Politics | President Barack Obama


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: Sr K7/23/2012 12:29:28 AM
of 134072
 
From Page 2 at
whitehouse.gov 

Fact Check: Industry-Financed Study Gets President’s Tax Cuts Wrong

Amy Brundage
July 17, 2012
03:38 PM EDT

There’s a lot of room for debate about taxes and we welcome that debate, which is why the President continues to push Congress to act on extending tax cuts for 114 million middle-class families. But we will continue to demand that this debate is based on facts and analysis from non-partisan, independent sources—not based on industry studies like one that was released this morning by Ernst & Young done by former Bush appointee and paid for by industries that have a record of opposing the President’s policies.

The study’s estimates are based on policies that are at odds with the President has actually proposed, omit key proposals the President has made and employ flawed assumptions that are at odds with respected independent analysts like the Congressional Budget Office – and even with the findings of the Bush Administration Treasury Department. Relying on analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and even Chairman Paul Ryan’s own budget demonstrates that the President’s proposals are good for job growth in both the short and long run.

Below is an analysis by Jason Furman, Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, highlighting the major flaws, errors and misleading statements in the study:

The study fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the President actually proposed which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.The President has proposed to let the high-income tax cuts expire and use the resulting $1 trillion in savings (over 10 years) as part of a balanced plan to reduce deficits and debt and put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course that includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of revenue. But rather than modeling the President’s proposal to reduce the deficit, the headline numbers in the study explicitly assume that the revenue would be used entirely to finance additional spending. In fact, the study explicitly states, “Using the additional revenue to reduce the deficit is not modeled.” [Source: footnote on page 3]

The study also leaves out the President’s proposed new tax cuts for business hiring and investment. The President has proposed to cut taxes by $80 billion in 2012 and 2013 by enacting a new 10 percent tax credit for business hiring and wage increases and allowing immediate write-offs of new investment through the end of 2012. Not only are these tax cuts larger in dollar-terms than the near-term tax increase for the top two percent of Americans that would result from letting the high-income tax cuts expire, but they are far better targeted toward boosting jobs and growth. In fact, even Chairman Paul Ryan’s Budget shows that the President supports taxes that are $42 billion lower in 2012 and 2013 than under the Republican plan. [ Source]

The authors of the new study acknowledge that it has no bearing on the impact of the President’s proposals on the economic recovery and employment in the short-run. In fact, even they acknowledge that the short-run impact of extending the high-income tax cuts will be proportionately less than the impact of the middle-income cuts, noting that a “disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers.” This is consistent with conclusions of the Congressional Budget Office and other independent analysts. For example, CBO concluded that – compared to extending all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, including those for the highest-income Americans – the President’s proposal to extend just the middle-class tax cuts “would be more cost-effective in boosting output and employment in the short run because the higher-income households that would probably spend a smaller fraction of any increase in their after-tax income would receive a smaller share of the reduction in taxes.” [ Source] Even setting aside the fact that the study ignores the effects of the President’s tax proposals on short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction, the conclusions are still dramatically out-of-line with estimates by other analysts, including not only the Congressional Budget Office but also the Bush Administration Treasury Department. The authors’ unrealistic assumptions lead them to find a larger increase in long-run output andabout twice as large an effect on employment over the long-run as the Bush Administration Treasury Department found when conducting a similar analysis of extending the high-income tax cuts. [ Source] This appears to mostly result from the fact that the study makes highly unrealistic assumptions about the economic impacts of tax cuts. In particular, it assumes a labor supply response to tax rates that is about ten times as large as what the Congressional Budget Office assumes for medium- and high-earners. [ Source] The new study is also inconsistent with recent historical experience. Under the President’s plan, income tax rates on high earners would simply return to what they were in the 1990s – when the economy created 23 million jobs.

The truth is that the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and other independent analysis have found that letting tax cuts expire and using the resulting revenue for deficit reduction would help the economy over the long-run because it would lead to lower interest rates and higher investment–the opposite of what the industry-financed study concludes. For example, CBO found that output would be higher in 2020 if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire than if they were extended and led to higher deficits. Likewise, a 2005 Joint Committee on Taxation study reached the same conclusion about individual income tax rate cuts. And the President’s additional tax cuts to encourage business job growth and investment would have further benefits as well.

