Politics of Politics

Re-Elect Barack Obama 2012

2011-02-12T11:19:00.001-06:00

http://my.barackobama.com

Editorial Boards Continue to Praise President Obama’s State of the Union Address

2011-01-27T20:18:00.002-06:00

By Josh Cohen from http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/joshcohen/gGMbcS?override_wrapper_id=7w3hc

Editorial boards from newspapers across the country continue to praise President Obama’s State of the Union address this week. Calling it “[t]he right tone for a hard time” and an “optimistic, pragmatic vision,” these editorials attest that President Obama’s speech laid out a vision for our country’s future that resonates with the American public. Here’s what they’re saying.

Portland Press Herald: “President's address a call to action on jobs.”“But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs."LINK

Wilmington News Journal: “Obama sets civil tone for 'shared responsibility.'”“President Obama took advantage of a brief "thaw" between Republicans and Democrats and presented a State of the Union address last night that frequently hit on issues that affect all Americans. We hope that his invitation to talk about the issues he put on the table are taken up by all sides in the same open, civil tone.” LINK

Time: “Obama's SOTU Success: Making Democrats the Party of Optimism.”“Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union was …the beginning of a new era, a return to business as usual. LINK

San Jose Mercury News: “Obama lays out optimistic, pragmatic vision.”“President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday presented a stirring but pragmatic vision for the nation, giving Americans something to rally around: The notion that the United States can still do "big things" even while confronting its massive deficit.”LINK

Courier Journal: “Winning the future.”“The President’s tone was measured, undoubtedly so as not to seem opportunistically partisan, and Republicans seemed careful to appear respectful. …His call to invest in scientific research, new energy sources, infrastructure replacement and education were on the mark.” LINK

The Day: “President Obama: “Future is ours to win.”“In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama spoke of contradictory challenges facing the nation. To compete globally and to achieve a strong economic rebound from the recent recession, the United States needs to rebuild its transportation infrastructure, expand high-speed Internet nationwide, diminish its dependence on foreign oil by investing in new energy technologies and reinvigorate an education system that lags behind other nations in student performance.” LINK

Minnesota Daily: “We can “win the future.” “But Obama’s basic point was right: We can “win the future” by reinvesting in American innovation and education.” LINK

Here are some additional headlines from editorials around the country.

Albany Times Union: “For America, another Sputnik.”LINK

Boston Globe: “Obama’s stark, bold challenge: rise to this ‘Sputnik moment.”LINK

Roanoke Times: “Obama presented ideas that Republicans should be able to embrace.” LINK

Fayetteville Observer: “An inspirational speech that drew a strongly positive response in post-speech polling.”LINK

Raleigh News and Observer: “Call to reason.”LINK

Waterloo Record: “Inspiring words from a president.”LINK

Tulsa World: “President set goals for next year.”LINK

Tampa Bay Tribune: “The future of the union.”LINK

Arizona Daily Star: “Obama also highlighted the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together.”LINK

Got Questions About the State of the Union?

2011-01-26T11:01:00.002-06:00

Posted by Sarah Bernard on January 26, 2011 at 11:50 AM EST

Do you have questions about any of the topics President Obama discussed in his State of the Union Address last night? Over the next few days we will do our best to answer as many of them as possible. We’ve lined up plenty of ways you can get involved and ask your questions answered about the topics you care about the most.

Check out the line-up below, find a way to ask your question, and be sure to tune in for the answers.

TODAY, WEDNESDAY

Twitter Interview
Follow @PressSec on Twitter to find out when we’ll be taking your questions, then respond to@PressSec using the hashtag #1Q and watch for video responses from a special guest early this afternoon.

TOMORROW, THURSDAY

11:30 a.m. EST: Economy Roundtable with Austan Goolsbee, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Submit your questions through MSNMoney, Mint.com, and Examiner.com. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live to watch the live event.
1:00 p.m. EST: Foreign Policy Roundtable Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor.
Submit your questions through ForeignPolicy.com, Economist.com, and Military.com. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live to watch the live event.
2:30 p.m. EST: Live YouTube interview with President Barack Obama.
Submit your questions or vote for your favorite questions at YouTube.com/AskObama. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live to watch the live event.
3:15 p.m. EST: Education Roundtable with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Submit your questions on mtvU, GOOD, BabyCenter, and PBS Teachers. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live to watch the live event.
4:30 p.m. EST: Health Care Roundtable with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
Submit your questions on WebMD, AOL Health, Nurse.com, and Medscape. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live to watch the live event.
Yahoo! Interview with Vice President Joe Biden.
Yahoo! will be sitting down with Vice President Biden asking him your questions on Thursday afternoon. Go to Yahoo! to submit your question and check back again to see his answers.

Republicans Vote to Repeal Health Reform

2011-01-20T13:20:00.000-06:00

Thousands of Organizing for America volunteers campaigned yesterday in support of health reform. They told lawmakers across the country how important the Affordable Care Act is to millions of Americans, millions of families and to our economy.

Today, Republicans in the House of Representatives ignored the reasoned and impassioned views and experiences of their constituents and all 242 Republican members voted to repeal health reform. This was a vote in favor of increasing the deficit by $230 billion; a vote in favor of allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; a vote to take away the benefits that millions of Americans are already receiving because of the Affordable Care Act.

This is not the end of the fight. Today’s vote will not lead to the immediate repeal of health reform. President Obama and Democrats in the Senate have vowed to do all they can to stop this becoming law. But it is the start of Republican attempts to undo all the progress we’ve made. Over the next two years they will try all that they can to take away from Americans the progress we’ve made--starting with health reform.

It’s up to us to defend our achievements, to stand up for the American people. We need all of us to stand together to protect our progress--join the fight here.

The White House YouTube Channel’s Top 10 of 2010

2011-01-05T09:07:00.000-06:00

Posted by Kori Schulman

Ed. Note: In case you missed it, check out the W hite House blog’s Top 10 of 2010.

Take a look back at the top ten most viewed videos of 2010 from the White House YouTube channel. You can stay up to date with the latest White House videos by subscribing to the White House YouTube channel.

1. President Obama and Jay Leno at White House Correspondents Dinner

President Obama and Jay Leno trade jokes at the 2010 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in Washington, D.C.

2. President Obama: It Gets Better

As part of the It Gets Better Project, President Obama shares his message of hope and support for LGBT youth who are struggling with being bullied.

3. President Obama at Michigan Commencement

President Obama speaks at the 2010 University of Michigan commencement ceremony in Ann Arbor, MI.

4. The 2010 State of the Union Address

President Obama speaks about restoring security for middle class families after a lost decade of declining wages, eroding retirement security and escalating health care and tuition costs.

