News Today

…Thank you, Mr. President.

Some of us were beginning to think you had forgotten about the issue completely….

Somewhat appropriately, Obama’s harshest warning about the U.S. budget deficit came during his recent nine-day trip to Asia. In an interview with Fox News, Obama said his administration was facing a “delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.”

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,” said Obama.

Obama also said he plans to hold a jobs forum with business leaders and financial experts in December to discuss ways to turn around the 10.2% unemployment. After taking office, Obama said, the focus of the administration was avoiding the Great Depression.

“Our first job was to get the economy to recover. And we’re now seeing that,” said Obama. “We’ve seen economic growth (in the third quarter). We anticipate economic growth next quarter as well. I always said the job growth would lag behind economic growth. The question now is how can we accelerate it.”

In an interview with NBC Obama said there was a whole “range of ideas” to give companies an incentive to start hiring again. Two ideas he did note were searching for more export opportunities and possible tax provisions that would encourage businesses to hire “sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines.”

I, like a lot of Americans, have been pretty discouraged by the amount of spending in the Obama administration so far. I don’t even blame Obama completely since it really does take over a thousand pages of legislation to get the Democrats in Congress to reach a consensus on big issues.

Plus, this guy went to Harvard. He’s a smart man. He knows that we can’t keep spending at these levels… right? Right???

Because we really can’t. For the United States to continue to keep borrowing more money at this point is downright irresponsible.

Put it like this, courtesy of China, Japan and a host of other countries, the United States was given an international credit card. A credit card with no spending limit. Then, with all of the excitement of a fifteen year old girl at the Mall of America, we went crazy with it. We racked up a lot of charges and… now we owe almost $12 trillon.

$12,000,000,000,000.

The forecast doesn’t get all that greater over the next few years either. According to the CBO, over half of the $9 trillion in debt that the U.S. is expected to build up over the next decade will be in interest rates alone (see chart).

States across the country are going bankrupt, California is looking at a $21 billion budget gap over the next year and a half. For a more comprehensive look at California’s situation visit NWunderlich, who has been documenting the state’s budget woes for a while now.

At some point our lawmakers need to come together and address this issue. It will take making some tough choices, unpopular choices like spending cuts and tax raises. Measures do need to be taken though.

If not, then President Obama is correct, we will experience a great deal of economic turmoil. The decades of borrowing are adding up, and if we don’t work to correct this soon it may be too late. It’s essential that we move forward with a streamlined and efficient government, one that is in control of its spending.

Sources:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/update–obama-debt-fuel-double-dip-recession/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r4:c0.000000:b28934020:z10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_bi_ge/us_california_budget;_ylt=AjVjPu2jpQ9f4C16RAxoY239xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJuZ3QzZjFjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE4L3VzX2NhbGlmb3JuaWFfYnVkZ2V0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2ZvcmVjYXN0Y2FsaQ–
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/

While working families, pregnant women and children are struggling to get access to scarce doses of the H1N1 vaccine, workers at the New York Stock Exchange, bankers at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and employees at the Federal Reserve have all been given doses of the vaccine.

The bankers at Goldman Sachs have a stockpile of 200 doses of the vaccine. To put this in perspective, that’s the same amount of doses that Lenox Hill Hospital in New York was given. Citigroup has been supplied with over 1,200 units.

This is disgusting, even more so than the bonus-gate scandals.

“If we know that the distribution is the weak part of this entire thing, why not put doctor’s offices and hospitals at the top of the line,” said Dr. Nancy Schnyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor, “and say to corporate America, no matter who you are, you’re you’re going to have to go through clinics and hospitals like everyone else.”

Instead, while hospitals, schools and community health clinics are in desperate need of the H1N1 vaccine, Wall Street’s investment bankers are allowed to just cut in line and secure scarce doses.

If this story makes you feel as disgusted as it made me, I’d urge you to click this link. Clicking will add your signature to a Credo Action petition urging Goldman Sachs to donate their vaccines.

After receiving over $1 billion in taxpayer bailouts during the financial meltdown, being the single-largest recipient of taxpayer money in the AIG bailout, and preparing to give its bankers as much as $23 billion in bonuses while the rest of country struggles through this jobless “recovery” — I’d say it’s the least they could do.

Sources:
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/h1n1_vaccine/
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2009/db2009112_606442.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/swine-flu-vaccine-banks-g_n_346907.html&cp

Regardless of what happens at the polls today in NY-23, one thing is clear. The G.O.P. has a big red problem, one that is likely to get even bigger.

Still think this is astro-turf Nancy Pelosi?