Amy Brundage is the Deputy Press Secretary for the Economy

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: tejek7/23/2012 12:36:53 AM
of 134072
 
Republican Party in California Is Caught in Cycle of Decline

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: July 22, 2012


LOS ANGELES — This would seem a moment of great opportunity for California Republicans. The state has become a national symbol of fiscal turmoil and dysfunction, the Legislature is nearly as unpopular as Congress and Democrats control every branch of government.

An Orange County rally in June 2010 for Meg Whitman, the Republican nominee for governor that year, and Carly Fiorina, the Senate nominee. Both women are wealthy executives.

But instead, the state party — once a symbol of Republican hope and geographical reach and which gave the nation Ronald Reagan (and Richard M. Nixon) — is caught in a cycle of relentless decline, and appears in danger of shrinking to the rank of a minor party.

“We are at a lower point than we’ve ever been,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy, the No. 3 Republican in the United States House of Representatives. “It’s rebuilding time.”

Registered Republicans now account for just 30 percent of the California electorate, and are on a path that analysts predict could drop them to No. 3 in six years, behind Democrats, who currently make up 43 percent, and independent voters, with 21 percent.

“It’s no longer a statewide party,” said Allan Hoffenblum, who worked for 30 years as a Republican consultant in California. “They are down to 30 percent, which makes it impossible to win a statewide election. You just can’t get enough crossover voters.”

“They have alienated large swaths of voters,” he said. “They have become too doctrinaire on the social issues. It’s become a cult.”

There is not a single Republican holding statewide office. Democrats overwhelmingly control the State Assembly and Senate. In interviews, Republicans were unable to come up with any names of credible candidates preparing to run for statewide office. By contrast, the Democratic bench is bustling with ambitious younger politicians who are waiting for their moment. It is a giant turnaround since 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger knocked out the Democratic governor, Gray Davis, in a recall election and set out to build a more moderate Republican Party.

Republicans said their problems were made worse this year by the emphasis during the Republican presidential primaries on social issues, particularly tough immigration measures and opposition to abortion rights. That focus could make it tougher to win independent voters who are crucial to any Republican resurgence in California.

“The national party is becoming a party of very enthusiastic social conservatives driven by Southerners,” said Bill Whalen, a fellow with the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “It’s a problem if you’re an independent voter in California. If you think about the Republican Party, what national figure comes to mind? George W. Bush or Newt Gingrich.”

Republican leaders say they are hopeful that they can turn things around because of the troubles befalling Gov. Jerry Brown and the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

“You can only have 11 percent unemployment for so long before the populace gets tired of the people in power,” said Tom Del Beccaro, the Republican Party chairman. “The Democrats are in a lot of trouble because they’ve had the governorship, the Assembly and the Senate, and the budget is way out of balance; unemployment is third-highest in the nation.”

“They don’t have any plans related to these problems, other than higher taxes,” he said. “And the issues are coming our way because the biggest issues are budget and taxes.”

Mr. McCarthy said the Republican Party would be able to turn itself around if it recruited stronger candidates and presented an alternative agenda for the state.

“I actually believe in the next two and a half years the Republican Party is going to become much stronger,” he said. “What we have to do is build candidates who look for solutions, so you can talk about our conservative solutions, but you can’t just say no.”

The party’s decline in California has occurred even as Republicans have prospered elsewhere. In 2010 — when Republicans made huge gains across the nation — they were wiped out here in races for governor and the Senate. In 1994, the last time Republicans enjoyed a national sweep, Pete Wilson, a Republican, was elected governor by a large margin, but Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, barely won re-election.

“The institution of the California Republican Party, I would argue, has effectively collapsed,” said Steve Schmidt, a Republican consultant who was a senior adviser to Mr. Schwarzenegger. “It doesn’t do any of the things that a political party should do. It doesn’t register voters. It doesn’t recruit candidates. It doesn’t raise money. The Republican Party in the state institutionally has become a small ideological club that is basically in the business of hunting out heretics.”

“When you look at the population growth, the actual party is shrinking,” Mr. Schmidt said. “It’s becoming more white. It’s becoming older. “

Over the past decade, Republicans have turned to wealthy business executives like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina to run for statewide office. But the party’s troubled demographics, as well as the history of these self-financed candidates getting roughed up by the political process, may give pause to other wealthy Californians, party officials said.

The slide began in 1994, when Republicans rallied around a voter initiative, Proposition 187, that would have made it illegal for the government to provide services for undocumented aliens. That campaign created a political rupture with Hispanics at the very moment when their numbers were exploding.

“The manner in which immigration is handled nationally presents a challenge to Republicans in California,” Mr. Del Beccaro said.

Republicans said they feared becoming further marginalized in November should President Obama win the state by a big margin, sweeping Democratic candidates into office in the Assembly and Senate. (There is one bright spot: Republicans seem poised to lose fewer seats than once feared in the state’s Congressional delegation.)

Kimberly Nalder, a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento, says Republicans in California are still too closely identified with socially conservative positions — on immigration, the environment, abortion and gay rights — that have put them outside the mainstream in a changing electorate.

“They’re just blind to the future,” she said. “We’re passing the tipping point now, and they are not realizing that.”

This year in San Diego, Nathan Fletcher, a Republican state assemblyman, quit the party to run, unsuccessfully, as an independent for mayor. “There are a series of issues where I am just fundamentally out of line with the current Republican Party in California — reasonable environmental protection, equal rights and marriage equality, immigration,” he said. “And it’s not a party that is welcoming of dissent on those issues.”

What is frustrating for many Republicans is that this should be a moment when they can step in. Though voters might have diverged from Republican Party orthodoxy on social issues, they have, almost without exception, voted against initiatives on the ballot to raise taxes over the past decade. Two weeks ago, Democrats pushed through approval of nearly $9 billion in financing for a high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco that polls suggest has grown increasingly unpopular since it was approved by voters in 2008.

“While there are always woes in California, now is worse than ever,” said Connie Conway, the Assembly minority leader. “Now the majority party in the Legislature has decided that this train to nowhere is a good idea. A lot of people are really questioning that these days. Californians are waking up.”



nytimes.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Sr K7/23/2012 1:05:35 AM
of 134072
 
TV ad by Romney and web video response by Obama camp


Published July 20, 2012

FoxNews.com

foxnews.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: bentway who wrote (117346)7/23/2012 6:25:59 AM
From: Road Walker of 134072
 
To Prepare for Republican Convention, Tampa Restricts Protests

By COLIN MOYNIHAN
During the last three Republican national conventions, police officers have arrested hundreds of people as the gatherings have drawn thousands of protesters objecting to the party’s positions on a range of issues, from wars to the economy to the environment.

But this time around, the protesters planning to gather in Tampa the last week in August hope their ranks will be swelled by the Occupy movement, whose members have said that they see the party’s expected nominee, Mitt Romney, as the embodiment of a financial system that favors the rich and corporations over ordinary citizens.

Now, in an effort to control demonstrations and prevent disturbances, officials in Tampa are taking unusual steps that they say will help ensure public safety but that many demonstrators and civil liberties advocates say will place unacceptable limits on public dissent.

In May the city adopted a temporary ordinance that will clamp down on protests in dozens of blocks near the Tampa Convention Center. Among other things, the ordinance requires a permit for groups of 50 or more to gather in parks; sets a limit of 90 minutes on parades; and bans an array of items, including glass bottles, aerosol cans and pieces of rope longer than six feet. It also provided for an official parade route for protesters along with viewing areas.

During public debates, some Tampa residents and City Council members opposed the rules, calling them excessive. Others complained that while the ordinance outlawed water pistols, actual pistols were allowed for those with permits to carry a concealed weapon. Although Tampa’s mayor, Bob Buckhorn, had asked the state’s governor, Rick Scott, to ban firearms during the convention, the governor has refused.

Mr. Buckhorn said the city did its best to accommodate varying interests in coming up with the rules.

“This balances the concerns of the vast majority of people coming here to protest peacefully,” he said recently, while “providing for a reasonable expectation of safety for the delegates and the convention guests.”

But protest organizers strongly disagree. Members of a protest group called resistRNC say they will avoid the official parade route and viewing areas. Amos Miers, 35, a spokesman for the group, said members preferred to pick their own spots to assemble and march.

“We were born with the right to move freely from place to place and speak our minds,” Mr. Miers said.

Weighing security concerns and First Amendment rights has become a quadrennial issue in cities hosting national political conventions. While both major parties’ conventions have become targets of protests, the Republican gatherings have involved larger demonstrations and resulted in numerous lawsuits by people who have said that they were wrongly arrested.

Mr. Buckhorn said that in devising the rules, officials in Tampa have studied previous conventions and economic summit meetings that have drawn protesters. The Tampa police have said that they expect the majority of protesters to be law abiding, but that a certain number will most likely be bent on disruption and may engage in vandalism or violence.

Protesters, on the other hand, said that officials may be using the specter of disorder to justify heavy-handed tactics. They added that over the last few years the authorities in cities where large protests took place have appeared to follow a script that includes pre-emptive detainment, indiscriminate mass arrests and infiltration of protest groups.

The resistRNC Web site includes a “Notice to Law Enforcement Spying on Us,” which states that the group is not planning violent actions. The site’s creators also said that people who identify an informant may receive an award that they have named after Brandon Darby, a man from Texas who worked secretly for the F.B.I. while organizing a group to travel to the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

The police may also absorb lessons from the 2008 convention in St. Paul. On the first day of the convention there, large crowds of masked youths smashed bank windows while the authorities appeared to be taken by surprise. Later, officers used plastic bullets and tear gas, sometimes targeting onlookers, journalists and protesters who appeared to have done nothing wrong.

James H. Shimberg Jr., the city lawyer for Tampa, said that the police department there has trained officers in how to monitor protests effectively while respecting the rights of participants.

“Our goal is not to arrest anybody,” he said. “But if there are troublemakers out there they will not be tolerated.”

As the convention approaches, both the police and protesters are preparing.

The Tampa government has paid $57,000 to sublease a lot, which will be open to protesters 24 hours a day, a few hundred feet from the convention center. About half of a $50 million federal security grant has been allocated to pay 1,000 local officers and 3,000 officers from other cities to police the protests. The city has also bought gas masks for officers and installed security cameras in downtown Tampa.

At the same time, the National Lawyers Guild is assembling a legal support team of volunteer lawyers from Florida to represent protesters. Members of Occupy groups from around the country are planning caravans to Tampa. And the Rev. Bruce Wright, of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, said that he was arranging for an encampment called Romneyville to be set up on private property, where he said the city’s rules will not apply.

“We are looking at it as kind of a refuge,” Mr. Wright said of the camp, adding that on the first day of the convention it will be used as a staging ground for a march meant to highlight the problems of poverty, unemployment and homelessness.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Ivan Inkling who wrote (116910)7/23/2012 7:58:55 AM
From: steve harris of 134072
 
They were all deliberatly designed to encourage division, - - - or as you say "pitting people against people".

No they weren't. They were facts illustrating failed policies and causes of this country's moral decay. Nothing different that pointing out the billions the current administration is passing out to connected cronies. President Obama's adult life has been about dividing people, from his first court case to the White House. Creating wealth is something he or Elizabeth Warren knows nothing about, only redistributing it.

mediacircus.com 

Try of of John F Kennedy's speeches, a man who would be destroyed by you and today's democratic media.

Or some of Reagan's speeches.

A real shame Bobby Kennedy didn't get a chance, I believe we would be a different country today, much stronger for all Americans.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: tejek who wrote (117364)7/23/2012 10:57:46 AM
From: Road Walker of 134072
 
Trucks Do It, Fleets Do It, Let’s Pump Natural Gas: GE Researchers Aim to Slash the Cost of Natural Gas Pumps for the Home by a Factor of Ten
JULY 18, 2012
Commercial fleet owners have figured out long time ago that fueling trucks with natural gas saves them money and helps the environment. There are 15 million vehicles powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) around the world. As much as a fifth of all new buses and garbage trucks are using the fuel. GE, which makes the technology that fills trucks with CNG, estimates that a big fleet can save up to 40 percent at the pump, compared to diesel. Switching from diesel to CNG can also cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent.

If fleets do it, why can’t the average driver? Natural gas pipes run under every street, but the big issue is time and money. Buses and trucks gas up at their large garages. CNG citizen pioneers can purchase refueling stations for their homes, but the equipment is expensive, $5,000 apiece. It also takes between five to eight hours to fill up the tank, not exactly a strong selling point.




Got Gas?: Fleets can save up to 40 percent in fuel costs by switching to natural gas. GE Global Research and ARPA-E are working to help everyday drivers enjoy similar savings.


That’s why GE Global Research (GRC) partnered with the government’s Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to develop a home refueling station that can do the job in less than 60 minutes and costs less than $500. Ambitious? GRC is a century-old innovator and ARPA-E, which backs high-risk research that may result in spectacular breakthroughs, is modeled after Pentagon’s DARPA, the agency that helped incubate voice recognition software, digital medical imaging, and, of course, the Internet.

“The goal of our project is to design an at-home refueling station that is much simpler in design and more cost effective,” says Anna Lis Laursen, project leader and chemical engineer at GRC. “By reducing the time and cost of re-fueling, we can break down the barriers that are preventing a more widespread adoption of natural gas vehicles. If we can meet our cost targets, the price of a home refueling station would be less than typical appliances in the home such as a dishwasher or stove.”

GE has already started the work. It partnered with the University of Missouri and Chart Industries to design a system that skips the traditional compressor and chills, “densifies”, and transfers CNG more efficiently. The total cost of the 28-month program will be approximately $2.3 million, which will be shared by ARPA-E and GE.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: tejek who wrote (117354)7/23/2012 11:08:07 AM
From: John Vosilla of 134072
 
.all Obama's efforts to bring us together..............it was for nothing. We are more divided than before.


Whose fault is that? Apparently we weren't ready for an ivy league head of the class intellectual who came from nothing with the greatest of obstacles any of us can ever fathom and rose to the top. Bad luck for him he had a black father with a Muslim name and took over during the worst crisis of our lifetimes? Was he destined to failure no matter what because of his background and perceptions of who he is by the far right? ' We the people' suck that is the big problem..

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Road Walker who wrote (117368)7/23/2012 11:53:03 AM
From: tejek of 134072
 
hat’s why GE Global Research (GRC) partnered with the government’s Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to develop a home refueling station that can do the job in less than 60 minutes and costs less than $500. Ambitious? GRC is a century-old innovator and ARPA-E, which backs high-risk research that may result in spectacular breakthroughs, is modeled after Pentagon’s DARPA, the agency that helped incubate voice recognition software, digital medical imaging, and, of course, the Internet.

I hope they pull it off...........'gassing up' has been one of the major drawbacks to nat gas.........that and its volatility.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: John Vosilla who wrote (117369)7/23/2012 11:53:59 AM
From: tejek of 134072
 
We the people' suck that is the big problem..

Its rather amazing how much hate his name engenders.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: steve harris who wrote (117367)7/23/2012 11:55:50 AM
From: tejek of 134072
 
They were all deliberatly designed to encourage division, - - - or as you say "pitting people against people".

No they weren't. They were facts illustrating failed policies and causes of this country's moral decay. Nothing different that pointing out the billions the current administration is passing out to connected cronies. President Obama's adult life has been about dividing people, from his first court case to the White House. Creating wealth is something he or Elizabeth Warren knows nothing about, only redistributing it.

The very fact he ran for the presidency encouraged division. He clearly doesn't know his place......huh steve.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.