5. President Obama Honors Paul McCartney

The President hails Paul McCartney's contribution to popular music and song during a ceremony to present the singer with the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize.

6. President Obama's Oval Office Address on BP Oil Spill & Energy

The President addresses the American people from the Oval Office for the first time on the ongoing Administration-wide response to the BP oil spill and America's clean energy future.

7. Vice President Biden on Rep. Joe Barton's Apology to BP

Vice President Joe Biden responds to Joe Barton's statements about BP during a White House Press Briefing.

8. Clinton Bush Haiti Fund PSA

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush urge everyone to help the people of Haiti after the devastating January 12th earthquake.

9. Behind-the-Scenes Look: Time-Lapse Of The White House Christmas Tree

Watch a behind-the-scenes time lapse of the official White House Christmas Tree in the Blue Room of the White House, showing the work and energy that goes into decorating the White House for the holidays.

10. Weekly Address: Merry Christmas from the President & First Lady

President Obama and the First Lady wish families across the country a "Merry Christmas" and encourage everyone to support the troops and their families this holiday season.

Back to the White House

2011-01-05T09:05:00.000-06:00

Posted by Jesse Lee

This morning the First Family returned to the White House from Hawaii:

President Barack Obama waves as he, First Lady Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha, arrive on the South Lawn of the White House on Marine One, January 4, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

On the flight back the President spoke briefly with reporters, exchanging a few pleasantries and discussing his shaved ice preferences ("I'm a plain shaved ice guy. No beans, no ice cream, no sweet milk on top"). But the President also addressed what he expects to see in Congress in the weeks ahead:

Q A serious question: Are you concerned you're going to get a chilly reception in Washington? Republicans, on Sunday, were talking about the first thing they’re going to do is repeal health care. They’re talking about asking you to get rid of Eric Holder, the Attorney General. It sounds like a relatively chilly reception awaiting you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, I think that there’s going to be politics. That's what happens in Washington. They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time. But I'm pretty confident that they’re going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that were creating a competitive economy for the 21st century; not just for this generation but the next one.
And so my expectation, my hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012, and that our job this year is to make sure that we build on the recovery. We started to make good progress on that during the lame duck, and I expect to build on that progress when I get back.

Obama considers JPMorgan executive

2011-01-04T10:51:00.002-06:00

January 4, 2011

Text size – +

WASHINGTON — President Obama is considering naming William Daley, aJPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former US Commerce secretary, to a high-level White House post, possibly as his chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

Such a move, which is still under discussion and which White House officials wouldn’t confirm, would bring a Washington veteran — and someone with strong business ties — into the administration as Obama enters the second half of his term. The president is faced with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and is trying to accelerate the economic recovery while addressing the budget deficit.

Daley, 62, did not respond to requests for comment yesterday. White House officials declined to discuss the matter.

“I’m not going to comment on personnel speculation,’’ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in an e-mail.

As he remakes his staff at the midway point of his presidency, Obama also is seeking to address complaints from some executives that the Democratic administration is antibusiness. Daley is JPMorgan’s Midwest chairman and the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.

Among the pressing personnel decisions Obama must make is naming a successor to Lawrence Summers as head of the National Economic Council, which could come as early as this week. Gene Sperling, a counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has emerged as the leading candidate for the post.

Yale University President Richard Levin and Roger Altman, the founder ofEvercore Partners Inc., are under consideration for the NEC post as well. —BLOOMBERG NEWS

House Republicans set vote on health care law repeal

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders in the new House say they will hold a vote next week to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The announcement of the Jan. 12 vote by the number two House Republican, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, sets the stage for a showdown with the Democrat-led Senate.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada said earlier yesterday that Democrats in that chamber will block any attempt to repeal the legislation extending coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people. — ASSOCIATED PRESS

King Center to honor the late Senator Kennedy

Edward M. Kennedy will receive a posthumous award for his decades of work advancing the cause of civil rights and preserving the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., the King Center said yesterday.

“No US senator worked harder to secure the kind of social, economic, and humanitarian reforms needed to fulfill my father’s dream,’’ said Martin Luther King III, president of the center, in a statement.

The Salute to Greatness award is an annual honor but this year’s commemoration also recognizes the 25th anniversary of the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday. Kennedy was a leading sponsor of the congressional measure declaring the holiday, which was first observed Jan. 20, 1986.

Kennedy’s first major speech on the Senate floor was in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Kennedy is credited with protecting many civil rights acts of the 1960s, including the Voting Rights Act, from the Reagan administration’s attempts to dismantle them.

Kennedy died of brain cancer in 2009. His widow, Victoria Kennedy, will accept the award Jan. 15.

Also, the Atlanta center announced that the corporate greatness award will go to Ben and Jerry’s, with cofounders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield accepting the award. The firm is based in Vermont. — GLOBE STAFF

Obama: 'Plenty of time to campaign in 2012'

2011-01-04T10:45:00.002-06:00

By: CNN's Alison Harding

(CNN) – President Obama said early Tuesday that he hopes Republican leaders "realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012."

During a surprise visit to the press cabin aboard Air Force One on his way back from his vacation in Hawaii, Obama said he hopes to build on the progress made during last month's lame-duck session.

"My hope is that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will realize that there will be plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012. And that our job this year is to make sure that we build on recovery," Obama said.

On Monday, House Republicans announced that they plan to address one of their top campaign issues – repealing the health care reform law - immediately after taking control of the House, and that a final vote on a repeal will likely take place next Wednesday.

Obama did not specifically address the GOP's plans, but acknowledged, "there's gonna be politics, that's what happens in Washington" when asked if he expects a chilly reception from the new Republican majority.

"They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time. But I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we are creating a competitive economy for the 21st Century," Obama said.

The White House Blog's Top 10 of 2010

2011-01-04T09:07:00.000-06:00

Supporting Our Military Families (Includes Video)
On Independence Day, First Lady Michelle Obama shares a special message for all Americans about supporting military families.
On The One Year Anniversary Of The Photo of the Day (Includes Photos)
On the one year anniversary of the "Photo of the Day," Pete Souza, Chief Official White House Photographer and Director of the White House Photography Office, selects his ten favorites.
State of the Union Address: Putting Washington at the Service of the Middle Class (Includes Video)
Deputy Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen gives a run-down of some key policy points in the President's State of the Union Address.
Another Government Shutdown?
Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer discusses the House Republicans agenda.
What's in the Health Care Bill?
White House Director of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle outlines the key benefits of health reform for individual Americans.
"On Behalf of My Mother" (Includes Video)
The President signs health reform into law and in the process created a future for the country in which Americans and small businesses are in control of their own health care, not the insurance industry.
This is What Change Looks Like (Includes Video)
After a historic vote in the House to send health reform to the President, he speaks to all Americans on the change they will finally see as they are given back control over their own health care.
President Obama and Vice President Biden’s Tax Returns
View the President and Vice President's 2010 tax returns.
President Obama: It Gets Better (Includes Video)
As part of the It Gets Better Project, President Obama shares his message of hope and support for LGBT youth who are struggling with being bullied.
The President Holds an Open Discussion Across the Aisle (Includes Video)
The President leads something unusual in American politics – an open dialogue with members of the opposite party.

