Category Archives: republicans

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

Posted on January 6, 2012 | 145 comments

Michael Reagan on Iowa Caucus results and Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Republican presidential nomination

From Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, January 5, 2012.

“Iowa caucus results show it’s still early in the game and nothing’s certain.

So what happened on the way to the Republican presidential nomination?

Well, even with a slim official win, Mitt Romney did no better in practical terms this year than he did four years ago in 2008 because of the level of competition. This proves that the road to the 2012 nomination will be anything but smooth, and that he has a tough road ahead if he is to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt has a big problem in his seeming inability to relate to the average working man or woman. He’s a bit too self-assured. As for Rick Santorum, he threw a monkey wrench into Ron Paul’s meteoric rise by almost winning, and proved that Romney is not as unbeatable as his worshippers in the media would like us to believe.

Rick gave an off-the-cuff, Reaganesque speech that marked him as a staunch conservative in the style of my late Dad, Ronald Reagan. He leaves no doubt that his love for America is genuine and deep-rooted.

Ron Paul proved that his supporters are in there for the long haul. Moreover he proved that the GOP needs to pay attention to his message of fiscal sanity and restraint in federal spending or the average Republican, fed up with the witless squandering of our tax dollars, might bolt in November.

Newt Gingrich managed to live to see another day, and he’ll do battle in both New Hampshire and South Carolina — not with Romney, who he’s out to destroy, but with Rick Santorum. Newt needs to be more passionate and less professorial and, for heaven’s sake, Newt, put on a damned tie.

Perry needs to retool his message and overcome the gaffes for which he has become so infamous. He says he’s going home to reconsider his candidacy, but if he stays in the race he will meet Santorum and Gingrich in South Carolina and that will be the end for him. The conservative winner there will then go on, and the others will need to go home.

As for Michele Bachmann, she made the right decision to go back to Minnesota and run for re-election and not be like California’s Bob Dornan, who stayed too long in running for president and as a result lost his House seat to Loretta Sanchez.

The Iowa caucuses are over but the fun has just begun. Fasten your seatbelts, America, the ride ahead may get bumpy. There might now be room for another candidate to emerge and sweep the field.

Stay tuned.”

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/01/05/reagan-iowa-votes/?subscriber=1

 

145 Comments

Posted in conservatives, Election 2012, Election update, News, Politics, Presidential candidate, republicans, United States, voters, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Posted on January 3, 2012 | 19 comments

Rick Santorum Iowa Caucus, January 3, 2012, Meet the Press interview, Santorum interview impressive, Citizen Wells endorsement

Tonight, January 3, 2012, the Iowa Caucus will be held. Rick Santorum has been surging in the polls, close to the front runner , Mitt Romney.

I have been listening to Rick Santorum being interviewed for years and have always been impresssed with his solid, consistent answers. Santorum was interviewed on Meet The Press on Sunday, January 1, 2012. It is clear from the interview that Rick Santorum is the right man to be the Republican candidate and President. The antidote for Obama.

Watch the entire interview and read the transcript here. If the interview disappears, let me know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/#.TwMZmNQV33c

From the transcript:

“it’s funny. i haven’t asked anybody. and the reason i haven’t asked anybody, i’m sitting at 3% in the national polls. and i really haven’t gone out and asked any united states senator, i haven’t asked a single one to endorse me. but i felt like i had to earn it first. that i had to go out and prove to — you know, i lost my last race. and the general consensus was, you know, we like rick, but, you know, you can’t — who goes from losing their last senate race to winning the presidential nomination? my answer to that was, well abraham lincoln. but other than abraham lincoln, this is not a common occurrence”

“if people want to endorse me, i’d love their endorsements. but i’m not coming to be buddies with my — with, you know, my friends in the senate and house, i’m coming to change the entire nature of washington, d.c. it’s one — one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in, and seeing what, you know, sometimes you said i was running as a consistent conservative. there are votes that i took, not that i advocated these things but i voted for some things and look back and say, why the heck did i do that? you get involved in sort of the the — the idea that well, you got to make things happen, and you forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not — you’re better off”
“what i’ve said is your role as a member of congress, if you look at the constitution, is to appropriate money. of course if you appropriate money you’re going to say where that money’s going to go. and historically congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources, and jim demint who led the charge on pork barrel spending, earmarked things for years and years. so what happened, after i left congress, was budgets began to explode. when i was in the senate, i voted for tough budgets, i voted for restrictions on spending, and made sure that that didn’t happen. and as president, i propose cutting $5 trillion over five years. i propose we’re going to balance the budget in at least five years, hopefully sooner. so if you’re looking for someone who’s voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints, and”

“well, what changed was who he’s running against. at the time, that was five days or four days before super tuesday, it was after florida. it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point. i thought mike huckabee– i would have loved to have mike huckabee out there. but i made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop john mccain, which was what my concern was, i had served 12 years with john mccain, i like and respect john mccain immensely personally, and he’s done a lot of great things, obviously, for this country. but i did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee”

“of course my background is to find compromise. that’s what you have to do in order to get things done. but you don’t compromise on your principles. i use welfare reform as an example. i — i went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the contract with america bill, and then when i was in the united states senate, i managed that bill as a first-term, first-year member of the united states senate. i went up against daniel patrick moynihan and ted kennedy and battled over two vetoes of president clinton and was able to get it done. did i make compromises? you bet. but the compromises i made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in welfare. which was to end the federal entitlement, the only bill that i’m aware of, only law that’s actually ever ended a broad-based federal entitlement. i was the author and manager of the bill on. and we put time limits on welfare. and we put a work requirement in place. those were the things that i believe were transformational. was i willing to compromise on day care funding? yes, i was. was i willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work? yes, i was. but what we did was something that was moving the direction of a more limited government, and in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise. but, we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to. but we weren’t going in the direction of more government, and getting less of more. that’s where republicans have been in error for so many years. and that is, compromising on just a little less big government, instead of saying no. no more compromises and less big government. we’ll compromise on less-less government. but, not going the other way.”

“you have to have someone you can work with. and this president has done more to divide than any other president that i’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. this president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide america between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups. this is the great divider in chief. and it’s very difficult when you’re being led by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then — and the president, who i don’t believe has met with boehner or any of the republican leadership, and now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you. who won’t sit down and try to negotiate things and try to talk. so i’m not surprised at all that republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest”

“number one, he didn’t support the pro- democracy movement in iran in 2009 during the green revolution. almost immediately after the election — i mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed ahmadinejad announced he won with 62% of the vote. within a few days, president obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.”

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it. the problem was this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting saying please support us president obama, we are the pro- democracy movement. we want to turn this theocracy that’s been at war with the united states, that’s developing a nuclear weapon, that’s killing our troops in afghanistan and iraq with ieds and the president of the united states turned his back on them. at the same time, a year later we have the same situation where muslim brotherhood and islamists are in the streets of egypt opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy like iran, but an ally of ours like mubarak and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.”
“we know by the israelis. we don’t have any evidence, if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence to actually trails back to the israelis and the methodology that they use. there’s no evidence the united states is at all complicit in working at that. that’s what — i would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this. why? because i want to make sure that iran knows that when i say that iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually affect out policies that make that happen. this president has not done that. he has opposed tough sanctions on iran, on their oil program. why? because he’s concerned about the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. i would say to every foreign scientist that’s going in to iran to help them with their program, you will be treated as an enemy combatant like an al qaeda member. and finally i would be working openly with the state of israel and i would be saying to the iranis you need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will degrade those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.”

“iran would not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.”

“yes, that’s the plan. i mean you can’t go out and say, this is — this is the problem with this administration. you can’t go out and say this is what i’m for and then do nothing. you become a paper tiger. and people don’t respect our country. and our allies can’t trust us. that’s the problem with this administration.”

I was pleased to hear Rick Santorum make the following statement:

“i understand why the president announcing a minute after the polls close he won, he comes from chicago, so i get it.”

I continue to endorse Rick Santorum for the Republican nomination and the presidency. He is the breathe of fresh air that this country needs.

19 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Chicago, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, constitution, Election 2012, Election update, Electors, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, politicians, Politics, polls, Presidential candidate, Primary polls, republicans, Rick Santorum, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US economy, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Rick Santorum surges in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Santorum passes Paul at 21 percent, Romney 24 percent, December 31, 2011

Posted on December 31, 2011 | 9 comments

Rick Santorum surges in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Santorum passes Paul at 21 percent, Romney 24 percent, December 31, 2011

From the Des Moines Register December 31, 2011.

“Romney leads Paul in new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges”

“Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.

Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.

The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.

The first three Iowa Polls of the 2012 caucus cycle, conducted in June, October and November, featured a different leader each time: first Romney, then retired business executive Herman Cain, then Gingrich. Other candidates took turns in the top tier, too. Bachmann was in second place to Romney in the June poll and won the Iowa straw poll in August. But her support plummeted this fall.

Gingrich surged to the lead with 25 percent support in the late November poll, but slid to 12 percent in the new poll.

Now, it’s Santorum’s time to rocket to the top tier. He has campaigned in Iowa more than any other candidate, stumping the state more than 100 days and conducting more than 300 events since the last presidential election. Next closest is Bachmann, at 80 days.

But until recent weeks, Santorum has struggled to escape single digits in state and national polls. He has campaigned as both a strong fiscal and social conservative, but social conservative voters had remained undecided or split among several candidates.”

Read more:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/romney-leads-paul-in-new-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-santorum-surging/

9 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, conservatives, Election 2012, Election update, News, Newspapers, Politics, Presidential candidate, republicans, white house

Tagged , , , ,

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

Posted on December 29, 2011 | 119 comments

Rick Santorum endorsement, Citizen Wells endorses Santorum for presidency, God Family Constitution Defense Budget, Legal immigration, Obama eligibility

My friends have been asking me for weeks what my preference in a presidential candidate is. For weeks I have been stating, Rick Santorum. An intelligent, well informed friend of mine who I have known for many years agrees.

So far my biggest gripe with Santorum was his response to Obama’s eligibility deficiency. However, many otherwise good Americans have been fooled by the Orwellian brainwashing of the mainstream media. Like many decisions in life, Santorum for me is the lesser of evils, however, I find most of his positions appealing.