Ask Dede Scozzafava if she thinks it’s not a legitimate grassroots campaign. At the beginning of the month Scozzafava held a 7-point lead over Democrat Bill Owens. Fast forward to today and Scozzafava, the G.O.P. candidate picked for NY-23, has already bowed out of the race and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman holds a slim lead over Owens in polls, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Inspired by their NY-23 victory, conservatives and tea party activists have already set their sights on some other G.O.P. Senate recruits like Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut, Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois and even GOP incumbents like Utah Sen. Bob Bennett.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of Freedom Works, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

NY-23 has brought up some intriguing questions. What will the long-term impact of this conservative infighting be? Could this be the fall of the Republican Party? Are we about to enter a new era in American politics?

Some analysts think so, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. In states from California to Connecticut the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is choosing candidates who appear at first glance to be strong general election prospects in their districts. Nevertheless these candidates are meeting tough resistance from grass-roots level from activists who believe in supporting the conservative cause, even if it means going against the party nominee.

“New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is challenging Crist for the Senate nomination. “They want us to vote for their candidates, but they don’t want us to run for office.”

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/politics3237585;_ylt=AlPTu_LeTcdo21OVPHmfpFBh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2ajVuNTVrBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLXJlYWRpbmdlbGVj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_what_s_at_stake
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091103/pl_politico/29057

While Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made it through the Senate relatively easily (68-31 with 9 Republicans joining a unified Democratic Senate in approving the justice), the rest of President Barack Obama’s lower court nominees are moving at a much slower pace.

Slower than molasses, even.

Only three of his 22 lower court nominees have been confirmed so far and the latest, Roberto Lange (for a federal district court appointment in South Dakota), waited 3 1/2 months to be approved. Gerard Lynch from New York and Jeffrey Viken from South Dakota, the other two nominees to be confirmed, spent a similar amount of time waiting to be approved.

Two unapproved nominees, Andre Davis of Maryland and David Hamilton of Indiana, cleared the Senate judiciary committee almost 150 days ago. Both of them are still waiting for a floor vote. Another nominee, Beverly Martin, has the support of Georgia’s two conservative Republican senators and was unanimously reported out of the Senate judiciary committee almost 50 days ago. She, too, has not received a Senate floor vote.

All in all eight of Obama’s nominees are currently waiting for floor action.

In some ways this is nothing new. Senators in both parties have been guilty for a while now of using procedural tactics to block or delay confirmations. However, as Slate’s Doug Kendall points out, these heavy-handed tactics were typically reserved for controversial candidates whereas the Republicans appear to be contesting them all.

From Kendall’s article:

“To date, however, the tit-for-tat game has played out within a fairly narrow category of nominees who are deemed controversial. While there has never been an agreed-upon definition of what that means—it’s an eye-of-the-beholder type of thing—there has consistently been a large category of nominees that are not considered controversial. They have typically made it easily through the Senate confirmation process, no matter how rough the ride is for their controversial counterparts.”

Let’s compare Obama’s progress with his predecessor. During the last two years of his presidency, George W. Bush’s support was dwindling and he faced a Senate under Democratic control. Still, 26 of Bush’s 68 nominees cleared the floor within 3 months of Bush nominating them and 23 of the Bush nominees were confirmed on the Senate floor within a week of passing out of the judiciary committee.

Bush’s first two years went about the same. A Democratic majority in Congress confirmed 100 of Bush’s nominees in 17 months, even after delays due to a change in party control.

So why is it that the more popular Obama, with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, is having so much trouble?

Again let’s turn to Kendall’s article.

“The emerging Republican strategy is to hold these uncontroversial nominees hostage as pawns in the larger war over President Obama’s agenda and the direction of the federal judiciary. The Senate operates according to a set of arcane rules that allows a minority party to bring the institution to a halt if it chooses to do so. Most bills and nominations pass through the Senate with no debate and only a voice vote on the Senate floor. But this requires every senator to play along. By stonewalling on every nominee so far, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is requiring his counterpart, Sen. Reid, to negotiate, or devote precious floor time, for every judicial confirmation.”

While I can’t say I agree much with Kendall’s description of our government’s checks and balances as “a set of arcane rules,” Kendall goes on to describe why the G.O.P.’s tactics are detrimental to our whole judicial system.

“This is unprecedented and dangerous. There are already 95 vacancies on the federal bench at a time when there is bipartisan agreement that we need more judgeships. The last thing we need is for existing seats in overworked courts to go unfilled.”

“Even more important, Republican obstruction of uncontroversial nominees undermines the one part of the judicial confirmation process that was still working, until now. Well-qualified nominees who enjoy bipartisan support should be able to count on a fair and relatively smooth Senate confirmation process. This is critical because while they’re waiting, the careers of these nominees go on hold. Given the demands of the bench, and the gap between judicial salaries and what these candidates could earn in private practice, the nation is already lucky that top candidates are willing to serve. If we throw in an unpredictable and lengthy confirmation process, the quality of the federal bench—and the dispensation of justice—will unquestionably suffer.”

