of all, it’s important to note that the court did not find there was no discrimination,” Dean said. “That I didn’t hear anybody trying to claim that they found there was no discrimination. There could be. We don’t know that. That’s an issue that has to be tried. I hope a public interest lawyer who doesn’t rely on the 30 percent or whatever it is commission will be able to still try the case and find out. Secondly, it is true. This is a tough decision for employees. This is a pro-business court which makes it an anti-worker court, I guess in this context. I personally don’t think that’s a good thing for the country. I think right now, the corporate balance sheets have recovered fully from the crash of September 2008. But the balance sheets of the American families haven’t recovered. I think we’re out of balance. You know, I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say whether the — if they had a unanimous decision saying this particular one wasn’t the right way to certify it, we have to respect the unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court.”

Dean told Kudlow he wasn’t biased against Wal-Mart, but wished the company had put more of an emphasis on jobs in the United States versus overseas.

“Larry, let’s be honest — first of all, I’m not in the ‘I hate Wal-Mart’ crowd,” Dean said. “I think they’ve changed a lot over the last five or six years and I think they’ve made a difference. And they’ve created millions of jobs. Unfortunately most of the millions of jobs they’ve created have been in China, not in the United States. So I think it’s time we gave American workers a break here. I don’t think this case was much of a break for most American workers.”

However, Coulter said it wasn’t a defeat for employees necessarily, but instead a defeat for trial lawyers.

“I would like to disagree with the idea that this is employer versus employee here,” Coulter said. “This was anti-trial lawyer. That’s the advantage of the class-action. They get all their attorneys’ fees for the entire country. They get much bigger damage as a slice of this. Employees would have been hurt by this because Wal-Mart would have had a lot less money, all going to trial lawyers to hire more employees. This is not employer versus employee.”

Illinois governor signs election law favoring Democrats (Reuters)

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Illinois Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed into law on Friday a new congressional district map that could reverse gains Republicans made in the state in 2010 midterm elections.

Democrats were able to leverage their control of the General Assembly and a Democratic governor to approve a new election map for 2012 that analysts said could help Democrats win at least three more congressional seats in the state.

The effects of the law, which Republicans or third-party interest groups may challenge in court, would be to pit strong Republicans against each other, extend Chicago Democratic incumbent districts into suburban Republican districts, and incorporate new voter blocs into Republican strongholds.

Quinn denied that the redistricting was a partisan ploy by Democrats.

"This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities," Quinn said.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady differed.

"This bill is a crass, partisan political move to silence the voices of Illinoisans, who last November made it very clear that they wanted to fire Nancy Pelosi by electing a majority Republican Congressional Delegation from the home state of President Obama," Brady said.

The Illinois Republican Party's lawyers will review the maps to see if any state or federal laws have been broken, said Jonathan Blessing, a party spokesman.

In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans picked up 60 House seats nationally, knocking Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi from power and putting Republicans in charge of House committees. It was the biggest shift in power in the House since Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948.

But Democratic analysts believe Illinois and California, where Democrats are still in power at the state level, are their best chances to gain back seats in 2012 through redistricting.

Republicans in power in most of the Midwest and South are drawing maps in those states seeking to protect new Republican members of Congress elected in 2010.

In Illinois, Republicans picked up four seats in 2010 to hold an overall edge of 11 to 8 in the state's congressional delegation. They also kept control of the wealthy North Shore suburban Chicago district vacated by Republican Mark Kirk's successful Senate bid.

Illinois will lose one of its 19 congressional seats due to slow population growth relative to other states, according to the federal census.

Andy Shaw, President of the Better Government Association, said the Illinois map was partisan politics as usual.

"Most of Quinn's adult life was spent in opposition to this blatant political manipulation of the system," Shaw told Reuters. "His willingness to sign the bill without any changes is another indication that he has had to abandon many of his progressive principles to be able to deal with the political realities of Springfield (the state capital)," he said.

(Editing by Greg McCune)

View the original article here

Alcee Hastings Sexual Harassment Charge Another Distraction for Congress (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | If the House Democrats thought they were finally out of the woods with the resignation of Anthony Weiner, it appears they have thought wrong. The latest congressman to be involved in a sex scandal is Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Hastings is being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics for allegedly sexually harassing a member of his staff. The staffer in question, Winsome Parker, worked for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Cold War era entity that Hastings heads. Parker alleges instances of sexual harassment, usually involving inappropriate remarks, lasting just more than two years. She further alleges the congressman retaliated against her when she tried to report the matter. A lawyer for Rep. Hastings denies the allegations.

It is unknown whether the investigation will be referred to the House Ethics Committee. If that happens, one can only think that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is not going to be happy. Her forlorn hope of ever becoming Speaker of the House again will just get all that more forlorn. Getting her caucus snake bit with another sordid scandal is something she does not need right at the moment. The is especially true as she needs to begin accusing Republicans of wanting to kill old people again and not have to explain why her members have impulse control issues.

Hastings actually came to Congress with an ethical cloud hanging over him, having been removed from the bench for conspiring to take a bribe. The jury, however, failed to convict him on that charge.

To be sure, what Hastings is accused of seems positively decorous compared to what Weiner did. But ever since Clarence Thomas, lewd behavior toward a subordinate has become quite unacceptable. This is true in the corporate world as well as in politics.

The Hastings matter has not yet risen to the level in which it has caused calls for resignation, daily coverage in the media, and become the subject of jokes by late night comedians. It could be that the matter will be dealt with quietly, either with Hastings being absolved, or with him being found guilty and having some kind of sanction imposed on him that would be less than having to resign from the Congress. Nancy Pelosi should hope that will be the case. Otherwise she has another distraction on her hands.

View the original article here

How and Why Republicans Suppress Voter Rights (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Republicans often accuse Democrats of voter fraud, despite the activist judges and squelched recounts that won them the 2000 presidential election. These accusations continue today, even though there's little substance to back them up, for one reason:

Republicans consider all Democratic votes to be illegitimate

Tea partiers compare Democratic leaders to Nazis, and scrutinized Obama's birth certificate to a degree that no white, Republican candidate has ever faced ... even one who was born outside the United States, as Sen. John McCain was. To them, no Democratic leader is legitimate, and many preach the use of the "ammo box" to get their way if the ballot box fails them. Unfortunately, the less stable among them heed these calls.