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Summary Before The Next Round

2011-01-03T14:22:00.002-06:00

On the eve of Palin's latest version of reality, the Dish offers a recap of all the demonstrable lies she has told in the public record. We reprint the list as a public service and invite readers to run the new "book" through exactly the same empirical wringer, so we can compile an up-to-date and comprehensive list of the fantasies, delusions, lies and non-facts that Palin is so pathologically and unalterably attached to. Remember: we are not including contested stories that we cannot prove definitively one way or another or the usual spin that politicians use, or even hypocrisy or shading of facts. We are merely including things she has said or written that can be definitively proven as untrue, by incontestable evidence in the public record.

After you have read these, ask yourself: what wouldn't Sarah Palin lie about if she felt she had to?

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.

Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.

Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.

Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an oil gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.

Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

Palin lied when she recalled asking her daughters to vote on whether she should accept the VP offer; in fact, her story contradicts details given by her husband, the McCain campaign, and even Palin herself. (She later added another version.)

Palin lied when she claimed to have taken a voluntary pay cut as mayor; in fact, as councilmember she had voted against a raise for the mayor, but subsequent raises had taken effect by the time she was mayor.

Palin lied when she insisted that Wooten's divorce proceedings had caused his confidential records to become public; in fact, court officials confirmed they released no such records.

Palin lied when she suggested to Katie Couric that she was involved in trade missions with Russia; in fact, she has never even met with Russian officials.

Palin lied when she told Shimon Peres that the only flag in her office was the Israeli flag; in fact, she has several flags.

Palin lied when she claimed to have tried to divest government funds from Sudan; in fact, her administration openly opposed a bill that would have done just that.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed that troop levels in Iraq were back to pre-surge levels; in fact, even she acknowledged her "misstatements," though she refused to retract or apologize.

Palin lied when she insisted that the Branchflower Report "showed there was no unlawful or unethical activity on my part"; in fact, that report prominently stated, "Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Palin lied when she claimed to have voiced concerns over Wooten fearing he would harm her family; in fact, she actually decreased her security detail during that period.

Palin lied when asked about the $150,000 worth of clothes provided by the RNC; in fact, solid reporting contradicted several parts of her statement.

Palin lied when she suggested that she had offered the media proof of her pregnancy with Trig to "correct the record"; in fact, no reports of her medical records were ever published; and the letter from her doctor testifying to her good health only emerged hours before polling ended on election day, even though there was nothing in it that couldn't have been released two months earlier.

Palin lied when she said that "reported" allegations of her banning Harry Potter as mayor was easily refutable because it had not even been written yet; in fact, the first book in that series was published in 1998 - two years into her first term - and such rumors were never reported by the media, only circulated as emails.

Palin lied when she denied having participated in a clothes audit with campaign laywers; in fact, the Washington Times later confirmed those details.

Palin lied when asked about Couric's question regarding her reading habits; in fact, Couric's words were not, "What do you read up there in Alaska?" or anything close to condescension.

Palin lied when she mischaracterized the "$1200 check" given to Alaskans as the permanent fund dividend check; in fact, that fund had yielded $2,069 per person, and she claimed otherwise to obscure the fact that Alaskans also received a $1200 rebate check from a windfall profits tax on oil companies - a tax widely criticized by Republicans.

Palin lied when she claimed to be unaware of a turkey being slaughtered behind her during a filmed interview; in fact, the cameraman said she had picked the spot herself, while the slaughter was underway.

Palin lied when she denied having rejected federal stimulus money; in fact, she continued to accept and reject the funds several times.

Palin lied when she claimed that legislative leaders had canceled a meeting with her to hold their own press conference; in fact, they only canceled it after being told she would not participate, and the purpose of the press conference was very different from the meeting's.

Palin lied when she announced on the news that she never holds closed-door meetings; in fact, she had just attended a closed-door meeting with the legislature earlier that day.

Palin lied when she said that former aide John Bitney's "amicable" departure was for "personal" reasons; in fact, Bitney said he was fired because of his relationship with the wife of Palin's friend, plus a Palin spokesperson later claimed "poor job performance" for his firing - without elaborating.

Palin lied when she said she kept her running injury a secret on the campaign trail; in fact, her bandaged hand was clearly visible in photographs and the story was widely talked about.

Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska has spent "millions of dollars" on litigation related to her ethics complaints; in fact, that figure is much, much lower, and she had initiated the most expensive inquiry.

Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party's very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years.

The Daily Dish

TRENDING: Palin 2012: can she win or can't she?

2011-01-03T14:16:00.000-06:00

By: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) – With the Republican presidential race expected to officially gear up in the coming weeks, Sunday brought divergent predictions from two prominent Republicans on just how viable a Sarah Palin candidacy could be.

The divergent opinions are illustrative of the ongoing debate within the Republican Party - especially between the new and old guard - over whether Palin will prove to be more of a force for good or bad in the coming months as the party sets its sights on ensuring President Obama is limited to one term.

Speaking on ABC's This Week, longtime conservative columnist George Will ruled out any possibility the former Alaska governor could be victorious in a general election contest, which is usually decided by swing suburban voters who hold more moderate positions than those that Palin espouses.

"The president's secret weapon may be the Republican nominating electorate," he said. There is one person, high in the polls, Sarah Palin, who cannot be elected president because she cannot compete where elections are decided. In the collar counties outside Chicago, Montgomery County outside of Philadelphia- just can't compete there."

Will is placing his bet on outgoing Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, should he decide to run.

But newly-elected Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania offered a different assessment of the former vice presidential nominee's chances on NBC's Meet the Press, saying she could sway Pennsylvania's swing electorate by focusing on the same fiscal issues he campaigned on.

"We went into this election cycle with a 1.2 million voter registration deficit and with a Republican brand that was in a really bad way, and I still won this election," he said. "So, I think the electorate wants a return of economic growth, wants serious fiscal discipline. If they believe they've got a candidate that's going to deliver on those things, then it's possible."

A third Republican meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, wouldn't name Palin directly when asked to size up the 2012 presidential field, saying instead that he wants "the most electable conservative, whoever that is."

Graham added that person is likely to be former presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"Mitt Romney has got his problems as a candidate, but so does everyone else," Graham said Meet the Press

GOP agenda: Major impact may be on 2012 election

2011-01-02T10:05:00.002-06:00

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press – 2 hrs 59 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Republican agenda for the new Congress that convenes Wednesday may have a greater impact on the 2012 elections than on the lives of Americans in the next two years.

Republicans promise to cut spending, roll back President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and prevent unelected bureaucrats from expanding the government's role in society through regulations that tell people what they must or can't do. Getting this agenda through the House may be easier than in the Senate, given the GOP's 241-194 majority in the House. Getting the Senate to act will be a challenge. Democrats still hold an edge there, though smaller than the one Obama had during his first two years in the White House.

Even if the next two years end in gridlock, Republicans will have built a record for the next election that they hope will demonstrate to voters that they can get it right.

House Republicans also pledge to hold tough investigations and hearings on the president's programs and policies, ending the free pass that Democratic committee chairmen gave the Obama administration the past two years.

Republicans insist they'll bring key administration officials before congressional microphones and that the public can watch the webcasts. The friendly tone of inquiry from Democratic chairmen will be replaced by Republicans demanding answers to these questions: What's the purpose of this program? Is this the best use of the taxpayers' money?

The chief Republican investigator, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, is raring to get started, and he's not alone. Issa, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and GovernmentReform Committee, has been especially critical of what he calls waste in Obama's economic stimulus spending.

Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, incoming leader of the House Appropriations Committee, says he wants top officials from all major government agencies to appear and justify their spending.

The next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican Fred Upton of Michigan, says he'll work to stop over-zealous government regulators. A big target for him is the Environmental Protection Agency, which is writing rules to limit greenhouse gases blamed for global warming after Obama's effort to get Congress to do it stalled in the Senate last year. Upton, like Issa, will have a large investigative staff.

"Republicans need to make sure they bring forward solutions, even though it may be difficult to get them accomplished," Rep.-elect Kristi Noem, R-S.D., said in an interview. She said the lesson from the November election is, "The American people will replace people if they're no longer in touch or listening."

Noem benefited from that view, defeating Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Noem has risen to the forefront of the freshman class; she was chosen to serve in the GOP leadership.

In the Senate, there's a chance the Democrats will replace Republicans as the party of "no," assuming the House GOP passes much of its agenda. Democrats will control the Senate 51-47 with two independents, and only need 41 votes to block initiatives that arrive from the House.

Among the reasons that the Republican agenda will likely have a bigger impact on the next election than on the day-to-day lives of most Americans are:

_Much of the government spending has been politically untouchable. About 60 percent goes for entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The nation also is paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and major reconstruction projects in those countries. Both parties have considered it politically foolish to mess with Medicare and Social Security. Also, Republicans don't have a clean record as budget cutters.

"Spending restraint on the Republican side is a theory yet to be proven," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the budget-watching Concord Coalition. He noted that Democratic President Bill Clinton's budget surplus turned into deficit under Republican George W. Bush.

_Obama may be more willing to compromise with Republicans than in his first two years, but he will fight repealing the health care law. Senate Democrats will almost certainly stop major revisions. If for some reason they don't, Obama will use his veto to stop them.

_Republican attempts to overturn regulations on issues such as global warming also could falter in the Senate. When the EPA announced just before Christmas that it planned to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants and oil refineries, Upton said, "We will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate." Senate Democrats may have a different view.

Many eyes in the new session will focus on Issa, who will have subpoena power and can investigate any government program.

Issa has played good cop and bad cop. He criticized Obama's most important programs, including the economic stimulus. But less than a month after the Republicans won big in November, he had a private peace meeting with Vice President Joe Biden. Neither is shy about entering a political brawl, but initially they have pledged to work together against waste and for openness in tracking government spending.

Issa has not discouraged articles suggesting he will send the administration subpoenas by the trainload. But he also wants to give subpoena power to nonpolitical government watchdogs — inspectors general — and let them use that authority to uncover fraud, waste and abuse. With a degree of political cover, Issa could then use those findings to conduct his own investigations.

If the peace pact between Biden and Issa holds, there are other issues where the Obama administration and congressional Republicans can compromise — as they did on extending Bush-era tax cuts for all, coupled with an extension of unemployment benefits sought by the president.

The incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, favors overhauling tax laws. So does Obama.

"The tax code is longer than the Bible, but without the happy ending," Camp has said. "What we need is a comprehensive reform of the tax code that expands the tax base and lowers rates by being fairer, simpler and conducive to growth."

That's not too far, in theory, from Obama's desire to "simplify confusing provisions in the tax code, encouraging saving and creating a tax system that works for all Americans." The challenge will be in reaching agreement on the details.

There could be times when Obama will be closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats, who were furious that Obama agreed to continue tax cuts for the wealthy — and to levy inheritance taxes only on the very richest Americans.

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, who is being replaced as the House's majority leader, was asked by a reporter near the end of the last Congress how much trust exits between Obama and liberals.

"On a scale of one to 10 I'm not going to give you how much," he said. "As you know, I'm not willing to kind of create or affirm a breach between the White House and the Congress. I think there's always tension and there should be."

Obama calls for cooperation in 2011

2011-01-02T09:57:00.000-06:00

Associated Press / January 2, 2011
E-mail|

Print|

Reprints|

Comments (1076)

HAWAII

HONOLULU — President Obama said Democrats and Republicans must work together in the new year and share responsibility for moving the country forward. In his weekly radio and Internet address yesterday, Obama said, “I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.’’ Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire delivered the Republican weekly address. “We’re keenly aware that the American people are relying on us to change business-as-usual in Washington, and we’re well positioned to do just that,’’ she said.
Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!

Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis

OHIO
Sheriff’s deputy, suspect are killed
ENON — A sheriff’s deputy investigating a report of gunfire at a western Ohio trailer park was shot and killed, and the suspect was killed after a standoff. Clark County Sheriff Gene Kelly said Deputy Suzanne Hopper, 40, had two children. Kelly said a police officer was wounded in a shootout with the suspect. He said authorities are investigating whether police gunfire killed the suspect.

MISSOURI
Injured victim of tornado 7th to die
KANSAS CITY — A seventh person died in the aftermath of tornadoes that touched down in several states in the final hours of 2010. Six victims — three in Missouri and three in Arkansas — died Friday as tornadoes pummeled the South and Midwest. A seventh victim who was injured Friday in the Missouri town of Rolla died yesterday at a hospital in Columbia, said Bruce Southard, the chief of the Rolla Rural Fire Department.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.

The G.O.P Creed

2011-01-01T21:09:00.002-06:00

To be so strong in our conviction in the manner we spread our vile to divide the country.

To derail health care for the masses so we can continue to receive kick backs and campaign contributions from the insurance companies who own us.

To look for faults with good ideas that did not result from the small mined G.O.P think tank.

To do what’s best for the G.O.P and not the country.

To be enthusiastic about the failures of the government and not its successes.

To embellish and relive the failures of the Obama administration over and over and over.

To scare the hell out of the American people by using highly sensitive words such as war on terror, death panels, socialism.

To proclaim the G.O.P’s word as the word of God.

To Write policies according to their constituency on K Street and Wall Street

To get their all-American talking points from Rev Moon, Korean (Washington Times) and Rupert Murdoch, Australian (Fox, WSJ, NY Post)

This page is never ending. To add to our growing list simply email your G.O.P creed to nreagan@politicsofpolitics.com

"Pls refer to Jan.1 tax changes appropriately: they're OBAMA TAX HIKES & they'll slam every American's savings, investments & job opportunity"

2011-01-01T11:21:00.001-06:00

'Obama tax hikes'? Just as easily call them the Bush tax hikes. (Another Lie by the Dumb Alaskan)

Sarah Palin has been traveling the country this week promoting her new book, America by Heart, and her new reality television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska. But she's still taking time to comment through her Twitter account on national tax policy.

"Pls refer to Jan.1 tax changes appropriately: they're OBAMA TAX HIKES & they'll slam every American's savings, investments & job opportunity," Palin wrote on Dec. 1.

We'll give Palin credit for cramming a ton of tax policy into the 140 character-limit on the Twitter messaging service. But is her statement accurate?

To answer this question, we need to deconstruct the tweet almost word by word.

We'll start with the "Jan.1 tax changes." As of today, the law, which was backed by President George W. Bush, states that the nation's current tax rates will expire on Jan. 1, 2011, and revert back to the rates in place prior to 2001.

Tax rates differ depending on your income. But here's how the tax brackets would look on a before-and-after basis for married couples filing jointly based on their incomes. For simplicity, we're ignoring modest adjustments for inflation. Tax brackets for other categories such as individual filers broadly follow the same pattern.

• Up to $16,750: Rate rises from 10 percent to 15 percent
• From $16,751 to $58,200: Stays same at 15 percent, but entire bracket pays 5 percent additional on the first $16,750
• From $58,201 to $68,000: Rises from 15 percent to 28 percent
• From $68,001 to $137,300: Rises from 25 percent to 28 percent
• From $137,301 to $209,250: Rises from 28 percent to 31 percent
• From $209,251 to $373,650: Rises from 33 percent to 36 percent
• $373,651 and up: Rises from 35 percent to 39.6 percent

We have noticed that Palin and some other Republicans talk as if Obama and the Democrats want to see tax rates go up for all incomes. That's not the case.

President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to keep the same tax rates for couples making less than $250,000 and individuals making less than $200,000. He has consistently maintained that position, as do most Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, want the current tax rates to stay in place for everyone. Will Obama and Congress be able to reach an agreement? They're negotiating as we report this, so that's a question we can't answer.

The tax rates are expiring on Jan. 1, 2011, because of the way they were created in the first place. Back in 2001 and again in 2003, Republicans used a process known as reconciliation that only requires 50 votes to pass the Bush tax cuts. (You might remember that Democrats used reconciliation to pass part of the health care bill earlier this year.)

But there are a number of rules that govern reconciliation, and one of those rules says that you can't include things that affect the budget for more than 10 years. That's why the tax cuts are expiring. Republicans didn't have the 60 votes they needed in the Senate to make the tax cuts permanent.

We should point out that the 2001 reconciliation bill passed in the Senate with some Democratic support, 58-33. In 2003, the vote was closer, 50-50, with then vice president Dick Cheney breaking the tie.

"Republicans very deliberately engineered this set of tax cuts to expire after 10 years," said Norman Ornstein, a long-time observer of Congress and politics and a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "They did it for utterly political reasons." Palin's statement is "a vast stretch of the truth," he said.

The ten-year limit also masked the effects that the new tax rates would have on the deficit in later years, he said. Both parties now want to continue most of the tax rates that will significantly increase the deficit, even as they say they want to fix the budget picture. "This is one area where neither party can be proud," he added. "Nobody is standing entirely on principle."

Palin calls the tax changes "OBAMA TAX HIKES & they'll slam every American's savings, investments & job opportunity." If she's talking about all the tax cuts expiring, though, you would also have to give some blame to the people who passed the temporary tax cuts in the first place: President George W. Bush and previous Congresses. And they certainly wouldn't belong to Obama alone, since it would take a gridlocked Congress to fail to produce any legislation.

But there's an alternate reading. Let's say Palin is only talking about Obama's stated plan, which is tax increases for the wealthy. Then she would be more accurate. Here's what Daniel Mitchell, an economist and senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, said when we asked him about it:

"Obama wants the higher tax rates to happen, so I definitely think it's fair to link him to the policy (though I also thinks it's fair for people to castigate Bush for adopting tax cuts with expiration dates)," Mitchell said. "The accuracy of the 'every American' accusation depends on how narrowly you want to measure impact. A narrow look, which counts only direct effects, would lead one to say that the 'rich' are the ones getting penalized. Economists, however, look at indirect effects such as the impact on investment and job creation. And that's why lower and middle income Americans would be adversely affected. I'm an economist, so I think her statements (on this issue) are accurate."

In September, the conservative Heritage Foundation released a paper titled "Obama Tax Hikes: The Economic and Fiscal Effects," that made a similar case that tax increases on higher incomes will affect economic growth and thus hurt all taxpayers.

Left-leaning analysts see it differently, though.

"I think there's a great irony here," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "All the focus is on the Bush tax cuts, but Obama cut taxes, too. And they don't really talk about that, but the Republicans want to stop it."

Marr is talking about tax cuts included in the economic stimulus act. The tax cuts were implemented right away and the Internal Revenue Service issued new withholding tables, so people saw small increases in their regular paychecks. The problem is that the increases were small enough that a lot of people didn't notice them. A New York Times/CBS News Poll in September showed that fewer than one in 10 people knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for American workers.

The Obama tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and like the income tax rates, it's not clear whether Congress will act to extend them.

"It's very strange because you have this populist anger over taxes, and the working class is probably going to have to pay higher taxes next year," Marr added.

We then turned to Bob Williams, an economist with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. He said he didn't think it was accurate to call tax increases "Obama's tax hikes," because Obama has proposed extending the current rates for the vast majority of tax payers. He said assigning blame for the expiration of the tax increases is probably less useful than deciding what tax policy should be in the future.

"What really matters is where you end up," he said.

Getting back to our ruling statement, Palin said that "Pls refer to Jan.1 tax changes appropriately: they're OBAMA TAX HIKES & they'll slam every American's savings, investments & job opportunity." This pretty clearly makes it sound like Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone, which is not the case. Also, if you want to give Obama the blame, you'd also have to give a good portion of blame to the current Congress. It's been well-known that the tax cuts are going to expire, and there was nothing stopping the Democratic-controlled Congress from addressing the issue earlier. Finally, you'd also have to give some blame to Bush and the previous Congresses for passing tax cuts that expire. So we don't think Palin's statement is accurate and we rate it False.

Politifact.com

The Lie of the Year: Health Reform is a “Government Takeover of Health Care”

2011-01-01T11:09:00.000-06:00

Posted by Stephanie Cutter on December 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM EST

As we’ve worked to implement the Affordable Care Act and give the American people the security of knowing that their health care will be there when they need it most, opponents of reform haven't been shy about making claims that are at odds with the facts. But one piece of misinformation always stood out: the bogus claim that health reform amounts to a government takeover of health care. Today, Politifact, a respected nonpartisan watchdog, said that this claim is the “Lie of the Year.”

In their analysis of the claim, Politifact reiterates that:

“[T]he law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

So, as we’ve been saying all along, the Affordable Care Act brings unprecedented transparency, consumer protections, and benefits that empower Americans to have better control over their health care decisions--bearing no resemblance with “a government takeover” of our health care system.

It is also worth noting that this is the second year in a row that Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” revolves around the Affordable Care Act—last year it was “Death Panels.”

Read the full Politifact story here.

See more about Health Care

Weekly Address: Democrats and Republicans Have Shared Responsibility to Move America Forward

2011-01-01T10:56:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Obama resolved to do everything he can to make sure the economy is growing, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class in the new year. With each party controlling one house of the Congress, Democrats and Republicans will share the responsibility to move the country forward, and the President reiterated his commitment to work with anyone who has a good idea in either party.

The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
January 1, 2011

Hello, everybody. As we close the books on one year and begin another, I wanted to take a moment today to wish you a very Happy New Year and talk a little bit about the year that lies ahead.

At the start of 2011, we’re still just emerging from a once-in-a-lifetime recession that’s taken a terrible toll on millions of families. We all have friends and neighbors trying to get their lives back on track.

We are, however, riding a few months of economic news that suggests our recovery is gaining traction. And our most important task now is to keep that recovery going. As President, that’s my commitment to you: to do everything I can to make sure our economy is growing, creating jobs, and strengthening our middle class. That’s my resolution for the coming year.

Still, even as we work to boost our economy in the short-term, it’s time to make some serious decisions about how to keep our economy strong, growing, and competitive in the long run. We have to look ahead – not just to this year, but to the next 10 years, and the next 20 years. Where will new innovations come from? How will we attract the companies of tomorrow to set up shop and create jobs in our communities? What will it take to get those jobs? What will it take to out-compete other countries around the world? What will it take to see the American Dream come true for our children and grandchildren?

Our parents and grandparents asked themselves those questions. And because they had the courage to answer them, we’ve had the good fortune to grow up in the greatest nation on Earth.

Now it’s our turn to think about the future. In a few days, a new Congress will form, with one house controlled by Democrats, and one house controlled by Republicans – who now have a shared responsibility to move this country forward. And here’s what I want you to know: I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.

As I’ve said since I first ran for this office, solving our challenges won’t be quick or easy. We have come through a difficult decade; one of new threats and new trials we didn’t expect when it began. But a new year and a new decade stretch out before us. And if we just remember what America is capable of, and live up to that legacy, then I’m confident that we are poised for a period of progress – one in which our economy is growing, our standing in the world is rising, and we do what it takes to make sure America remains in the 21st century what it was in the 20th: the greatest country in the world.

Thanks for listening. And Happy New Year.

Affordable Care Act Requires Insurance Companies to Justify High Rate Hikes

2010-12-28T09:37:00.002-06:00

Health

insurance premiums have risen rapidly, straining pocketbooks for American families and businesses. Since 1999, the health insurance premiums for family coverage have risen 131 percent.

Premium

increases have forced families to spend more money for less coverage. And insurance companies have been able to raise rates without explaining their actions or justifying the reasons for their high premiums.

The

Affordable Care Act

brings an unprecedented level of scrutiny and transparency to health insurance rate increases. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance companies publicly justify any unreasonable rate increases, consumers who experience large increases will know why they are paying the rates that they are. On December 21, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, working in partnership with States, proposed a new regulation to implement this important consumer protection.

Making the Market More Transparent

The amount of information about rate increases currently available to consumers significantly varies among States. Some States review proposed increases in health insurance rates and disapprove them if they are excessive. Other States lack the legal authority or resources to effectively review rates.

The proposed regulation will ensure that large rate increases in all States will be thoroughly reviewed.

The proposed regulation will:

In 2011, require that all insurers seeking rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual and small group market publicly disclose the proposed increases and the justification for them. Such increases are not presumed unreasonable, but will be analyzed to determine whether they are unreasonable.
After 2011, a State-specific threshold will be set for disclosure of rate increases, using data and trends that better reflect cost trends particular to that State.
Under the proposed regulation, States with effective rate review systems would conduct the reviews. If a State lacks the resources or authority to do thorough actuarial reviews, HHS would conduct them. Meanwhile, HHS will continue to make resources available to States to strengthen their rate review processes.

Whether performed by States or HHS, information about the outcome of all reviews for increases above 10 percent, along with justification provided by insurance companies for those increases determined to be unreasonable, will be posted on the HHS website. The insurance plan will also have to make its justification for a rate increase available on its own website.

This regulation builds on the Affordable Care Act’s efforts to strengthen State rate review efforts. Importantly, we know rate review works. For example, Connecticut regulators recently rejected a proposed 20 percent rate increase after their review found that such an increase would be excessive. Unfortunately, some States lack the authority or resources to review proposed health insurance rates.

The Affordable Care Act has already begun to help States strengthen or create rate review processes. On August 16, HHS awarded $46 million to 45 states and the District of Columbia to help them improve their oversight of proposed health insurance rate increases. This is part of $250 million that the health reform law makes available to States to take action against insurers seeking unreasonable rate hikes. This funding will help assure consumers in every State that any premium increases requested by their insurance company, regardless of the size, is justified.

Relief for Consumers

The proposed regulation will help safeguard consumers from unreasonably high rate increases by providing consumers with detailed information on proposed increases. Disclosing proposed increases, along with the insurer’s justification, would shed light on industry pricing practices that some experts believe have led to unnecessarily high prices. This unprecedented new transparency in the health insurance market will promote competition, encourage insurers to do more to control health care costs and discourage insurers from charging rates which are unjustified.

Comprehensive Package of Consumer Protections

This new proposed rate review regulation will also work in conjunction with the medical loss ratio regulation released on November 22, 2010 to make the health insurance marketplace more transparent and increase the value consumers receive for their health care premium dollars. This proposed rate review regulation allows consumers to see what increases are being proposed and why. The medical loss ratio regulation ensures that premiums are being spent on health care and quality-related costs, not administrative costs and executive salaries. These two provisions of the Affordable Care Act work together to assure consumers that any increase in their premium is reasonable and that their premium dollars are being spent on their medical care.

Read the news release on the proposed rule atwww.HealthCare.gov/news/newsreleases/index.html. Find links to the regulation and other information about rate review at www.hhs.gov/ociio/initiative/index.html.

Shedding Light on Insurance Industry Practices

2010-12-28T09:35:00.002-06:00

Jay Angoff, Director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight

For years now, health insurance companies have been raising their rates – more than doubling insurance costs in the last 10 years – making it difficult, if not impossible, for many families to afford health insurance so they can get the medical care they need and still make ends meet. This year alone, some insurance companies have proposed double-digit premium increases, sometimes without reason or justification.

This is not acceptable. And today, we are taking another step forward in holding insurance companies accountable and moderating rate increases.

New regulations proposed today, as part of the new health care law, would bring an unprecedented level of transparency and scrutiny to proposed health insurance rate increases. These proposed regulations would require insurers to publicly disclose and justify unreasonable rate increases.

Just as American families are playing by the rules, now so must insurance companies.

So how does this work exactly? Under this proposed regulation, States would continue to be the first line of defense against double digit rate increases – through a process called “rate review,” which I wrote about here. And, beginning in 2011, insurers in every State seeking rate increases of 10 percent or more for new plans in the individual and small group market would have to publicly disclose and justify the proposed increases.

This unprecedented new transparency in the health insurance market will empower consumers, promote competition, encourage insurers to do more to control health care costs and discourage insurers from charging premiums which are unjustified.

We know rate review works. Recently, in Connecticut, one insurer requested an increase of 20 percent. The Insurance Department rejected this increase as excessive, and because of the law in Connecticut, it cannot go into effect. You can read about the story here. In Massachusetts, one insurance company requested an increase of 26 percent for premiums. After rate review the rate review process, consumers saw a less than 13 percent increase.

Unfortunately, not every State has the authority or the resources to take that kind of action. The new health care law provides States with tools and resources they need to toughen their oversight of insurance premiums.

Our goal is to protect you from unreasonably high rate increases by providing you with detailed information on proposed increases. Publicly disclosing proposed increases, along with the insurer’s justification, will shed light on industry pricing practices that experts believe have led to unnecessarily high prices.

Along the same lines, insurers are also going to have to give you more value for your health care dollar. New rules generally referred to as “medical loss ratio” rules require insurance companies to spend 80-85% of your money on actual health care services and quality improvement activities---not on overhead. Any insurer that does not meet this standard will also have to give plan members a rebate.

By making insurance companies accountable to you and transparent to all, we will see them think twice before unreasonably hiking your premiums. One of the main goals of the health care law is to make care more affordable. These new rules will go a long way towards achieving just that.

Gibbs: Now Republicans Too Responsible For Their Actions

2010-12-27T21:13:00.000-06:00

"The president did not want to see tax-cuts extended for the billionaires and millionaires. We didn't have the votes for our position to prevail. We are going to have some very tough issues coming into the next congress, and over the next couple of years. I think couple of think can help, what has happened in the last few weeks bleed over into next year. You heard that the President said this at his year end news conference: there was a responsibility of government that I think the Republicans got in the November elections and they began to understand that responsibility a little bit more in this lame duck session than they had in the previous, quite frankly, 18 months or so."

"They cannot afford to simply just there and said NO! We are certainly hopeful that the Republicans come into next year with a willingness to sit down at that table and begin having a discussion about how we're going to make progress, Sometimes the first step is the biggest one."

Stein’s grass-roots campaign planted in Fields Corner

2010-09-02T21:18:00.000-05:00

Gubernatorial candidate opens headquarters

By Emma Stickgold

They wore green armbands, some with white polka dots, and ate cake with green frosting, intermittently chanting “Jill, Jill, Jill.’’ As they opened Green-Rainbow Party gubernatorial candidate Jill Stein’s campaign headquarters in Fields Corner yesterday, supporters were urged to look to an unlikely source of inspiration: Republican Scott Brown.

“Keep Scott Brown in mind when you are out there,’’ campaign supporter Pat Keaney told the packed room of the Dorchester storefront office.

Although Brown and Stein represent different political views, many other supporters used Brown’s election as US senator, which initially seemed virtually impossible in the weeks after the death of Edward M. Kennedy, to bolster their case for why disaffected Democrats should back their candidate.

Stein, a Lexington doctor who ran for governor in 2002 and secretary of state in 2006, drew loud cheers when she talked about getting more funding for Boston’s neighborhoods, after the fatal shooting of Jaewon Martin, 14, on Parker Street.

“The Democratic Party is not fixing these problems,’’ she said.

Stein characterized the three leading gubernatorial candidates — Governor Deval Patrick, Treasurer Tim Cahill, and Charles D. Baker — as “three CEO candidates’’ who would be “business-as-usual’’ governors.

Supporters said they were drawn to the campaign for its liberal agenda, particularly its anticorporate bent.

Sporting a green “Jill Stein’’ bumper sticker on his wheelchair, Stephen John Wuschke of Quincy, a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts Boston, said he was searching the Internet for progressive causes to get involved with when he found the Stein campaign.

“I like the fact that she’s anticorporations and wants to work for the people,’’ he said.

Stein’s running mate, Richard Purcell of Holyoke, said that as he seeks signatures to put their team on the ballot, he has been able to tap into voter frustration with a two-party system to win over people’s support.

City Councilor Chuck Turner said the Democratic and Republican parties are too dependent on corporate financial backing, adding that as soon as people hear Stein’s message, she will have the support she needs to capture electoral victory in November.

“What we need are candidates who really are looking at what’s in the best interest of people, not the corporations,’’ he said.

Delisha Dew, 39, of Dorchester, said that while the campaign may have a lot of work ahead, she and her family are not daunted by the challenge the grass-roots effort entails: “We need more funding for our children. If she tries hard enough, she’ll get it done.’’

Stein, who won 3.5 percent of the vote in her run for governor and 18 percent in her run for secretary of state, said in an interview last night that the grass-roots political pump was primed by Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but that the progressive agenda has been largely ignored by incumbent Democrats.

“Grass-roots organizing has come of age — people have been through two cycles of bogus, false organizing, and have been abandoned after their hard-fought victory,’’ she said.

Cahill committee didn’t pay state tax

2010-09-02T21:12:00.000-05:00

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill acknowledged last night that his campaign committee failed to pay an estimated $15,000 in state income taxes over the past decade, as required by law.

Cahill’s campaign made the admission in an unusual written statement following a Globe inquiry yesterday afternoon about why there was no record of checks to the state to cover taxes on interest the campaign committee’s account has earned from investments it made in certificates of deposit.

Cahill, who was evidently caught off-guard by the lapse, vowed to pay the taxes immediately. But the delinquency is a source of embarrassment for the two-term treasurer, who has sought to promote an image as a prudent watchdog of public dollars and guardian of the public Treasury.

A former Democrat who left the party last year to run for governor as an independent, Cahill has built his gubernatorial campaign around his embrace of fiscally conservative positions, attacking Governor Deval Patrick for raising taxes and accusing him of mismanaging state government and freely spending taxpayers’ money.

In the statement, Adam Meldrum, Cahill’s campaign manager, referred to “recent internal audits by campaign staff with the guidance from the state campaign finance officials’’ at the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. “As of today the campaign has filed amended returns to the state of Massachusetts and a good faith estimate on taxes owed to the state relating to interest earned from our investments,’’ Meldrum said. He did not say how much the committee sent to the Department of Revenue.

“We will be working with all necessary parties over the next few days to ensure the exact amount is paid in full,’’ he said.

Meldrum also said Cahill had relied on others to oversee and audit his political account.

“Over the last eight years Treasurer Cahill’s campaign committee has rigorously maintained and complied with several successful audits and has had numerous tax professionals assist the committee in preparing our tax filings,’’ Meldrum said.

“Treasurer Cahill has been informed of the campaign’s findings and is extremely adamant that we get to the bottom of the situation and any and all amounts be paid in full as soon as possible,’’ Meldrum added.

Though it failed to meet state tax requirements, records of the Cahill committee, filed with state regulators, show that it did meet its federal tax obligations. Cahill’s campaign said it has paid, in all, about $102,000 in federal taxes on the interest the account has earned since 2002. The federal tax rate is 35 percent on the interest. The state levy is pegged at 5.3 percent.

Over the years, Cahill has raised millions of dollars to further his political career. At times he has raised money from people with an interest in business before the Treasury.

Cahill’s campaign account balance reached a peak of about $3.2 million, much of which was invested in bank CDs. His aggressive fund-raising has allowed him to mount a viable independent bid for governor.

Cahill is not the first political figure to be tripped up by the law requiring political committees to pay federal and state income taxes on interest. Two decades ago, the issue flared up when a slew of Beacon Hill leaders, who had invested some of their sizable war chests in savings accounts, violated the law by not filing income tax returns for their committees.

Several major political figures were forced to file back returns for their committees and also pay fines for the tax delinquencies.

Frank Phillips can be reached at phillips@globe.com.

On My Bloq

2010-08-30T00:58:00.000-05:00

Having many reliable sources for news and politics is a thing of the past. I've recently stumbled upon a social network site that calls itself On My Bloq. Whether it will be the new source for breaking news or political leaks it's still to be determined.

I delved deeper into the part of this web site that intrigues me the most, the blogging. Simply put, I needed to know my competition and I needed to know if the politic blogging was note worthy. The blogging layouts are on par with Googles Blogger and Word Press and I found the few articles written with respect to politics are some what far left or far right but insightful.

My overall analysis is this website has promise in the political blogging if it remains consistent in its postings of news worthy stories on a regular basis. Draw your own conclusion onmybloq.in.

Noah

Draft GOP plan keeps Iowa, NH 1st in voting cycle

2010-05-13T20:51:00.000-05:00

DES MOINES, Iowa—The chairman of the Iowa Republican Party says a national GOP panel supports keeping Iowa and New Hampshire first in the presidential nominating process.

Chairman Matt Strawn said Thursday that a Republican National Committee panel's draft rules allow only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to hold caucuses or primaries before March 1, 2012.

Iowa would hold the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary. But both would have to wait until after Feb. 1, 2012.

Strawn says the RNC is expected to give the rules final approval at an August meeting in Kansas City.

Michigan and Florida jumped ahead in the calendar during the last election cycle and were sanctioned by the both Democratic and Republican parties.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Obama to push for tougher financial rules for Wall Street

2010-04-22T07:30:00.000-05:00

New York (CNN) -- President Obama is expected to call on Wall Street to join him in his efforts to reform the financial sector in a visit to Manhattan Thursday. The address at Cooper Union For The Advancement Of Science & Art will take place just blocks from the heart of Wall Street.

Likely provisions of any reform legislation would include making banks and financial firms strengthen their capital cushions, as well as creating a new process for taking down giant failing companies and preventing future Wall Street bailouts.

Other topics for reform would include creating a new consumer financial protection regulator and keeping an eye on the kind of complex financial dealings that led to the crisis.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke weighed in on one of those issues last week.

During a congressional hearing, when asked whether a consumer financial regulator should be able to act independently of existing regulators, Bernanke said that unchecked independence could adversely impact credit availability for consumers.

Once back in Washington, the president is expected to ask congressional leaders for bipartisan support on a reform bill. On Wednesday, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted 13-8 in favor of a bill, which would impose regulations on the complex system of Wall Street trades known as derivatives.

Senate leaders now will look at merging the measure with a financial regulations reform bill already passed by the Senate Banking Committee that is headed for debate by the full chamber.
The House passed a regulatory overhaul in December.

The White House has started some preliminary discussions on Capitol Hill, with Obama meeting with congressional leaders last week in the administration's push for regulatory overhaul.

"All of us recognize that we cannot have a circumstance in which a meltdown in the financial sector once again puts the entire economy in peril," Obama said. "I'm absolutely confident that we can work out an effective bipartisan package that assures that we never have too big to fail again."