Sources:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_next_war_over_the_courts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2233309/#return

In a 100-page report titled “Troubled Waters: Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water,” Amnesty International claims Israel is cutting off access to water for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

“This scarcity has affected every walk of life for Palestinians,” Amnesty’s researcher on Israel, Donatella Rovera, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday, ahead of the report’s release. “A greater amount of water has to be granted to them.”

According to the report, water consumption per capita for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is about 70 liters (18 gallons) per day, while Israeli per capita use is 300 liters (79 gallons). On average, Israelis use four times the amount of water per person on than Palestinians.

In the West Bank the Mountain Aquifer is the only source of water for Palestinians. Israel controls the aquifer and over 80 percent of water drawn goes to the Jewish state. As a result, the 450,000 Israelis who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinian residents.

Rovera said the water situation in Gaza, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, had reached a “crisis point.” He also estimated damage to Gaza’s sewer system from the Israeli offensive has left 90 to 95 percent of the water in the region contaminated and unfit for human consumption. To make matters worse, an ongoing Israeli blockade is stopping any supplies for repairs to come in.

Israeli officials denied many of the claims from the report, complaining that Amnesty had neglected to use transparent information provided by the Israeli government.

“Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

“The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission) and handling of sewage.”

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOfJfAnrmQ&feature=player_embedded
http://topics.cnn.com/topics/amnesty_international
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVkvzuni3YkNQU5PikPz4yiPs0GQD9BJA3KO0
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/27/israel.water/

Not in a world where the Joe Wilsons and Alan Graysons dominate headlines and the Keith Olbermanns and Glen Becks dominate airwaves. CNN’s prime-time ratings have been suffering for a while, but never has the news network had as much trouble drawing viewers as they did in October.

CNN was beaten handily by Fox (which isn’t anything new) but also lost to MSNBC and even CNN’s own sister network, HLN.

Individually it doesn’t get much better. Three of its four shows between 7 and 11 p.m. finished fourth and last among the cable news networks. The CNN prime-time shows were beaten convincingly by all the Fox News programs and also lost to all of the MSNBC programs. Even re-runs of Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann faired better than the original cable news network’s shows.

For the month, CNN averaged 202,000 viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 in prime-time slots. Fox News on the other hand averaged 689,000 viewers and MSNBC averaged 250,000. HLN averaged 220,000.

“CNN’s ratings are always going to be more dependent on the news environment, much more so than opinion-based programming especially in prime time,” said CNN in a statement released on Monday.

Sources:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/cnn-drops-to-last-place-among-cable-news-networks/?hp
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/CNN_drops_to_4th_in_primetime.html?showall

Another third party candidate is poised to make a legitimate run in an upcoming special election. Meet Doug Hoffman, a Conservative Party candidate who has been gaining support in his campaign to take over the New York House seat left vacant by the resignation of Republican Representative John McHugh.

The support for Hoffman isn’t just some astro-turf nonsense either. It’s even bigger than a legitimate grassroots uprising. In a surprising coup, many of the Republican Party’s most vocal leaders are also backing the Conservative Party candidate, despite the fact that the G.O.P. already has a candidate in the race, Dede Scozzafava.

On Friday former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum became the latest in a growing list of G.O.P. leaders to endorse Hoffman. That list includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes.

To these conservatives Scozzafava has way too many strikes. A state assembly woman who supports gay marriage rights, abortion rights and is in close with labor?

Palin’s endorsement came on Thursday, and the former governor said that Hoffman “stands for the principles that all Republicans should share” in a statement about her decision. By the way, Hoffman’s campaign reported over $100,000 in campaign donations in the 24 hours following her endorsement.

Still, not all Republican Party leaders are convinced of Hoffman’s credentials, or that it’s a good idea for G.O.P. members to undercut one of their own. Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Scozzafava, offered these grim words of advice for conservatives — “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority.”

. . .

In keeping with the independent theme of the post, Mark Blumenthal of the National Journal had a very interesting article about New Jersey’s Independent gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett. In his article Blumenthal alluded to a “perfect storm” of sorts that Daggett appears to have going for him.

From the article:

“Those who follow politics are familiar with a pattern, evident mostly in primary elections, in which two front-running candidates will battle for months, often with an acrimonious exchange of negative advertising, only to be overtaken by a little-known third candidate who surges from single digits in the campaign’s final weeks.