One of this year's earlier Republican presidential hopefuls, Mike Huckabee, said at the Rediscover God in America conference that he "almost wish[ed]" all Americans would be "forced at gunpoint" to listen to revisionist historian David Barton. Barton misquotes America's founders, in order to teach that the United States were meant to be a "Christian nation." His website even promotes "Biblical slavery" for unbelievers.

A party whose leaders and pundits proclaim such views can be expected to act on them. That's why a new crop of voter suppression laws is coming into effect, in states brought under Republican control during the 2010 elections.

Voter suppression 101

Naturally, laws designed to suppress the vote are never described as such. Not except in especially candid moments, like when New Hampshire's Republican House Speaker said letting people register to vote on Election Day led to "the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal." In other words, he admitted that the laws he promotes, such as that one and photo ID laws, are designed to suppress Democratic votes.

An innocent observer might ask, what's wrong with tightening our laws to make sure no voter fraud happens? The problem is two-fold. First, there is no real voter fraud problem to begin with; and second, tougher laws make it harder for society's weakest members to vote.

Students, minorities, the poor and disabled, and America's working class all have less ability to learn and comply with these laws, and may not know about them until it's too late. Even a photo ID requirement could be the last straw, for a student or single mom working two jobs. And it's exactly these harried people who are likely to be hardest hit by a law that says they can't register at the polls.

An unsympathetic conservative might reply with an anecdote about pulling himself up by his bootstraps, and how these kids and poor people have to learn responsibility (that's why they're poor, you know). But a more cynical observer might note that those most affected by these laws are more likely to vote Democrat, and that the Republican winners of 2010 are writing them -- effectively kicking the working poor while they're down. Even voter outreach programs are being curtailed, so that "get out the vote" efforts stall.

Might makes right

To a conservative enough Republican, there are no legitimate Democrat votes. And as long as the ballot box is a way to make your voice heard in government, they will do their best to deny it to everyone who disagrees with them. Especially the most vulnerable members of our society, who don't have an "ammo box" to fall back on and wouldn't use one if they did.

View the original article here

Clinton argues for Libya mission on eve of vote (AP)

WASHINGTON – Scrambling to turn back the fiercest congressional challenge to the president's military authority on Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded with House Democrats on Thursday to continue U.S. military involvement in the NATO-led operation.

Defiant Republican leaders pushed toward a crucial vote to cut off funds for hostilities.

Just hours after bluntly posing the question, "Whose side are you on?" — Moammar Gadhafi or the Libyan people, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and the stakes if the House votes to prohibit funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

"The issue today, as she pointed out, was whether or not we were going to abandon what is an effort that our allies have made at the request of the United Nations, the Arab League and others to intervene and to support our allies in this effort," Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said following the session. "I agree with her strongly that ... to send any signal today that Congress is not supportive of the effort to involve itself in a humanitarian effort at the request of a broad international coalition would be a mistake."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with President Barack Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

Reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the chamber will vote Friday on two measures: a resolution to authorize the operation and legislation that would cut off funds for hostilities such as Predator drone attacks and airstrikes.

"I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," Boehner said. "And that's why these resolutions are in fact going to come forward."

The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

"I don't want to do anything that would undermine NATO or to send a signal to our allies around the world that we are not going to be engaged," Boehner told reporters. "This is primarily a fight between the Congress and the president over his unwillingness to consult with us before making this decision."

Three-term Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Shortly before her appearance, the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a statement calling for lawmakers to vote to cut off funds, saying the Libya operation undercuts the powers of Congress and is a blow to the constitutional checks and balances.

During a brief visit to Jamaica, Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support? For the Obama administration the answer to that question is clear."

Proponents of the House bill, including Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., the sponsor of the measure, said the administration "should have thought about that before they ignored the law."

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

"It's way late," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."

He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said no matter the view of the War Powers Resolution or the president's March 19 move to launch airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces, "either we finish the fight and Gadhafi's overthrown and he leaves Libya and the Libyan people have a chance to govern themselves or a vicious anti-American dictator stays in power, which would be very hurtful to us and our credibility in the world."

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

View the original article here

White House Swaps Applause for Laughter at Obama's Job Boast (The Atlantic Wire)

Attention conservative blogosphere: the White House would like to set the record straight about a little parenthetical in a recent transcript. Late yesterday, you see, the White House posted Obama's recent remarks to the Democratic National Committee, which included this line: "Over the last 15 months we've created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.)."

Related: New Poll Puts Obama's Job Approval Up 11 Points, But Will It Last?

Related: President Obama Magically Silences a Crying Baby

Conservative bloggers, of course, had a field day. The Drudge Report has been running the excerpt as an above-the-fold headline for much of the day. Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit chose the headline, "Wow. Even DNC Donors Break Out in Laughter When Obama Claims He Created Jobs," adding, "For the record…?The country has?lost 2.5 million jobs?since he moved into the White House. Maybe that's why they were laughing?" Kerry Pickett at The Washington Times was a bit more forgiving, hypothesizing that "those watching the closed captioned text of the speech on television sets?saw a laugh cue instead of an applause cue." To be sure, Pickett added, "the president isn't laughing, but Republicans and other critics of his private sector job creation claims sure are."

Related: The Behind-the-Scenes Moments of the Bin Laden Raid

Mistake or not, the White House moved to correct the record. A little after 4 PM EST, it sent out a "corrected" version of the transcript to the White House press list, striking out "laughter" and replacing it with "applause." Will the bloggers buy it?

Related: Obama Decides Against Releasing Bin Laden Photos

Related: What the Navy SEAL Helmet Cams Saw During the Bin Laden Raid

Want to add to this story? Open Wire.

View the original article here

Senate Democrats seek new economic stimulus (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday called on Vice President Joe Biden to include new economic stimulus spending in deficit-reduction talks as a way of lowering the 9.1 percent jobless rate that is hobbling the economic recovery.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the proposal to the White House, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democratic senator, told reporters.

"The Republicans are fixating on the budget deficit and it's a serious problem," Durbin said.

But citing the conclusions of a presidential deficit-cutting commission that he served on last year, Durbin added, "Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit cutting mode ... get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

A senior Democratic aide said the job-creation idea Senate Democrats are now pursuing represented a pivot in the deficit-reduction negotiations.

He said the idea presented to the White House has three components to help create jobs: new infrastructure spending, a payroll tax cut and support for clean energy jobs.

He did not say how large the infrastructure spending proposal would be. In 2009, President Barack Obama won enactment of an $814 billion economic stimulus that Republicans opposed as wasteful spending.

The aide said the White House appeared to support extending the current payroll tax cut for employees, although there has been discussion on Capitol Hill of also expanding that tax cut to employers.

Biden is to return to the Senate on Wednesday for another meeting with the bipartisan group of lawmakers looking for ways to significantly reduce deficits. A deep cut in spending -- in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade -- is a Republican requirement for allowing a vote to increase U.S. borrowing authority that is hitting up against a $14.3 trillion limit.

The group is facing an August 2 deadline for resolving the debt limit problem and thinks that it needs to make some decisions within the next few days in order to give the Senate and House of Representatives enough time to write and pass spending cut and debt limit legislation.

Durbin told reporters he thought that effort could become a "two-step" process containing a "serious down payment on the deficit" followed by more work on long-term savings.

"We're just not going to be able to accomplish (all of) it by August 2," Durbin said.

The Biden group has aimed to raise borrowing authority by enough to get through 2012 and next year's presidential and congressional elections.

"I hope Vice President Biden can get an agreement that takes us through the election. I don't know if he can," Durbin said.

(Editing by Jackie Frank)

View the original article here

When Conservatives Walk Out on Budget Talks, Democrats Win Eventually (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Republicans walked out on a member of the president's staff after a budget meeting. Discussions revolve around massive debt, taxes and lots of public bickering. It's not the 1995 to 1996 budget battles between President Bill Clinton and a conservative Congress. It's a repeat of the same events 15 years later.

President Obama sent his wing man, Vice President Joe Biden, to talk to Republican leaders in Congress about what the president wants from the budget. According to the Associated Press, Biden said we need to raise taxes. Speaker of the House John Boehner said raising taxes was "off the table."

The GOP then walked out of the discussions abruptly.

This budget discussion can go one of two ways. Either the sides compromise or they don't. The GOP walking out is just a symbolic gesture to let the American public know how they feel about raising taxes. The Democrats still have the upper hand, as they control one side of Congress.

Clinton compromised on his budget proposals with Newt Gingrich and the GOP-led Congress. When Clinton got re-elected, the Republicans made him pay for his popularity. They filed articles of impeachment against him regarding a lie under oath about having sex.

If history serves, the Republicans and Democrats will bicker back and forth for weeks. The two sides will come together in crunch time and get the work done. There will be a combination of what both sides want. In the end, it won't be perfect, but both sides will say they accomplished a lot.

Obama clearly understands Clinton's position. He got re-elected after a budget battle but paid a price. Obama will surely try to compromise, but only after making Republicans sweat out a deal. Plus, the current commander-in-chief probably won't be having sex with interns any time soon.

Obama and his team have surely learned from recent events. There are fears of citizens having their benefits reduced or removed altogether. Obama played into this argument after his speech about bringing troops home from Afghanistan. The president said it's now time to focus on domestic issues, not wartime problems.

The Republicans want to make cuts. They didn't learn from the special congressional election in May when a Democrat defeated a Republican in a conservative-leaning area. Instead of the GOP placing fear in people's minds over "death panels," now the Democrats can make voters feel like their entitlements will be taken away if conservatives stay in power. Kathy Hochul used Medicare cuts to win against her GOP opponent, Jane Corwin, in upstate New York, according to ABC News.

A walk out by Republicans is no big deal. This is still a process, and the work will get done eventually before something drastic happens.

It's a win-win for the Democrats if they can parlay as much budget-cutting as possible until the 2013 session of Congress starts. By that time, the 2012 election would have decided who controls Congress after the next president is elected.

Who wins when Republicans walk out? The Democrats do eventually because the president owns veto power.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

View the original article here

Alcee Hastings Sexual Harassment Charge Another Distraction for Congress (ContributorNetwork)

Hastings actually came to Congress with an ethical cloud hanging over him, having been removed from the bench for conspiring to take a bribe. The jury, however, failed to convict him on that charge.

View the original article here

Rules would speed up union elections (AP)

WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board proposed sweeping new rules Tuesday to allow unions to hold workplace elections much more quickly, winning praise from Democrats and labor leaders who called it a long overdue fix to a broken system riddled with roadblocks and delays to union organizing.

But the move was quickly condemned by business groups and their GOP supporters as another in a series of moves by the board to placate organized labor and tie the hands of employers.

The board is proposing to streamline a union election process that currently has workers vote within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition, a time many companies use to discourage workers from unionizing.

The new plan could cut that time by days or even weeks — depending on the case — by simplifying procedures, deferring litigation, allowing electronic filing of petitions and other documents and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings.

If the board makes the rules final, following a period for public comment, it would be a victory for labor unions that long have complained about employers using procedural delays and litigation to hold up elections and intimidate workers. Some employers use the extra time to hire so-called union busting consulting firms to produce videotapes, draft talking points or create brochures to deter unionizing.

"Our current system has become a broken, bureaucratic maze that stalls and stymies workers' choices," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. He hailed the proposal as "a common sense approach to clean up an outdated system."

Not so, said Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who called it "an outrageous assault on America's job creators and workers."

"The question everyone should be asking is why the need to rush?" Enzi said. "Is it because union membership is at an all-time low? If employees want to unionize they should be allowed to do so, but to ram elections through before important questions are asked and answered does a disservice to everyone involved."

Usually an obscure federal agency, the board has grown into a major political target since its acting general counsel filed a lawsuit in April that accuses Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers in Washington state by placing a new assembly line for the Dreamliner 787 in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.

The latest NLRB proposal has reignited a growing debate over whether the agency is simply doing its job or overreaching.

Union membership has declined steadily from about 20 percent in the 1980s to 11.9 percent of all workers and just 6.9 percent of the private sector. Many members blame increasingly aggressive anti-union tactics, but they have tried without success to pass legislation in Congress that would address those problems.

Labor leaders made a major push in 2009 for Congress to pass so-called card check legislation that would have made it easier for unions to organize workers by signing cards instead of holding secret-ballot elections. But the measure failed to garner a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Since then, labor has pinned its hopes for a revival on action at the NLRB, the Labor Department and other sympathetic agencies.

The rule proposed on Tuesday could be one step in helping unions halt the membership slide and organize more workers.

It would:

? Allow electronic filing of petitions and other documents to speed up processing.

? Set pre-election hearings to begin 7 days after a petition is filed.

? Defer litigation of eligibility issues involving less than 20 percent of the bargaining unit until after the election.

? Eliminate pre-election appeals of rulings by an NLRB regional director.

? Reduce from 7 to 2 days the time for an employer to provide an electronic list of eligible voters.

Union officials say the problem under the current system is that procedural delays and needless litigation can postpone some votes by months or even years. One study by Stanford Business School professor John-Paul Ferguson showed that 35 percent of the time that workers file a petition for a union election, an election never happens.

Joe Trauger, vice president of human resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, said that in 2009, labor unions won 68.5 percent of representation elections. And 95 percent of all elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing petition submitted by the union.

"These so-called snap elections are the latest attempt by the NLRB to effectively do for the unions what Congress wouldn't — stack the deck in their favor," Trauger said.

Anticipating the critics, board chairwoman Wilma Liebman issued a statement predicting the new proposal would be controversial, but she insisted the agency has a duty to resolve union elections "quickly, fairly and accurately."

"That controversy is unfortunate, but it is not a good reason for the board to abandon its responsibilities," Liebman said.

Jumping to her defense was California Rep. George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

"Ideologues will undoubtedly criticize and scaremonger over this modest, commonsense proposal," Miller said. "In reality, the proposal will reduce costly litigation for all parties and reduce unnecessary conflict in the workplace."

The proposal was approved by the board's majority, led 3-1 by Democrats. The board's lone Republican, Brian Hayes, issued a vigorous dissent, saying the proposal would result in the type of "quickie elections" union leaders have long sought. Hayes claimed elections could be held in as little as 10 days to 21 days from the filing of a petition, giving employers less of a chance to make their case.

"Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining," Hayes wrote.

The board will take 75 days to review comments and replies before making a decision on whether the rule should become final.

View the original article here

Obama raising money at 2 Washington fundraisers (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is attending two fundraisers for his Obama Victory Fund, part of a push to attract contributions to the Democratic National Committee and to his re-election campaign.

Obama is the featured attraction Monday at a dinner of Americans in Support of a Strong US-Israel Relationship. The DNC said the event is sold out, with about 80 people paying for tickets between $25,000 and $35,800.

The president also was attending a DNC Mid-Atlantic Finance Committee dinner. About 100 people were expected to attend, paying between $10,000 and $35,800.

The president has been featured at a string of recent fundraisers. He attended three in Miami and one in Puerto Rico last week. He heads for New York later this week where he will attend two more events with donors.

View the original article here

Democrat fundraising site still accepting Weiner donations (Daily Caller)

Anthony Weiner may be gone, but you can still donate to the erstwhile congressman’s re-election campaign, if you’re kinky like that.

ActBlue, an online clearing house for Democrat fundraising, still has active donation sites for Weiner, and his official Web site still has a contribution page, where fans can support Weiner, “Fighter, Reformer, New Yorker.”

So far, Weiner’s ActBlue page has raised $146,372 for the congressman’s non-existent re-election campaign. How much of this was raised after Weiner’s Twitter indiscretions came to light isn’t clear, but at least some of it was.

An ActBlue page called “Breitbart Has Won NOTHING: Donations for Weiner” has raised a fearsome $35 from two contributors.

“In the beginning, I reacted solely because that dishonest slime Andrew Breitbart was maliciously attacking yet another liberal,” the page’s creator writes. “That’s STILL what pisses me off – Breitbart thinks this was a ‘victory’ and all the chatter about being ’shocked’ and ‘disappointed’ in Weiner only fuels Breitbart.”

So go ahead and donate, never-say-die Democrats. Maybe Weiner will send you a thank you message on Twitter.

2011年6月26日星期日

Obama, Biden to meet House Democratic leaders (AP)

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to meet with House Democratic leaders Thursday to discuss the status of ongoing bipartisan deficit reduction talks. The meeting comes as Democrats want the president to rule out Medicare benefit cuts as part of any budget deal.

The White House said the meeting will address deficit reduction through a "balanced framework," a term the White House uses to describe cuts in spending coupled with increased tax revenue. Republicans have rejected talk of tax increases, though Senate Republicans did vote to end ethanol tax subsidies.

Scheduled to attend the meeting are Vice President Joe Biden, and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer, the party's second in command, assistant Democratic leader James Clyburn, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a participant in the Biden-led budget negotiations.

View the original article here

Kerry praises Obama plan for Afghanistan (AP)

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry is praising President Barack Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying it will allow Afghans to "make their own choices about their own future."

Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CBS' "Early Show" on Thursday that the plan "will change the political calculation of everybody on the ground."

Obama said Wednesday that 10,000 U.S. troops will come home from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and a total of 33,000 troops will be withdrawn by next summer.

Kerry says Obama's 2009 troop surge, which sent 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, "put the Taliban on its heels." The Massachusetts Democrat says the U.S. now needs "considerably fewer troops" there to prevent the Taliban from regaining control.

View the original article here

Mullen sees risk in Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal (AP)

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
By ROBERT BURNS and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Robert Burns And Matthew Lee, Associated Press – Thu?Jun?23, 7:12?pm?ET

WASHINGTON – The nation's top military officer and its top diplomat made clear Thursday that President Barack Obama rejected the advice of his generals in choosing a quicker path to winding down the war in Afghanistan.

The Obama troop withdrawal plan, widely interpreted as marking the beginning of the end of the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan, drew criticism from both sides of the political aisle on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans decried it as undercutting the military mission at a critical stage of the war, while many Democrats called it too timid.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., took a swipe at Obama from the Senate floor, questioning the timing of his troop pullout plan.

"Just when they are one year away from turning over a battered and broken enemy in both southern and eastern Afghanistan to our Afghan partners — the president has now decided to deny them the forces that our commanders believe they need to accomplish their objective," McCain said.

Obama announced Wednesday night that he will pull 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by December and another 23,000 by the end of next summer.

On Thursday, the president spoke at New York's Fort Drum to troops and commanders of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. Its headquarters staff is in southern Afghanistan and its soldiers have been among the most frequently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.

Obama, perhaps responding to the flank of criticism from the right, said that he is not pulling home troops "precipitously" or risking the gain they've achieved.

"We're going to do it in a steady way to make sure that the gains that all of you helped to bring about are going to be sustained," he said. "Because of you, we're now taking the fight to the Taliban, instead of the Taliban bringing the fight to us. And because of you, there are signs that the Taliban may be interested in figuring out a political settlement, which ultimately is going to be critical for consolidating that country."

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that he supports the Obama plan, although he had recommended a less aggressive drawdown schedule.

Obama's approach adds risk to the military mission, Mullen said. But he added, "It's manageable risk."

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said later that he, too, had recommended a more gradual withdrawal — as had Marine Gen. James Mattis, who as commander of U.S. Central Command is Petraeus' immediate boss and overseer of all U.S. military operations in the greater Mideast.

Petraeus, appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is considering his nomination to become CIA director, had a telling exchange with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Levin asked the general whether he would resign if he felt he could not support Obama's decision.

"I'm not a quitter," Petraeus replied. "This is something I have thought a bit about. I don't think it's the place for a commander to actually consider that kind of step unless you are in a very, very dire situation."

In the same exchange, Petraeus appeared to suggest that he had vigorously opposed the timeline that the president chose. Levin asked Petraeus whether he felt comfortable supporting the plan now.

Petraeus wouldn't sign up for that without qualification. He implied he remains uneasy about the decision but said he does not think the plan is destined to fail.

Petraeus said he was returning to Kabul on Friday to work with his staff on how to implement the Obama plan.

Obama's plan will leave 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the drawdown. Most of those troops would gradually come home over the next two years, and the U.S. plans to close out its combat role in Afghanistan by 2015.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tacitly acknowledged the military had wanted more troops to remain for a longer period of time. And she said the keys to finally ending the conflict will be political negotiations with the Taliban leadership and managing a highly contentious relationship with Pakistan.

Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that prospects for successful peace talks with the Taliban are unclear. She said the U.S. was involved in "very preliminary" contacts with the Taliban, which she said has only recently shown signs that it may be ready to talk about a political settlement.

Such contacts with enemies are distasteful but worthwhile, she said, given the historical fact that few insurgencies have been defeated without a combination of military pressure and negotiation.

"This is not a pleasant business, but a necessary one," she said.

Clinton added that she was hopeful about a political settlement. Still, she said, "We're a long way from knowing what the realistic elements of such an agreement would be."

At least as murky is the outlook for cooperation with Pakistan. Clinton said the administration is stepping up pressure on Islamabad to take more aggressive action to help eliminate extremist elements like the Haqqani terrorist network.

"When it comes to our military aid ... we are not prepared to continue providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken," she said, noting that Pakistan and U.S. interests do not always mesh well.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in an interview with "PBS Newhour," said he did not have a preferred option going in to the discussions with Obama. But as he listened to the debate, he said, he became a strong advocate of the proposal to bring the surge troops home by the end of summer. That plan, he said, struck a balance between the military needs and the pressures here at home.

Gates said that American war fatigue played a role in the thinking, but he said he concluded that the plan would leave about 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and that there was enough time between now and next fall to train more Afghan security forces, so they can take the security lead across the country.

Mullen, who is retiring this fall, also cited the importance of the political dimensions of the conflict. Much of the questioning from committee members, however, focused on his opening statement in which he declared his support for Obama's troop withdrawal plan while also making clear that he originally considered it a mistake.

"The president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept," Mullen said. "More force for more time is, without doubt, the safer course. But that does not necessarily make it the best course. Only the president, in the end, can really determine the acceptable level of risk we must take. I believe he has done so."

Some in Congress have suggested that Obama was playing politics with the war plan, questioning why he would insist that the last of the 33,000 "surge" troops he ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 leave the country by September 2012, which happens to coincide with the home stretch of his re-election campaign.

Military commanders favored a withdrawal plan that would allow them to keep as many troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible, ideally through the end of 2012

Mullen said he and the two four-star generals most directly involved in managing the war — Mattis and Petraeus — all support the president's plan. All three offered their views to Obama, "freely and without hesitation," Mullen said, as part of what he described as an inclusive and comprehensive White House decision-making process.

In her testimony, Clinton said it should be no surprise that U.S. commanders had pushed for a slower drawdown of troops.

"I think it would be totally understandable that a military commander would want as many troops for as long as he could get them," Clinton said. "But any military commander with the level of expertise and experience that Gen. Petraeus has also knows that what he wants is just part of the overall decision matrix and that there are other factors at work."

Petraeus said he made specific recommendations to Obama during a process that he called vigorous and inclusive.

"The ultimate decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline, than what we had recommended. Again, that is understandable," the general said. He did not cite specifics of his own recommendation to Obama, but he portrayed the disagreement as narrow. "We're talking about small differences."

Petraeus' designated replacement in Kabul is Marine Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, whose Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for next week.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Julie Pace, Donna Cassata and Kimberly Dozier contributed to this report.

Robert Burns can be reached at http://twitter.com/robertburnsAP

View the original article here

Libya a Litmus Test for Leadership, as Proved by Kerry, McCain (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | According to Politico, senators John Kerry and John McCain have joined forces to put an end to partisan bickering over Libya and move forward with a plan that would allow the president to continue U.S. involvement for one year with the proviso that ground forces stay out of the conflict. This is a departure from recent congressional rhetoric that threatened political retribution and may result in changing the tone in Washington in regard to U.S. involvement in Libya. The debate will likely continue ad nauseam in the coming days as we get into specifics about eliminating Gadhafi and whether it is wise to give a year's worth of authorization for action in such a tiny country or limit a commander-in-chief from utilizing ground troops to complete a mission.

The real story, though, is that while some congressmen (including some who have campaigned or are campaigning to become president) played politics, two men of the strong caliber required to gain the nomination of their parties for the presidency stood up (in the face of overwhelming support for theatrics) and decided to lead.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said to Piers Morgan, in a recent interview, that he had not yet seen anything special from any of the G.O.P candidates that told him who should win the nomination. More than likely, he's looking for something like that. In fact, it is likely what we are all waiting for in the midst of the theatrical but shallow field of Republican candidates for president.

While Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was teaming up with former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich to sue the President over Libya, playing politics without deference to the very real situation on the ground or the status of the troops whose funding Kucinich threatened to cut off, it took two men who many consider "has-beens" to show the difference between men who think themselves ready to lead and men who simply lead.

Two men stood together Tuesday and showed up an entire field of presidential hopefuls. Two men of class and accomplishment put politics aside to lead on Libya, not by way of looking for a job, but by way of doing the one they already have. The Republican candidates could learn a thing or two from two men who have been there... whether they won the presidency or not.

View the original article here

Pennsylvania's Voter Photo ID Bill Passes in House (ContributorNetwork)

Voter photo identification is becoming a huge issue as the 2012 presidential elections approach. A frequent complaint heard from some Democrats is that many voters will become disenfranchised due to the more stringent voting regulations being passed in several states.

Republicans point to close elections as good reason to ensure the integrity of America's electoral processes through electoral reform legislation.

Meanwhile, Monroe-Pike County State Rep. Rosemary Brown voted yesterday with 107 members of the state assembly for a voter photo identification bill meant to maintain the integrity of the state's election systems. If the bill is approved in the Pennsylvania Senate and then signed by Gov. Tom Corbett, it will require that voters present valid photo identification each time they go to the polls.

The bill was opposed by many Democrats who say that it will impact the poor, minorities, and other groups. The vote favoring House Bill 934 was debated and voted upon yesterday, after several amendments were turned back during the week.

Though the vote in favor of the bill was split largely along party lines, Brown feels that ensuring the integrity of the state's elections is not a partisan issue.

Brown referenced the recommendations of the 2005 Commission on Federal Electoral Reform co-chaired by former President Carter and by former Secretary of State James Baker. The Commission report cited examples in which illegal votes determined election outcomes in Wisconsin and the state of Washington in 2004.

With regard to the assertion that photo identification voting would discriminate against certain groups, the committee recommendation was that election officials would develop initiatives to locate voters without suitable IDs and to provide them with IDs free of charge.

Representative Brown pointed out that suitable photo identification was required to board airplanes, cash checks, and enter federal buildings.

As things stand now, seven states have strict photo identification requirements although the election rules governing those states, in some cases, are not yet in effect. The new photo ID rules in those states are expected to be applicable to voting in 2012, and so the new initiatives to validate voter rolls has become a hot political issue.

In addition to those seven states where strict voter identification rules will apply in the presidential elections of 2012, there are seven more states where non-photo-ID voters can vote if they identify themselves through other means. It is the variability of other means that could invite illegal voters to game the system.

Some poll monitors allow identification with such documentation as utility bills or bank statements which can be manipulated by those so disposed. Others allow provisional voting if the voter provides acceptable documentation within 48 hours of the provisional vote. The lack of uniformity in validating legitimate voters and weeding out fraudulent ones is one of the reasons voter identification initiatives have become popular.

Requiring acceptable photo identification may ultimately be the least expensive way to curtail vote fraud of all types, even if additional state resources must be spent to assist some voters. Another Washington State voter fraud case wasn't intended to determine the outcome of an election, but rather to line the pockets of the voter registrants.

In 2007, seven paid employees and supervisors of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) were hit with felony charges and fines for attempting to register voters from phone book listings.

Anthony Ventre is a freelance writer who has written for weekly and daily newspapers and several online publications. He is a frequent contributor to Yahoo in news pertaining to Pennsylvania.

View the original article here

Romney Might Be Ideal Alternative for Calif. Democrats Tired of Obama (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Former Massachusetts governor and G.O.P. hopeful Mitt Romney launched a short private event tour in California Tuesday. According to the Associated Press, Romney started his trip at a hotel in Sacramento, where co-hosts of a private event were asked to raise at least $10,000. In 2008, Romney, who owns a beach home in San Diego, raised over $8 million from supporters in the Golden State -- more than from any other state -- and he hopes to capitalize on that again. He's going to have to if he wants to win the White House during an election year where the sitting president is expected to spend $1 billion.

Romney also has stopovers planned in Beverly Hills and San Francisco, all events private, with names on the invitation list including people like long-time friend Meg Whitman, former CEO of Ebay and recent gubernatorial candidate, as well as billionaire George Argyros, reports The Daily Beast. Whitman is helping the former governor with his national fundraising drive.

Romney should do well in California, a state that typically leans left but which maintains Republican hot zones such as San Diego County. In 1980, Democrats frustrated with President Carter banded together for former Republican governor Ronald Reagan, and many feel that it was the effort of the "Reagan Democrats" that pushed him over the top, compelling him to the White House, reports the Washington Post.

As the most moderate candidate running so far in the wide field for the GOP campaign, Romney will likely pick up typically Democratic votes from those less than eager to re-elect lackluster President Obama. In fact, because Christian conservatives who make up a large and noisy voting block are unlikely to support a Mormon for the White House, Romney has to pick up Democratic support to stem the tide. Romney, like John Kennedy in 1960, has repeatedly stated that his religion won't be a factor in his decision making.

Romney's biggest recommendation to California Democrats might be, however, that he successfully governed very Democratic Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex marriage, though Romney is himself, against it. Same-sex marriage is an issue dear to most California Democrats, and the Massachusetts stance may provide cover for the less accepting Romney. Massachusetts residents also enjoy a successful universal health coverage program. Health care is President Obama's Achilles heel; Romney has a leg up on the issue, at least among Democrats.

Possibly signaling to Democrats that he is interested in their vote, Romney recently refused to take the "pro-life pledge" that most others seeking the G.O.P nomination have taken, assuring voters that if elected president they would only appoint pro-life judges. Romney has said that he is against abortion and but also supports a woman's "right to choose." He has taken a different position since, saying that he's changed his mind, but overall, he is simply not a hardliner.

Romney may become the nominee to his party, but because he doesn't take the hard line on social issues that others in his party are taking, the more moderate Republican is going to have to cross party lines if he wants to be president of the United States. California, the largest state in the union, might just be a good place to start. There is a sense among some Democrats, including this one, that the current president is ineffectual and that with the absence of a challenge for the Democratic primary, we have to make a change; from a field of scary options, Mitt Romney is possibly the least scary of them all.

View the original article here

Obama and Congress Are Not Getting Along Right Now (The Atlantic Wire)

The tension between Congressional Republicans and the White House is manifesting itself on multiple fronts on Friday. House Republicans will vote on a resolution to limit what the American military can do in the Libyan intervention--and many Democrats are likely to join them, despite a last-minute appeal from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday, Politico's Jonathan Allen reports. "The president has not developed strong relationships with members of Congress that would allow members to even look at the politics of this," Rep. Maxine Waters told Allen.

Related: GOP Intensifies Demands for Votes to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Meanwhile, negotiations over raising the debt ceiling--which many experts say absolutely has to be done--are falling apart, as Minority Leader Eric Cantor quit talks led by Vice President Joe Biden Thursday. Sen. Jim DeMint said raising the debt limit would be "the most toxic vote" for Republicans, one that would "set [the party] back many years."

Starting at 12:30 p.m., the House will begin voting on two resolutions--one, modeled on a Senate proposal put forward by John Kerry and John McCain, would prohibit ground troops in Libya but otherwise authorize the war. That one will likely fail, Allen reports. The second would bar American bomb strikes, whether by drones or piloted aircraft. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "has no intention of letting the bill become law," Allen writes, but "the White House is worried about the political fallout of losing a vote on the House floor." An anonymous Democratic aide explained, "They don't want to be embarrassed."?But that's exactly what Republicans are predicting.

As for the stalled debt limit talks, The Hill's Molly K. Hooper reports that Republicans had planned for Cantor to bail for weeks. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative group of lawmakers, "wants Obama to publicly float a solution to the current debt-ceiling quandary," Hooper writes. "That way Republicans will know Democrats cannot back out at the last minute by saying the final deal was not acceptable to Obama," according to the RSC's budget chair, Rep. Scott Garrett.

Related: Debt and Taxes: Eric Cantor's Hot Potato Game With Boehner

But DeMint doesn't want to see a deal at all. "I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit," he said. As ABC News' Jonathan Karl and Sunlen Miller report, "DeMint is not just talking political analysis here. He has a significant fundraising base and has shown a willingness to use his campaign money to support or oppose fellow Republicans."

View the original article here

Obama Approval 41 Percent; Democrats Laugh at Creative Job Numbers (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Amid Obama's growing avalanche of woes, Gallup released the latest approval numbers for the struggling president. He has hit an entirely new "all time low" of 41 percent. The Economic Confidence Index has plummeted to -40. Americans aren't buying the "I inherited this mess" story anymore. Bloomberg's latest poll shows 61 percent of respondents think 2012 will mark Obama's responsibility line in making the economy "substantially better." Only three out of 10 say they will vote for him. While the November primaries are over a year away, Obama is in serious trouble.

In 2008, Louis Farrakhan said that when Obama talks "the Messiah is absolutely speaking," according to World Net Daily. Today, the Nation of Islam leader believes "that's a murderer in the White House." While the opinions of Farrakhan have fallen the full measure between heaven and hell, even his most enthusiastic supporters of three years ago seem to languish the depths of purgatory.

As discussed in my recent article, "Obama Re-Election Chances Reaching Terminal Velocity," Obama is facing some serious heat. From low poll numbers and the public's offense to his disconnected humor in their suffering to being sued by Congress for his debacle in Libya and leaving the Puerto Rican people $1 million shorter and legislators angry by his hype and change, the man touted as "the smartest guy ever to become president" appears aware but oddly unconcerned by how fast the ice is thinning beneath his feet.

During Obama's recent appearance at a rally in Miami, Fla., the Associated Press reported that even the president is lamenting how "It's not as cool to be an Obama supporter as it was in 2008, with the posters and all of that stuff." What the AP portrayed as an "intimate gathering of donors" could be more accurately described as a 2,200 seat venue where only 980 people were willing to purchase a ticket.

The fact that the president's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, felt it necessary to step forward and reassure fans that it's still "cool," reports RealClearPolitics, to be an Obama supporter shows their awareness of how deeply the rock of doubt has sunk within their base.

During Obama's speech at a DNC event, mention of his imaginary creation of 2.1 million jobs drew ("Laughter") from his fellow Democrats, which was marked by the event stenographer into the original transcript at the punch line. However, the White House version shows (Applause). Drudge Report discovered that the White House Press secretary issued a memo for "Immediate Release" to change the "(Laughter)" to "(Applause)." Politico reports that the White House has declined to comment on the matter, but an event official said, even though she heard laughter, the stenographer must have accidentally hit the "laughter" key.

Making matters worse for himself, Politico reports that the leaders of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) are angry that Obama has skipped their annual conference for the past three years, even though he promised he would return after they helped elect him to the presidency.

"It is getting harder and harder for the president to go into a venue where he is confronted by Latinos because he is in a jam," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), NALEO member and one of Obama's earliest yet newly embittered Hispanic supporters. "In front of a group like NALEO, blaming Republicans for their intransigence on immigration reform and not addressing what the president's own administration is doing to immigrants would not wash."

Seeming to ignore the rise of disappointments and loss of support in the Hispanic voting base, White House Spokesman Luis Miranda said the administration has shown "unprecedented" work and outreach on issues important to Hispanics. Of course, Florida representative and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz also predicted, by reminding them of the few things Obama did in the past on their behalf, the "outreach" to women would be equally "unprecedented." However, the Washington Times reported that the moment they tried plucking that string, the moderator at the Netroots Nation conference said, "Frankly we're a little sick of hearing about that one."

Compared to the swell of many demographics that lifted Obama to the White House in 2008, his support among black Americans was a virtual tidal wave. While it may not be cause for immediate alarm, an April Gallup poll revealed an unexpected drop among Blacks of 7 percent in March. The recent report by CBS News of the staggering new unemployment numbers among black Americans may be enough to tip wavering black supporters over the edge and erode Obama's favorability numbers even further.

While the national unemployment level hovers around 9.1 percent, CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reported that unemployment among Africa Americans is now at "Depression-era levels." The latest figures show joblessness among African Americans at 16.2 percent and black males at 17.5 percent. Earlier this month, CBS revealed the national unemployment rate for teens stands at 24 percent overall. This week, the outlet reported the unemployment rate for black teens is approaching an astounding 41 percent.

Coincidentally, after Obama's trip to Puerto Rico in a disastrous effort to boost his faltering poll numbers among Hispanics, the president chose to have his wife and children make the trip to South Africa. Unfortunately, the Telegraph has reported that South African President Jacob Zuma decided he was "not available" to meet Michelle. Obama's folly in Libya is to blame.

"We strongly believe that the (UN Security Council) resolution is being abused for regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation," Zuma told parliament the day after Hillary Clinton's speech calling for support from African leaders.

Agence France-Presse reported that, according to the White House, the purpose of the First Lady's visit is to "emphasize to the first family of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle, which President Obama has called his first political cause." Additionally, we are told that the president has periodic telephone calls with former president Nelson Mandela.

Perhaps with the lengthy and ever growing list of "top priorities" of which CBS has been keeping track -- securing the southwest border, recovering and rebuilding from a recession, free trade, energy security, hurricane preparedness and about a dozen others -- perhaps Obama doesn't have enough time to "emphasize to the first family of South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle" regularly or to remind them it was his "first political cause" himself.

Of course, tornado and flood preparedness didn't even make it on the "top priorities" list, as to leave plenty of room for throwing another White House party or fundraiser, going on another family vacation and setting the world record for rounds of golf played by a sitting president.

Sources:

"Election 2012", Gallup

Julianna Goldman, "Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-election in Economy Poll", Bloomberg

"Farrakhan on Obama: 'The Messiah is absolutely speaking'", World Net Daily

"Minister Farrakhan: "That's A Murderer In The White House!"", YouTube

Patricia Campion, "Obama Re-Election Chances Reaching Terminal Velocity", Yahoo!News

Patricia Campion, "Puerto Rican Legislators Unimpressed by Hype and Change", Yahoo!News

Douglas MacKinnon, ""Historians" For Obama", Town Hall

Yahoo!News, "Analysis: Passion for Obama not like 2008", Associated Press

Patricia Campion, "Obama and Fellow Liberals Heckled -- by Other Liberals", Yahoo!News

"CX: Not 'laughter,' 'applause'..." Drudge Report

"Remarks by the President at a DNC Event", The White House

"Axelrod Assures Admirers: "It's Cool To Be An Obama Supporter", Real Clear Politics

Julie Mason, "President Obama no-show miffs Hispanics", Politico

Dave Boyer, "Obama slammed at liberal conference", Washington Times

"Obama Approval Slips Among Blacks, Hispanics in March", Gallup

Ailsinn Laing, "Jacob Zuma snubs Michelle Obama during First Lady's South Africa visit" The Telegraph

Yahoo!News, "Michelle Obama visits S.Africa with family", Agence France-Presse

Michelle Miller, "African-American unemployment at 16 percent", CBS News

Mark Knoller, "How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?", CBS News

View the original article here

Obama, Biden to meet House Democratic leaders (AP)

View the original article here

Democrats eye GOP tax cut ideas to boost jobs (AP)

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press – Thu?Jun?23, 5:08?pm?ET

WASHINGTON – Desperate to boost employment and their bleak poll numbers, the White House and Democrats in Congress are turning to a Republican idea for stimulating the economy: tax cuts.

With little chance of passing a bill to stimulate the economy through more government spending, some Democrats now want to give employers a break on their Social Security payroll taxes and possibly extend a break for workers.

The most prominent idea would continue and maybe expand the payroll tax cut for individuals which was enacted in December and expires at the end of the year. Some Senate Democrats also want to revive an expired payroll tax holiday for companies that hire unemployed workers.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said gloomy unemployment reports are a wake-up call that the economic recovery is on shaky ground. New poll numbers also show that more and more Americans are unhappy with the way President Barack Obama and Democrats in general are handling the economy and unemployment.

Some 59 percent of adults said they disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy and unemployment, a new high, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. Americans are about evenly divided on which party they trust to do a better job on the economy, though Democrats have lost their edge on handling taxes, according to the poll.

Democrats are eager to turn those numbers around as they head into the 2012 election cycle. But Republicans aren't eager to help them, even if it means passing up the opportunity to enact tax cuts.

Schumer said tax cuts are not the first choice of many Democrats — some would prefer a package of spending on infrastructure and roads.

"By putting it on the table, it shows how willing we are to work with the Republicans to create jobs," he said. "It's pro-business, it's a tax cut, and many Republicans have been for it in the past."

Republicans, however, have been lukewarm to short-term cuts in Social Security taxes as a way to boost the economy. Some Democrats also oppose them out of fears they could undermine funding for Social Security.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called proposals to extend or expand the payroll tax cut "another little short-term gimmick." House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., likened the idea to a "sugar high."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, co-sponsored a temporary payroll tax holiday for companies that hired unemployed workers last year. However, he said he would have to see convincing evidence that it helped create jobs before supporting a new one.

"We need to make sure the payroll tax cut is not just some other stimulus gimmick," he said in an interview.

Democrats cite Republican reluctance to embrace short-term Social Security tax cuts as evidence that the GOP is looking for political gain from the poor economy.

"They believe that a weak economy is their best chance at winning the next election," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Hatch called such accusations "a doggone joke" and said Democrats "are panicked."

The debate is playing out as the White House and congressional leaders try to find ways to reduce annual budget deficits as part of a deal to let the government go deeper into debt. The focus on deficit reduction is limiting what Congress can do to spur the economy in the short term. Republicans scoff at Democratic proposals to juice the economy though more government spending.

"More spending? As a solution to a debt crisis?" Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday. "What planet are they on?"

Congress enacted a one-year cut in the Social Security payroll tax for 2011, reducing the employee share of the tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. A worker making $50,000 in wages saves $1,000; a worker making $100,000 in wages saves $2,000. The cost for just one year: $112 billion, all added to the deficit and debt.

The tax cut was designed to boost take-home pay and consumer spending, though Obama and some economists have said much of the tax cut has been wiped out by higher fuel costs.

The White House has floated the idea of extending the tax cut, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year. There have also been discussions about expanding it to the employer share of the tax, which is currently 6.2 percent on wages below $106,800.

AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, has "deep concerns about any efforts to expand or extend the temporary one-year Social Security payroll tax holiday without any assurances that there is no negative impact on Social Security in the short and long-term," spokeswoman Mary Liz Burns said.

Even if Social Security is made whole with money from the general fund — as it was this year — tinkering with the payroll tax threatens the independence of the massive retirement and disability program, said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

If Congress and the White House don't agree to extend the tax cut, millions of workers face a significant tax increase on Jan. 1.

Last year, Congress also passed a law that exempted businesses that hired people who had been unemployed for at least 60 days from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax. The program ran from February 2010 through the end of the year. Employers could get an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stayed on the job a full year.

Schumer teamed with Hatch to sponsor the package, and Schumer would like to see it renewed.

Many Republicans questioned whether the tax holiday would lead to more hiring. The Treasury Department said that from February to October, businesses hired 10.6 million new workers who would have been eligible for the tax cut. The department, however, said it could not determine how many of those workers would have been hired without the tax break.

View the original article here

订阅：博文 (Atom)