From the DesMoines Register August 7, 2011.

“Candidate profile: Rick Santorum refuses to compromise on principles”

“Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum knew he was in trouble as he sought re-election to his third term in 2006.

Public opinion was hardening against the war in Iraq and the president who started it. All signs pointed to a bad year for Republicans.

His supporters were blunt, recalled Charlie Artz, a Harrisburg lawyer and a friend since they were in their 20s. To win, they said, you need to change
course. You need to soften your opinions.

But Santorum wouldn’t budge. He described the state of America’s families as a moral crisis. He declared the nation at a critical crossroads in a fight
against radical Islamists. And he ultimately lost by 18 points to Bob Casey Jr., the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980.

“Rick is a very devout Catholic guy, and he believes in the principles of the founding fathers of this country,” Artz said. “He is not willing to compromise
on that. He will stand for his beliefs and his principles above any political expediency.”

Santorum, 53, is not about to start mincing words now that he’s seeking the Republican presidential nomination. That leaves little room in the middle between his supporters and his detractors.

Jamie Johnson of Stratford is a Christian pastor who has worked in 40 Republican political campaigns over the past two decades. He said he was drawn to join Santorum’s presidential bid after watching him lead the charge on family values legislation in Congress.

“I thought, ‘Wow. This guy is a guy of energy and passion and convictions,’ ” Johnson said. “If there was ever a time for a muscular Republican leader to
stand up against President Obama, it is now. I don’t see Michele Bachmann or Tim Pawlenty or Rick Perry having the intellectual or spiritual muscle to go toe
to toe with Barack Obama.”

Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has closely monitored Santorum’s political career, too, but sees him in an entirely different light.
By 2006, Pennsylvanians had come to view Santorum as completely out of touch with their values, he said.

“He was viewed as a Republican with extreme right-wing beliefs and was not viable,” Burn said.

His story starts with emigrating granddad
Santorum’s political outlook is firmly rooted in family.

On the campaign trail, he frequently tells the story of how his grandfather came to America from Italy in the 1920s because he detested living under fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini. His grandfather worked in Pennsylvania’s coal mines until he was 72, Santorum said.

During a campaign stop in July in Marion, Ia., Santorum told of kneeling before his grandfather’s casket as a teenager and looking at his large folded hands,
holding a rosary. His grandfather’s independence and hard work brought freedom to his family, he said.

“He gave me the opportunities that I have,” Santorum said. “I feel like I am standing on his shoulders.”

He describes his grandfather, Pietro, known as Pete, and his father, Aldo, a psychologist, as strong-willed, a trait he shares.

His dad was a typical Italian father who “would always yell first and speak softly later,” he said.

Santorum grew up in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Both his father and mother, Catherine, a nurse, worked for the Veterans Administration.

After earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, he became a staffer for Republican state Sen. Doyle Corman while he earned a law degree. Then, too, he
demonstrated his strong-willed streak.

Corman said he hired Santorum because he was bright and ambitious, and Corman let Santorum know he was free to argue with his boss about politics.

“If Rick thought that I was headed in the wrong direction, we would have debates over it, and the staff couldn’t believe how hot our debates would get at
times,” Corman recalled in a phone interview. “You could hear us through the walls, but I wanted that, and Rick made me think things out well.”

Fast-rising career in U.S. House, Senate
He was a young man on a fast track. He started work for a prominent Pittsburgh law firm and did some lobbying at the Pennsylvania Capitol. Four years after
graduating from law school, he launched a bid for Congress.

Corman and others told him to forget it because it would be too difficult to defeat a long-term Democratic incumbent.

“He beat that seven-term incumbent, and the rest is history,” Corman said.

As a 32-year-old freshman, Santorum joined former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa and others to focus on government reform, becoming a member of the “Gang of Seven” that exposed the House banking and post office scandals.

In 1994, at 36, he won election to the Senate, once again unseating an incumbent, Democrat Harris Wofford. Two years later, he was an author and floor manager of a landmark welfare reform act that moved millions of people from the welfare rolls to the work force.

Again and again, he pressed abortion fight
It was about this time that he and his family experienced a defining moment, underlining his commitment to reverence for life.

After Santorum and his wife arrived in Washington, D.C., their family quickly grew to three children. But in 1996, Karen Santorum, who had worked as a neo-
natal nurse and a lawyer, experienced a difficult pregnancy.

During labor, she developed a severe infection in her uterus, and her temperature soared to 105 degrees. Their son was born prematurely and lived only two hours.

Karen Santorum describes how she and her husband brought their deceased infant home instead of allowing the child to be placed in a refrigerated morgue.
Their daughter, Elizabeth, cuddled the infant and announced, “This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.”

A priest celebrated the Mass of the Angels in his grandparents’ living room, and the casket was placed in the back seat of the family’s van as they drove to
the cemetery.

Karen Santorum wrote a book about her son, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” which includes a forward by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

At the same time, Rick Santorum was leading efforts in the U.S. Senate to ban what he describes as partial-birth abortions.

Santorum acknowledges that other Republican presidential candidates also say they oppose abortion. But he portrays himself as the candidate who has a proven
record fighting to restrict it.

He has spoken of losing a battle against President Bill Clinton for a partial-birth abortion act.

“I didn’t just offer (the bill), but I stood there and fought … year in and year out,” Santorum said. “We lost because Bill Clinton would veto the bill. …
But I continued to fight. I continued to stand up for life, and God blessed us.” (The bill was signed into law under President George W. Bush.)

As senator, called for balancing the budget
Besides championing anti-abortion legislation in the Senate, he supported a balanced federal budget and a line-item veto to curb spending.

That record makes him the right choice to lead a nation confronting out-of-control spending and a downgraded credit rating, he says.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Santorum proposed transforming the U.S. military from a Cold War force to a more agile one to meet modern threats. He was also a leader on U.S.-Israeli relations, authoring the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” despite initial opposition from President Bush.”

“Santorum has campaigned more days and conducted more events in Iowa than any other candidate. But he has had difficulty gaining traction. In The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll in June, he registered 4 percent support among likely Republican caucusgoers.

But he takes heart in a Quinnipiac University poll released last week that showed him in a dead heat with Obama in a theoretical presidential matchup in
Pennsylvania, a key swing state. And he reminds voters that he has twice defeated incumbent Democrats.

He also notes that Abraham Lincoln lost two Senate races before he was elected president.

His friend Artz says Santorum will outwork other candidates and would make a great president because he would always put the country first.

“I think he is going to surprise some people out there,” Artz said.”

““Rick won’t apologize for America being great, and he will defend Israel. He didn’t shy away from taking on the partial-birth abortion ban or welfare reform,
and he’s certainly not going to shy away from getting this country back on track.” — Kim Lehman, Iowa’s National Republican Committeewoman and former president of Iowa Right to Life

“I don’t comment on who would be a good president or a bad president, but I can tell you that a lot of Rick Santorum’s policies and priorities are not in
keeping with core constitutional principles.” — Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State

“Not many politicians have spine; this one does.” — Talk-show host Glenn Beck, introducing Santorum before a June interview on Fox News”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/07/santorum-refuses-to-compromise-on-principles/

Rick Santorum meets my priorities of :

God
Family
Constitution
Defense
Budget

Rick Santorum, like other decent members of Congress such as Howard Coble was brainwashed by the mainstream media and their own congressional resources.

Rick Santorum told WND, “My understanding is that issue was solved. If there’s evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth.”

When Santorum was reminded about the Natural Born Citizen requirement he allegedly responded “I don’t think that’s what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn’t matter.”

I personally believe that Rick Santorum, when properly advised , will reconsider his position on Obama’s eligibility and will be open to ask more questions and seek more answers.

Mr. Santorum, I am at your service.

Contact me.

Wells

119 Comments

Posted in Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, conservatives, constitution, Election 2012, Eligibility, Family, Glenn Beck, God, Natural born citizen, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US Constitution, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama should abandon his candidacy, Democratic pollsters Caddell and Schoen, Hillary Clinton, Obama 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity

Posted on November 21, 2011 | 61 comments

Obama should abandon his candidacy, Democratic pollsters Caddell and Schoen, Hillary Clinton, Obama 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity

From the Wall Street Journal November 21, 2011.

“The Hillary Moment
President Obama can’t win by running a constructive campaign, and he won’t be able to govern if he does win a second term”
“When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

Consequently, he has to make the case that the Republicans, who have garnered even lower ratings in the polls for their unwillingness to compromise and settle for gridlock, represent a more risky and dangerous choice than the current administration—an argument he’s clearly begun to articulate.

One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be “guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.” The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline.

If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate—especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame—George W. Bush or Barack Obama?—to a more constructive dialogue about our nation’s future.

Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country. A CNN/ORC poll released in late September had Mrs. Clinton’s approval rating at an all-time high of 69%—even better than when she was the nation’s first lady. Meanwhile, a Time Magazine poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is favored over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 17 points (55%-38%), and Texas Gov. Rick Perry by 26 points (58%-32%).

But this is about more than electoral politics. Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.”

“By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.”

Read more:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

61 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Democrats, Election 2012, Hillary Clinton, News, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Presidential candidate, republicans, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Herman Cain innocent investigator claims, Sharon Bialek not telling truth from software analysis, CBS Atlanta

Posted on November 10, 2011 | 94 comments

Herman Cain innocent investigator claims, Sharon Bialek not telling truth from software analysis, CBS Atlanta

From CBS Atlanta November 9, 2011.
“Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.

Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.

Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.

Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people’s voices.

CBS Atlanta’s Mike Paluska played Cain’s speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain’s every word. 

If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here,” said Ward.  “He is being truthful, totally truthful.  He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of.”

The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice.  During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.”  According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth. 

During the section of Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”

During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.”  Ward said that means she is not  telling the truth about what happened.

“I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward.  But, she is fabricating what transpired.”

Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office.

Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.

After listening to Cain’s speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.

“When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk,” said Ward.  “It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public.””

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances

94 Comments

Posted in CBS, Chicago, Citizen News, CitizenWells, Election 2012, Election update, Journalism, Justice, Lies, media, News, Presidential candidate, Presidential debate, republicans, Smear campaigns, video

Tagged , ,

Ron Paul blames America for 9/11, GOP debate, Monday, September 12, 2011, Whose side is Paul on?, Left wing propaganda

Posted on September 14, 2011 | 95 comments

Ron Paul blames America for 9/11, GOP debate, Monday, September 12, 2011, Whose side is Paul on?, Left wing propaganda

“With friends like the Saudis, who needs enemies?”

“You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
   For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
   But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
   An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
   An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy
sees!”…Rudyard Kipling, “Tommy”

“Militant Islam derives from Islam but is a misanthropic, misogynist, triumphalist, millenarian, anti-modern, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, terroristic, jihadistic, and suicidal version of it. Fortunately, it appeals to only about 10 percent to 15 percent of Muslims, meaning that a substantial majority would prefer a more moderate version.”…Daniel Pipes

If you want politically correct, go somewhere else.

The US defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and then helped rebuild the countries.
In 1990 Saudi Arabia asked for US troops to help stop the invasion of Kuwait and ultimately protect the Saudis.
The French, Germans and Russians were in bed with Saddam Hussein. I believe that the US invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if the United Nations had done it’s job.

I could have blasted Ron Paul in late 2008 when he stated that he would be laughed out of Congress if he challenged Obama’s eligibility. I did not let Mr. Constitution have it then. He was behaving like the rest of the sheep.

I agree with Glenn Beck, some of the statements made by Ron Paul make sense. However, Paul crossed over the line when he blamed America for 9/11. It was irresponsible and wrong!

Ron Paul mentioned the Saudis when he spoke of American Military Bases. His speech sounded more like left wing propaganda and employed selective references. Here are some facts regarding the Saudis.

From Daniel Pipes, winter of 2002/2003.

“DanielPipes.org looks at the Middle East, Islam, terrorism, U.S.
foreign policy, and related topics from the perspective of an American
with a Ph.D. in medieval Middle East history who now heads a
current-affairs think tank, the Middle East Forum.”
“The Scandal of U.S.-Saudi Relations”

 
“Consider two symbolic moments in the U.S.-Saudi relationship involving
a visit by one leader to the other’s country. In November 1990,
President George H.W. Bush went to the Persian Gulf region with his
wife and top congressional leaders at Thanksgiving time to visit the
400,000 troops gathered in Saudi Arabia, whom he sent there to protect
that country from an Iraqi invasion. When the Saudi authorities
learned that the President intended to say grace before a festive
Thanksgiving dinner, they remonstrated; Saudi Arabia knows only one
religion, they said, and that is Islam. Bush acceded, and he and his
entourage instead celebrated the holiday on the U.S.S. Durham, an
amphibious cargo ship sitting in international waters.

In April 2002, as Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, the country’s
effective ruler, was about to travel across Texas to visit President
George W. Bush, an advance group talked to the airport manager in Waco
(the airport serving the President’s ranch in Crawford) “and told him
they did not want any females on the ramp and also said there should
not be any females talking to the airplane.”[2] The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) at Waco complied with this request and passed it
to three other FAA stations on the crown prince’s route, which also
complied. Then, when queried about this matter, both the FAA and the
State Department joined the Saudi foreign minister in flat-out denying
that there ever was a Saudi request for male-only controllers.

The import of these incidents is clear enough: Official Americans in
Saudi Arabia bend to Saudi customs, and official Americans in the
United States do so as well. And it’s not just a matter of travel
etiquette; one finds parallel American obsequiousness concerning such
issues as energy, security, religion and personal status. The Saudis
routinely set the terms of this bilateral relationship. For decades,
U.S. government agencies have engaged in a consistent pattern of
deference to Saudi wishes, making so many unwonted and unnecessary
concessions that one gets the impression that a switch has taken
place, with both sides forgetting which of them is the great power and
which the minor one. I shall first document this claim, then offer an
explanation for it, and conclude with a policy recommendation.”

“Starting in 1991, the U.S. military required its female personnel
based in Saudi Arabia to wear black, head-to-foot abayas. (This makes
Saudi Arabia the only country in the world where U.S. military
personnel are expected to wear a religiously-mandated garment.)
Further, the women had to ride in the back seat of vehicles and be
accompanied by a man when off base.”
“The pattern of Saudi fathers abducting children from the United States
to Saudi Arabia, and then keeping them there with the full agreement
of the Saudi authorities, affects at least 92 children of U.S. mothers
and Saudi fathers, perhaps many more. In each of these heartbreaking
cases, the State Department has behaved with weakness bordering on
sycophancy. To be specific, it has accepted the Saudi law that gives
the father near-absolute control over the movement and activities of
his children and wife (or wives). The department has made no real
efforts to signal its displeasure to the Saudi authorities over these
cases, much less made vigorous efforts to free the children held
against their American families’ wishes.”

“In Saudi Arabia, the U.S. government submits to restrictions on
Christian practices that it would find totally unacceptable anywhere
else in the world-starting with the U.S. president’s not celebrating
Thanksgiving in the Kingdom, as mentioned above. The hundreds of
thousands of American troops in Saudi Arabia in December 1990 were not
permitted to hold formal Christmas services at their bases on Saudi
soil; all that was allowed to them were “C-word morale services” held
in places where they would be invisible to the outside world, such as
tents and mess halls. The goal was for no Saudi to be made to suffer
the knowledge that Christians were at prayer.”

“With Jews, the issue is not freedom of religious practice in Saudi
Arabia; it is simply gaining entry to the Kingdom. In several
instances over many years, agencies of the U.S. government have
excluded Jewish Americans from positions in Saudi Arabia. Hunter
explains that a protocol prohibiting Jews being assigned to the
Kingdom was signed by the U.S. Embassy in Jeddah and the Saudi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as a result of which the State Department
avoids sending Jewish employees to reside in Saudi Arabia.[11] Select
senior diplomats of Jewish origin may briefly visit the country on
official business but “no low or mid-level Jewish-American diplomat
was permitted to be stationed/reside in Kingdom” during Hunter’s
three-year experience.”

“Mail to U.S. military and official government personnel enters the
Kingdom on U.S. military craft, and American officials in Saudi Arabia
follow Saudi wishes by seizing and disposing of Christmas trees and
decorations and other symbols of the holiday. They seize and destroy
Christmas cards sent to (the mostly non-official) Americans who
receive their mail through a Saudi postal box, and even tear from the
envelope U.S. stamps portraying religious scenes.”

Read more:

http://www.danielpipes.org/995/the-scandal-of-us-saudi-relations

95 Comments

Posted in America, Americans, Arabs, Citizen News, CitizenWells, Election 2012, News, Osama Bin Laden, politicians, Presidential candidate, republicans, Ron Paul, Terrorist Attacks, Terrorists, United States

Tagged , , , , , ,

Obama jobs speech, September 8, 2011, Joint session of Congress, More shovel ready jobs?, More Obama promises, More Obama spending

Posted on September 8, 2011 | 413 comments

Obama jobs speech, September 8, 2011, Joint session of Congress, More shovel ready jobs?, More Obama promises, More Obama spending

***  UPDATE BELOW  ***

From the Chicago Tribune September 8, 2011.

“President Barack Obama will lay out a jobs
package worth more than $300 billon on Thursday, staking his
re-election hopes on a call for urgent bipartisan action to revive the
faltering economy.

With his poll numbers sliding to new lows amid voter frustration with
9.1 percent unemployment, Obama will make tax cuts for middle-class
households and businesses the centerpiece of the plan and will press
for new spending to repair roads, bridges and other deteriorating
infrastructure.

He will use his televised speech before a joint session of the U.S.
Congress, at 7 p.m. EDT, to urge passage of those measures by
year-end.

If congressional Republicans reject his remedies, his strategy will be
to paint them as obstructionists and blame them for the stagnating
economy.

Stubbornly high unemployment has heightened fears that the economy
could be headed for another recession. Net employment growth
registered zero in August as a budget standoff in Washington and the
European debt crisis spooked businesses and consumers.

Obama is under intense pressure to change perceptions that he has
shown weak leadership. His economic stewardship has been criticized by
both Republicans and fellow Democrats, casting a cloud over his
prospects for re-election in November 2012.”

“Republicans have derided an $800 billion economic stimulus package
that Obama pushed through Congress in 2009 as wasteful spending and
have pushed for immediate cuts in the deficit.

Democrats say that while long-term deficits must be addressed, the
economy needs a short-term fiscal boost.

Media reports have put the size of Obama’s jobs package at upward of
$300 billion. CNN quoted sources saying it could top $400 billion. The
White House would not confirm the reports.”

“Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said Obama should take
responsibility for making the economy worse.

“Unemployment is worse, housing is worse, the debt is worse, and he’s
done all that by throwing a big wet blanket over the economy with his
regulatory, tax and healthcare policies,” he said.”

Read more:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-obama-jobstre781765-20110902,0,2398267.story

What Obama stated on March 3, 2009.
    “Two weeks ago, I signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history.
 And already, its impact is being felt across this nation.
Hardworking families can now worry a little less about next month’s
bills because of the tax cut they’ll soon find in the mail.  Renewable
energy companies that were once downsizing are now finding ways to
expand.  And transportation projects that were once on hold are now
starting up again — as part of the largest new investment in
America’s infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the
Interstate Highway System.

    Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the
next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs
rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our
faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband,
and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day.
Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all
of you at the Department of Transportation.  And I want you to know
that the American public is grateful to public servants like you —
men and women whose work isn’t always recognized, but whose jobs are
critical to our nation’s safety, security, and prosperity.  You have
never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are
all grateful.  (Applause.)

    Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be
announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects
that will be launched as part of the recovery plan.  But today, I want
to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our
infrastructure.  Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28
billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can
start using immediately to put people back to work.  It’s an
investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part
to Joe Biden, who’s leading the effort to get the money out the door
quickly.  Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors,
county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can
say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are
seeing shovels hit the ground.”

“Now, we have another responsibility.  Having inherited a
trillion-dollar deficit that we’re working to cut in half, we also
need to ensure that tax dollars aren’t wasted on projects that don’t
deliver results.  And that’s why, as part of his duty, Joe will keep
an eye on how precious tax dollars are being spent.  To you, he’s Mr.
Vice President, but around the White House, we call him the Sheriff —
(laughter) — because if you’re misusing taxpayer money, you’ll have
to answer to him.”

Read more:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-transportation-infrastructure

From The Blaze October 13, 2010.

“Obama: ‘No Such Thing’ as a Shovel-Ready Job”
“The president has offered a number of his own “serious proposals,” not
the least of which was the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
The underwhelming fallout from the $787 billion investment is one of
many reasons the American public is challenging the Democratic
leadership this year.

In reflecting on his time in office, the president laments that he
looks too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,“ and
realized that ”there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

But the promise of these “shovel-ready” jobs was one of the Democrats’
main selling points in lobbying for the stimulus plan. In December
2008, the then-President-elect Obama pledged, “We’ve got shovel-ready
projects all across the country that governors and mayors are pleading
to fund.  And the minute we can get those investments to the state
level, jobs are going to be created.”  Just one day later, the
president-elect presented his ideas for a “bold agenda” of
“shovel-ready projects,” promising the creation of 2.5 million new
jobs when he took office.”
In March 2009, President Obama boasted that just “14 days after I
signed our Recovery Act into law we are seeing shovels hit the
ground.”

“At the same time, Vice President Joe Biden, the White House’s de facto
stimulus shepherd, said the stimulus act “provides a necessary jolt to
our economy to implement what we refer [to] as ‘shovel-ready’
projects, meaning projects that were on the books that were needed in
the municipalities and the states that would improve the quality of
life for our constituents, the competitiveness of our businesses, but
were unable to be funded.”

Months later when the economy hadn’t begun to turn around, Obama
continued to promise “shovel-ready” jobs.  In August he bragged that
the stimulus helped fund “almost 100 shovel-ready transportation
projects… which are beginning to create jobs.”

A year later, Biden continues to parrot the White House’s claims that
“shovel-ready” projects were putting Americans to work, despite
stagnate unemployment levels.  “Last summer… we had 1,750 highway
projects that were underway — ‘shovel-ready,’” he said this summer.”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-no-such-thing-as-a-shovel-ready-job/

*** Update from the Guardian September 9, 2011 7:45 AM ***

“President Obama’s jobs speech to Congress – as it happened”

“9.10pm: Here’s a summary of tonight’s speech on jobs by Obama:

• Barack Obama unveiled his American Jobs Act, designed to boost employment and costing $447bn. Obama repeatedly urged Congress to “pass this jobs plan right away”

• The bulk of the plan is for $245bn in reduced payroll taxes, designed to make it cheaper for business to hire new staff, as well as spending on building infrastructure and education, including funds to retain teachers and retraining for the long-term unemployed

• Under the act, an average American family would receive a tax cut of $1,500 in 2012

• Economists said the plan, if adopted in full, could support two million new jobs and cut the unemployment rate from 9% down towards 8%

• But the plan contained little to address the crushing burden of America’s housing market, and for that reason was rejected as “inadequate” by some economists

• Republican leaders gave a tepid but civil welcome to Obama’s speech, without offering specific support, although more conservative Republicans remained staunchly opposed to any new spending

• The new spending and lower revenue would have to be offset by further cuts to the federal budget under the recent debt ceiling deal, to be identified by the congressional “super committee”, with Obama pledging to submit a revised set of budget changes”

Read more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/sep/08/obama-jobs-speech-congress-live

413 Comments

Posted in 2009 Stimulus Bill, Americans, Barack Obama, Budget, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Congress, DC, Deficit, Democrats, Economy, Election 2012, Government, Jobs, Joe Biden, Lies, News, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, republicans, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, US economy, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , , ,

Debt Deal Is Bad News, Glenn Beck Commentary, Moodys warning, Waste and fraud in Federal government

Posted on August 1, 2011 | 105 comments

Debt Deal Is Bad News, Glenn Beck Commentary, Moodys warning, Waste and fraud in Federal government

From Glenn Beck and The Blaze August 1, 2011.

“Glenn Beck Commentary: Why the Debt Deal Is Bad News”

“Don’t be fooled. We’ve just been betrayed by Washington.

A deal on the debt ceiling is near and Washington still hasn’t gotten serious about the fundamentals. It hasn’t gotten serious about default. It certainly hasn’t gotten serious about the future. When Harry Reid hails a “bipartisan compromise” you know we’re doomed.

Republicans and Democrats have just negotiated away the future of our children behind closed doors. The big compromise on Capitol Hill features elaborate triggers, tranches, Hornswogglers, Snozzwangers, Super Duper Commissions that will make the Snozzberries taste like Snozeberries, and a whole bunch of other convoluted gibberish that will, no doubt, come with loopholes and create entire new bureaucracies. What it doesn’t do is fix the problem.

The fact is Moody’s has already warned us that no one has put a plan on the table that comes close to solving our long-term problem. Moody’s will downgrade us. This could happen tomorrow, in six months or maybe a year from now, but at some point in the near future it’s
going to happen. And it’s going to hurt. So we must be prepared.

Imagine your credit card’s interest rates constantly rising. Imagine high inflation eating away at your savings accounts, retirement funds and salary — if you’re lucky enough to have one these days. Imagine the interest rate on your mortgage rising and compounding until there was no hope of escaping debt. Imagine that fewer and fewer people are willing to lend you any money as your credit rating takes a dive.
Now imagine we’re talking about 15, 25, 100 trillion dollars and your Medicare, Social Security and Treasury bonds.

Those tanks and missiles Republicans say we need? No more. Those food stamps and green-energy boondoggles Democrats say we can’t live without? Forget it. We won’t be able to afford them. It won’t matter how many prime time speeches the president gives or how dangerous the
world gets. The unsustainable cost of irresponsible governance mean everyone loses.

And by everyone, I mean the whole world.

Remember the saying: as Greece goes so goes the world? The United States economy constitutes around 25 percent of the world’s GDP. What happens to global economy when we default? Everyone will feel it. After all, who’s going to send billions in weapons to Egypt’s military regime to help it quell the “democratic” Arab street when we can’t even pay the janitors at the IRS office space?

So what is the point of all the drama in Washington? As best as I can tell most politicians are scared stiff that they might have to have a substantive debate about the debt ceiling during the election season. Other than that, we’re back where we started.

For one, any promise of future cuts is as about as rock solid as a politician’s word. Experience has taught us every year some “unprecedented” emergency will require us to spend hundreds of
billions, if not trillions, we don’t have to “fix.” Mark my words, the war (I’m sorry … “kinetic military action”) that no one even understands in Libya will expand and then all the promises forgotten.”

“You cannot spend more than you earn. You cannot run up the largest credit card bill in human history. You want more revenue? Stop chasing income earners overseas by threatening them with higher taxes, stop inflating their energy costs and stop punishing them with never-ending regulations. Mr President, put down your socialist mop! Stop with the Cloward and Piven floor wax.

And then balance the budget, cut back the spending and reform entitlements.”

Read more:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-commentary-why-the-debt-deal-is-bad-news/

105 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, Glenn Beck, Government, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, republicans, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , ,

Debt ceiling compromise, Congress votes today, August 1, 2011, Debt raised $2.1 trillion, Government spending cut $2.4 trillion

Posted on August 1, 2011 | 32 comments

Debt ceiling compromise, Congress votes today, August 1, 2011, Debt raised $2.1 trillion, Government spending cut $2.4 trillion

From Bloomberg August 1, 2011.

“Congressional leaders, leaving no extra time before a default threatened for tomorrow, are racing to push through a compromise sealed with President Barack Obama last night to raise the U.S. debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion and slash government spending by $2.4 trillion or more.

The House plans votes today and the Senate may follow suit to consider the agreement reached during a weekend of negotiations that capped a months-long struggle between Obama and Republicans over raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Both parties were working to sell the deal to their rank and file — meeting resistance from social liberals who fault it for failing to increase taxes and from fiscal conservatives who say it’s insufficient to rein in the debt.

“The leaders of both parties in both chambers have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default,” Obama said in an appearance in the White House briefing room last night as congressional aides were drafting the legislative language. “This compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit-reduction we need. Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default.”

Stocks may rally after the deal, as futures on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index expiring in September gained 1.1 percent to 1302.10 as of 11:01 a.m. in Frankfurt. Treasuries retreated after soaring July 29 in the wake of weaker-than-forecast U.S. economic growth figures. Ten-year notes yielded 2.85 percent, still less than their average 3.06 percent in the past year.”

“Two Installments

Lawmakers who were to vote within hours on the measure were just learning its details. It would raise the debt ceiling in two installments, sufficient to serve the nation’s needs into 2013. The framework, as detailed by officials in both parties, would cut $917 billion in spending over a decade, raise the debt limit initially by $900 billion and assign a special congressional committee to find another $1.5 trillion in deficit savings by late November, to be enacted by Christmas.

If Congress met that deadline and deficit target, or voted to send a balanced-budget constitutional amendment to the states, Obama would receive another $1.5 trillion borrowing boost.

In the case of Congress failing to take either step, or not producing debt savings of at least $1.2 trillion, the plan allows the president to obtain a $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling extension. Still, that would trigger automatic spending cuts across the government — including in defense and Medicare — to take effect starting in 2013. The Medicare cuts would only affect provider reimbursements, not benefits.”

“Concessions Made

In the final stage of negotiations, both sides made concessions. Republicans dropped their insistence on withholding some of the borrowing authority until future spending cuts had been made and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution had been passed by both chambers of Congress. Those terms were included in a bill the House passed narrowly and along party lines July 29, only to see the measure defeated in the Senate less than 24 hours later.

The White House agreed to forgo an automatic tax increase, a sticking point for Republicans, as one of the consequences to kick in if no debt-reduction law was enacted by Christmas.

Even so, Obama has an opportunity to increase revenue in the future if he opts to allow the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush to expire as scheduled in 2013. Even if Obama lost his re-election campaign next year, he could veto legislation to extend those cuts before leaving office — producing an estimated $3.5 trillion.

White House officials said the enforcement mechanisms will help them press Obama’s agenda as further deficit reductions are made, including additional tax revenue.”

Read more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-01/obama-debt-cap-deal-with-congress-leaders-avoids-default-vote-due-today.html

32 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Budget, Congress, Democrats, republicans, US House of Representatives, US Senate, Washington DC, white house

Tagged , , , , ,