In almost every case, three dynamics facilitate the also-ran’s rise: Strong performances in campaign debates and endorsements from prominent newspapers boost their name recognition, while a last-minute surge in the polls helps convince voters that the long shot really can win.”

A closer look at New Jersey’s race reveals that Daggett’s campaign is following that pattern. Daggett has been the clear winner in both debates, he’s already won the endorsement of the Newark Star-Ledger and a Thursday Rutgers-Eagleton Poll showed 39% of voters going for Corzine, 36% for Christie and 20 percent for independent Chris Daggett.

All this being said, it’s undeniable that history is against him. Out of the 365 governors to take office since 1970, only five have claimed a political party affiliation other than Democrat or Republican.

Sources:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/yet_another_fight_over_party_i.php
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20091023_1421.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28671.html
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/

One issue that I think will define the next generation, much like the civil rights era did for the baby-boomers, is gay marriage. This is an issue that runs deep in a lot of places across the United States, and even the world.

Gay marriage has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The first recorded mention of same-sex marriage occurred during the early Roman Empire where it was practiced both openly and commonly.

In fact, it wasn’t until 342 AD when the Theodosian Code was issued by the Christian emperor Constantius II that gay marriage became outlawed in Rome. Same-sex marriage didn’t just disappear though, there’s actually evidence that gay marriages were performed in medieval Europe as long as 600 years ago.

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of “registered partnerships”, and in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries to date that give equal marriage status for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the United States gay marriages are not recognized federally, however, same-sex couples can currently marry in six states and receive state level benefits. Several states also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he does support “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”, and called Proposition 8 “unnecessary.”

If you asked 100 U.S. citizens if they supported the issue or not, you’d probably get about the same amount of people in support as you would people against it. If you asked me whether I’d support the issue, you’d get a resounding NO.

Now let me explain myself…

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. This is often an argument you’ll hear from people who are against gay marriage, that marriage cannot be defined as anything but between a man and a woman.

This got me thinking… To me, that seems like something that individual churches could decide a lot better than the federal government. In fact it seems very out of place for our government to be as heavily involved in marriages as they are.

It was in thinking about this that I stumbled (somewhat accidentally) upon my position against gay marriage, or really against marriage itself. There is no reason why our government needs to be involved in the actual marriage process, that is a role much better suited for our church.

I believe the government should offer civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships — whatever you want to call it — to anyone and everyone. These partnerships should have equal protection and rights, regardless of the couple’s sexual preference. That’s only fair, and what we have right now is far from being fair.

In fact, a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges,’” including complete ineligibility for same-sex couples for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

Besides, the other positive about this kind of a solution is that the actual “marriage” issue (whether marriage is a term that applies only to a man and a woman) would be left up to individual churches, where it belongs. This way if a church did not want to recognize/perform gay marriages, then they would not be forced to.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/21/readers-respond-to-obamas-complex-stance-on-gay-unions-.html

Today the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners for trials in the United States. The measure passed by a 79-19 vote after being tacked on as part of the $44.1 billion budget bill for the Homeland Security Department.

This marks a step forward on the issue for the President, who ordered the facility closed within a year in January. Obama will now be able to sign the measure that already passed the House.

Tuesday’s plan requires the administration to develop a plan before any more transfers can occur. It also requires at least 15 days’ notice before a transfer can occur and a “certification that the prisoner does not represent a security risk.”

Navy Rear Adm. Tom Copeman, the prison camp commander, told reporters that he could clear out the detention center within ten days.

“If they say on Jan. 12, ‘Move them out,’ we can meet the deadline,” said Copeman, “given the proper amount of logistical support.”

Copeman didn’t mention how much the logistical support would cost, although he did say that he would need the use of the C-17 Globemaster aircraft to move the detainees.

Interestingly enough, this all happened on the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of men who have challenged the U.S. government’s right to hold them at the Guantanamo Bay detention center after it’s been determined they pose no threat to the USA.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo_prisoners
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/77476.html#
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/as_high_court_takes_new_case_n.html

U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out almost one third of President Hamid Karzai’s votes from Afghanistan’s August election. Of the five million votes cast, over 1.3 million were found to be fraudulent.

The findings by the Electoral Complaints Commission dropped Karzai’s votes below the 50 percent threshold needed for him to avoid a runoff. The Afghan president has been under increasing pressure to accept a runoff election with former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and is expected to announce his intentions on Tuesday.

After weeks of threatening to contest the panel’s findings and complaining about foreigners influencing the election too much, Karzai campaign spokesman Waheed Omar said yesterday that the Karzai camp was waiting for the election commission to formally certify the U.N.-backed panel’s findings before deciding what to do.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that she was “encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.”

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan