The President Speaks About Libya

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The First Family - onto El Salvador

The First Family leaves Chile and continues onto El Salvador.


US President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama along with daughters Sasha and Malia, upon arrival on Air Force One in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
----SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images






U.S. President Barack Obama and members of his family board Air Force One as they depart Chile March 22, 2011.
---REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque




U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama wave as they depart from Chile in Santiago March 22, 2011. -----REUTERS/Luis Hidalgo


Sasha Obama, youngest daughter of U.S. President Barack Obama, is seen as they depart from Chile in Santiago March 22, 2011.
----REUTERS/Luis Hidalgo




US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama greet young school children upon arrival on Air Force One in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
---SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images


U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama take part in an arrival ceremony with El Salvador President Mauricio Funes (2nd R) and first lady Vonda Pignato (R) at the Casa Presidential in San Salvador March 22, 2011.
----REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque



U.S. President Barack Obama (2nd L) and First Lady Michelle Obama (L) take part in an official arrival ceremony by El Salvador's President Mauricio Funes (2nd R) and his wife at the National Palace in San Salvador, March 22, 2011.
----REUTERS/Jason Reed


US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama walk past an honor guard upon arrival on Air Force One in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
---SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images


US President Barack Obama (R) and First Lady Michelle Obama (C) arrive at the National Palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
---JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images



President Barack Obama, third from left, accompanied by his wife Michelle Obama, left, and his daughters, Malia, second from left and Sasha, fourth from left, partially hidden, walks upon his arrival to the international airport in San Salvador, El Salvador, Tuesday March 22, 2011. Obama will end his Latin America tour with a two-day visit to El Salvador.
---Dario Lopez-Mills




U.S. President Barack Obama is welcomed by school children upon his arrival in San Salvador March 22, 2011.
---REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


US president Barack Obama (L) smiles while listening to his Salvadorean counterpart Mauricio Funes (R) during a joint press conference at the Presidential Palace in San Salvador, on March 22, 2011. US President Barack Obama arrived in El Salvador on the last leg of a three-nation tour of Latin America.
---YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images


US president Barack Obama gestures during a joint press conference with his Salvadorean counterpart Mauricio Funes (out of frame) at the Presidential Palace in San Salvador, on March 22, 2011. US President Barack Obama arrived in El Salvador on the last leg of a three-nation tour of Latin America.
----YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images


The president of The United States Barack Obama (2nd R), his wife Michelle (C), their daughters Sasha (L) and Malia and Salvador's Foreign Minister Hugo Martinez pose for a picture with Sherlyn Artiga and Diego Carpio -- both students of The United States of America School -- upon their arrival at the airport in San Salvador on March 22, 2011. US President Barack Obama arrived in El Salvador Tuesday on the last leg of a three-nation tour of Latin America.
---Jose CABEZAS/AFP/Getty Images


Salvadorean children present gifts to President Barack Obama, right, First Lady Michelle Obama and daughter Malia, left, upon their arrival at the international airport in San Salvador, El Salvador Tuesday March 22, 2011. President Obama will end his Latin America tour with a two day visit to El Salvador.
----Dario Lopez-Mills



The president of The United States Barack Obama (C), accompanied by his wife Michelle, receives the keys of the city of San Salvador from Mayor Norman Quijano (R), upon his arrival at the airport in the Salvadorean capital on March 22, 2011. US President Barack Obama arrived in El Salvador Tuesday on the last leg of a three-nation tour of Latin America. ----Jose CABEZAS/AFP/Getty Images


President Barack Obama, right, First Lady Michelle Obama and daughters Sasha, left, and Malia, arrive at the international airport in San Salvador, El Salvador Tuesday March 22, 2011. President Obama will end his Latin America tour with a two day visit to El Salvador.
---Dario Lopez-Mills

US President Barack Obama (2nd L) speaks with President of El Salvador Mauricio Funes (C) as First Lady Michelle Obama (R) speaks with El Salvador's First Lady Vanda Pignato during an arrival ceremony at the National Palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
---JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images


El Salvador President Mauricio Funes (2nd R) and First Lady Vanda Pignato (R) stand with US President Barack Obama (2nd L) aand First Lady Michelle Obama (L) during an arrival ceremony at the National Palace in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011.
---- JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images


U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and her El Salvadoran counterpart Vanda Pignato unveil a plaque during a visit to Ciudad Mujer Center in San Salvador March 22, 2011. Ciudad Mujer is support center for single mothers.
---REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama shake hands to her El Salvador's counterpart Vanda Pignato during a visit at Ciudad mujer Center in San Salvador March 22, 2011. Ciudad mujer is an attention to single mothers.
----REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama paints a mural during a visit to a youth assistance program known as "Superate" in San Salvador March 22, 2011.
---REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama smiles as she paints a mural next to her daughter Sasha (C) during a visit to a youth assistance program known as "Superate" in San Salvador March 22, 2011.
---REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama and youths paint a mural during her visit to a youth assistance program known as "Superate" in San Salvador March 22, 2011.
----REUTERS/Edgard Garrido


First Lady Michelle Obama poses with young students after helping them paint a mural at the site of a USAID project called °SupÈrate! in San Salvador, El Salvador, Tuesday March 22, 2011. The first lady and her daughters helped 30 °SupÈrate! students complete their community service project by painting a mural to decorate the centerís health clinic which will open next month.
-----Dario Lopez-Mills




U.S. President Barack Obama (2nd L) looks at a limited edition print with images of Archbishop Oscar Romero, which has been given to him as he tours the Metropolitan Cathedral in San Salvador March 22, 2011. Standing with Obama are: El Salvador's President Mauricio Funes (R), Archbishop of San Salvador Jose Luis Escobar Alas (L) and a translator. The structure on the right is the tomb of Archbishop Oscar Romero.





U.S. President Barack Obama (2nd L) tours the Metropolitan Cathedral with El Salvador's President Mauricio Funes (L) and Archbishop of San Salvador, Jose Luis Escobar Alas (2nd R), in San Salvador March 22, 2011. The woman on the right is an unidentified translator.
----REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque


US President Barack Obama (R), alongside Monsignor Jose Luis Escobar Alas (L), Archbishop of San Salvador, lights a candel at the Tomb of Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated in 1980, at the Metropolitan Cathedral in San Salvador, El Salvador, March 22, 2011. ----SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Even Some Conservatives Think Glenn Beck is Nuts

Conservative Stalwart Bill Kristol has called out Glenn Beck on his nonsensical rantings about the situation in Egypt. I have been amazed by the Republican media's talking points over the past week. Basically, the Republican media establishment has come out in support of dictator Hosni Mubarak & his government, all in the name of undermining President Obama. Republican Supreme Leader Rush Limbaugh, along with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and much of Fox-Non-News have been leading the way in this particular anti-Obama effort. But in the process, they have come away looking absolutely ridiculous.

Finally, some Conservatives are beginning to speak up, unable to deal with the level of crazy coming from their own ranks.

And despite all of this...what does Obama do? He legitimizes Fox-Non-News (a political organization) by appearing on their network over the weekend. This is the kind of nonsense that gives me a headache about Obama & Co.


Related

Glenn Beck - The Biggest Con Artist in America

Tea Party Terrorist Planned to Kill ACLU Staff

State of the Union: Winning The Future

President Obama's Press Conference from Today (with Transcript)

hat tip-3CHICSPOLITICO

President Obama Held A News Conference yesterday.

It was pretty damn good.



TRANSCRIPT:




THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I answer a few questions, I just wanted to say a few words about the agreement we’ve reached on tax cuts.

My number one priority is to do what’s right for the American people, for jobs, and for economic growth. I’m focused on making sure that tens of millions of hardworking Americans are not seeing their paychecks shrink on January 1st just because the folks here in Washington are busy trying to score political points.

And because of this agreement, middle-class Americans won’t see their taxes go up on January 1st, which is what I promised — a promise I made during the campaign, a promise I made as President.

Because of this agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table. And in exchange for a temporary extension of the high-income tax breaks — not a permanent but a temporary extension — a policy that I opposed but that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two years ago.

I’ll cite three of them. Number one, if you are a parent trying to raise your child or pay college tuition, you will continue to see tax breaks next year. Second, if you’re a small business looking to invest and grow, you’ll have a tax cut next year. Third, as a result of this agreement, we will cut payroll taxes in 2011, which will add about $1,000 to the take-home pay of a typical family.

So this isn’t an abstract debate. This is real money for real people that will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. It will make a real difference in the pace of job creation and economic growth. In other words, it’s a good deal for the American people.

Now, I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all Americans, even if it had meant an end to unemployment insurance for those who are desperately looking for work.

And I understand the desire for a fight. I’m sympathetic to that. I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years. In the long run, we simply can’t afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.

So we’re going to keep on having this debate. We’re going to keep on having this battle. But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

A long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people. And my responsibility as President is to do what’s right for the American people. That’s a responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in this office.

So with that, let me take a couple of questions.

Ben Feller.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve been telling the American people all along that you oppose extending the tax cuts for the wealthier Americans. You said that again today. But what you never said was that you oppose the tax cuts, but you’d be willing to go ahead and extend them for a couple years if the politics of the moment demand it.

So what I’m wondering is when you take a stand like you had, why should the American people believe that you’re going to stick with it? Why should the American people believe that you’re not going to flip flop?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Ben. This isn’t the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now. So the issue — here’s the choice. It’s very stark. We can’t get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don’t get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this — of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000. Number two: At the end of this month, 2 million people will lose their unemployment insurance.

Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate — and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished. I’ve got an option of just holding fast to my position and, as a consequence, 2 million people may not be able to pay their bills and tens of millions of people who are struggling right now are suddenly going to see their paychecks smaller. Or alternatively, what I can do is I can say that I am going to stick to my position that those folks get relief, that people get help for unemployment insurance. And I will continue to fight before the American people to make the point that the Republican position is wrong.

Now, if there was not collateral damage, if this was just a matter of my politics or being able to persuade the American people to my side, then I would just stick to my guns, because the fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me. There are polls showing right now that the American people, for the most part, think it’s a bad idea to provide tax cuts to the wealthy.

But the issue is not me persuading the American people; they’re already there. The issue is, how do I persuade the Republicans in the Senate who are currently blocking that position. I have not been able to budge them. And I don’t think there’s any suggestion anybody in this room thinks realistically that we can budge them right now.

And in the meantime, there are a whole bunch of people being hurt and the economy would be damaged. And my first job is to make sure that the economy is growing, that we’re creating jobs out there, and that people who are struggling are getting some relief. And if I have to choose between having a protracted political battle on the one hand, but those folks being hurt or helping those folks and continuing to fight this political battle over the next two years, I will choose the latter.

Q If I may follow up quickly, sir, you’re describing the situation you’re in right now. What about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? Was there a failure either on the part of the Democratic leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn’t preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is — seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so, unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election, to crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I think the Democrats have better ideas. I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don’t make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we’ve got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take. And the American people were persuaded by that.

But the fact of the matter is, I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party. I haven’t persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded John Boehner. And if I can’t persuade them, then I’ve got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs.

Julianna.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back in July, your budget office’s Mid-Session Review forecast that unemployment would be 7.7 percent in the second — in the fourth quarter of 2012. Will this package deal lower that projected rate? And also, is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your Recovery Act?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the Recovery Act was, but we’re in a different situation now. I mean, when the Recovery Act passed, we were looking at a potential Great Depression and we might have seen unemployment go up to 15 percent, 20 percent — we don’t know. In combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the Federal Reserve did, that’s behind us now. We don’t have the danger of a double-dip recession.

What we have is a situation in which the economy, although growing, although company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before I came into office and just as I was coming into office.

So what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than I think most economic forecasters had expected. And in fact, you’ve already seen some, just over the last 24 hours, suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. I think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. Unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace.

So, overall, every economist I’ve talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision.

Look, this is something that I think everybody has to remember, and I would speak especially to my fellow Democrats who I think rightly are passionate about middle-class families, working families, low-income families who are having the toughest time in this economy.

Q If I may follow up quickly, sir, you’re describing the situation you’re in right now. What about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? Was there a failure either on the part of the Democratic leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn’t preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is — seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so, unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election, to crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I think the Democrats have better ideas. I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don’t make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we’ve got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take. And the American people were persuaded by that.

But the fact of the matter is, I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party. I haven’t persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded John Boehner. And if I can’t persuade them, then I’ve got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs.

Julianna.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Back in July, your budget office’s Mid-Session Review forecast that unemployment would be 7.7 percent in the second — in the fourth quarter of 2012. Will this package deal lower that projected rate? And also, is it going to do more to boost growth and create jobs than your Recovery Act?

THE PRESIDENT: This is not as significant a boost to the economy as the Recovery Act was, but we’re in a different situation now. I mean, when the Recovery Act passed, we were looking at a potential Great Depression and we might have seen unemployment go up to 15 percent, 20 percent — we don’t know. In combination with the work we did in stabilizing the financial system, the work that the Federal Reserve did, that’s behind us now. We don’t have the danger of a double-dip recession.

What we have is a situation in which the economy, although growing, although company profits are up, although we are seeing some job growth in the private sector, the economy is not growing fast enough to drive down the unemployment rate given the 8 million jobs that were lost before I came into office and just as I was coming into office.

So what this package does is provide an additional boost that is substantially more significant than I think most economic forecasters had expected. And in fact, you’ve already seen some, just over the last 24 hours, suggest that we may see faster growth and more job growth as a consequence of this package. I think the payroll tax holiday will have an impact. Unemployment insurance probably has the biggest impact in terms of making sure that the recovery that we have continues and perhaps at a faster pace.

So, overall, every economist I’ve talked to suggests that this will help economic growth and this will help job growth over the next several months. And that is the main criteria by which I made this decision.

Look, this is something that I think everybody has to remember, and I would speak especially to my fellow Democrats who I think rightly are passionate about middle-class families, working families, low-income families who are having the toughest time in this economy.

The single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy. The single most important anti-poverty program we can put in place is making sure folks have jobs and the economy is growing.

We can do a whole bunch of other stuff, but if the economy is not growing, if the private sector is not hiring faster than it’s currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many programs we put into place.

And that’s why, when I look at what our options were, for us to have another three, four, five months of uncertainty, not only would that have a direct impact on the people who see their paychecks get smaller, not only would that have a direct impact on people who are unemployed and literally depend on unemployment insurance to pay the bills or keep their home or keep their car, but in terms of macroeconomics, the overall health of the economy, that would have been a damaging thing.

Q Just to follow up. The unemployment rate was just north of 8 percent when the last Recovery Act was put in place. It’s now 9.8 percent. Are you prepared to say today that the unemployment rate is going to go down as a result of this package?

THE PRESIDENT: My expectation is that the unemployment rate is going to be going down because the economy is growing. And even though it’s growing more slowly that I’d like, it’s still growing.

Now, how fast it’s going to go down, how quickly the economy is going to grow, when are private sector businesses going to start making the investments in plant and equipment and actually start hiring people again? There are a lot of economists out there who have been struggling with that question.

So I’m not going to make a prediction. What I can say with confidence is that this package will help strengthen the economy — will help strengthen the recovery. That I’m confident about.

Chuck Todd.

Q Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats who say you’re rewarding Republican obstruction here? You yourself used in your opening statement they were unwilling to budge on this. A lot of progressive Democrats are saying they’re unwilling to budge, and you’re asking them to get off the fence and budge. Why should they be rewarding Republican obstruction?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me use a couple of analogies. I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

Again, this not an abstract political fight. This is not isolated here in Washington. There are people right now who, when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills. There are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they’ve got, and when that paycheck gets smaller on January 1st, they’re going to have to scramble to figure out, how am I going to pay all my bills? How am I going to keep on making the payments for my child’s college tuition? What am I going to do exactly?

Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently.

So I guess another way of thinking about it is that if — certainly if we had made a determination that the deal was a permanent tax break for high-income individuals in exchange for these short-term things that people need right now, that would have been unacceptable. And the reason is, is because you would be looking at $700 billion that would be added to the deficit with very little on the short term that would help to offset that.

The deal that we’ve struck here makes the high-end tax cuts temporary, and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the American people that are my number one concern.

Q If I may follow, aren’t you telegraphing, though, a negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year because they can just stick to their guns, stay united, be unwilling to budge — to use your words — and force you to capitulate?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so. And the reason is because this is a very unique circumstance. This is a situation in which tens of millions of people would be directly damaged and immediately damaged, and at a time when the economy is just about to recover.

Now, keep in mind, I’ve just gone through two years, Chuck, where the rap on me was I was too stubborn and wasn’t willing to budge on a whole bunch of issues — including, by the way, health care where everybody here was writing about how, despite public opinion and despite this and despite that, somehow the guy is going to bulldoze his way through this thing.

Q Tell that to the left — they weren’t happy –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, but that’s my point. My point is I don’t make judgments based on what the conventional wisdom is at any given time. I make my judgments based on what I think is right for the country and for the American people right now.

And I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. But right now I want to make sure that the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight, and I think that this agreement accomplishes that.

And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they are giving up. I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspective, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit — all those things that are so important for so many families across the country — those are things they really opposed. And so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

And I’m happy to have that battle. I’m happy to have that conversation. I just want to make sure that the American people aren’t harmed while we’re having that broader argument.

Scott Horsley.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last week members of your administration were boasting that your willingness to walk away from the Korean negotiations led to a better deal. Can you explain how this is –

THE PRESIDENT: The difference is that if I didn’t get the Korea deal done on January 1st the taxes of middle-class America wouldn’t go up. It’s pretty straightforward. If we didn’t get the Korea deal done by January 1st, 2 million people weren’t suddenly looking at having no way to support their families.

And that’s why — this goes to Chuck’s question as well about what’s going to be different in the future. You’ve got a situation here that was urgent for millions of people. But as I recall, with the Korea free trade agreement, that was deemed by conventional wisdom as an example of us not getting something done. I remember a story above the fold on that. Then when we got it done with a better deal that has the endorsement of not only the U.S. auto companies but also of labor, the story was sort of below the fold. So I would just point that out. I think — I am happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with Republicans.

Q Having bought that time now, do you hope to use this two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And the answer is yes. Part of what I want to do is to essentially get the American people in a safe place so that we can then get the economy in a stable place. And then we’re going to have to have a broad-based discussion across the country about our priorities. And I started doing that yesterday down in North Carolina.

Here’s going to be the long-term issue. We’ve had two years of emergency — emergency economic action on the banking industry, the auto industry, on unemployment insurance, on a whole range of issues — on state budgets. The situation has now stabilized, although for those folks who are out of work, it’s still an emergency. So we’ve still got to focus short term on job growth.

But we’ve got to have a larger debate about how is this — how is this country going to win the economic competition of the 21st century? How are we going to make sure that we’ve got the best-trained workers in the world? There was just a study that came out today showing how we’ve slipped even further when it comes to math education and science education.

So what are we doing to revamp our schools to make sure our kids can compete? What are we doing in terms of research and development to make sure that innovation is still taking place here in the United States of America? What are we doing about our infrastructure so that we have the best airports and the best roads and the best bridges? And how are we going to pay for all that at a time when we’ve got both short-term deficit problems, medium-term deficit problems, and long-term deficit problems?

Now, that’s going to be a big debate. And it’s going to involve us sorting out what government functions are adding to our competitiveness and increasing opportunity and making sure that we’re growing the economy, and which aspects of the government aren’t helping.

And then we’ve got to figure out how do we pay for that. And that’s going to mean looking at the tax code and saying, what’s fair, what’s efficient. And I don’t think anybody thinks the tax code right now is fair or efficient. But we’ve got to make sure that we don’t just paper over those problems by borrowing from China or Saudi Arabia. And so that’s going to be a major conversation.

And in that context, I don’t see how the Republicans win that argument. I don’t know how they’re going to be able to argue that extending permanently these high-end tax cuts is going to be good for our economy when, to offset them, we’d end up having to cut vital services for our kids, for our veterans, for our seniors.

But I’m happy to listen to their arguments. And I think the American people will benefit from that debate. And that’s going to be starting next year.

Marc Ambinder.

Q Mr. President, thank you. How do these negotiations affect negotiations or talks with Republicans about raising the debt limit? Because it would seem that they have a significant amount of leverage over the White House now, going in. Was there ever any attempt by the White House to include raising the debt limit as a part of this package?

THE PRESIDENT: When you say it would seem they’ll have a significant amount of leverage over the White House, what do you mean?

Q Just in the sense that they’ll say essentially we’re not going to raise the — we’re not going to agree to it unless the White House is able to or willing to agree to significant spending cuts across the board that probably go deeper and further than what you’re willing to do. I mean, what leverage would you have –

THE PRESIDENT: Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.

And so my expectation is, is that we will have tough negotiations around the budget, but that ultimately we can arrive at a position that is keeping the government open, keeping Social Security checks going out, keeping veterans services being provided, but at the same time is prudent when it comes to taxpayer dollars.

Jonathan Weisman, last question.

Q Some on the left have questioned — have looked at this deal and questioned what your core values are, what specifically you will go to the mat on. I’m wondering if you can reassure them with some specific things in saying, all right, this is where I don’t budge. And along those lines, what’s going to be different in 2012, when all these tax cuts again are up for expiration?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what’s going to be different in 2012 we’ve just discussed, which is we will have had two years to discuss the budget — not in the abstract, but in concrete terms. Over the last two years, the Republicans have had the benefit of watching us take all these emergency actions, having us preside over a $1.3 trillion deficit that we inherited and just pointing fingers and saying, that’s their problem.

Well, over the next two years, they’re going to have to show me what it is that they think they can do. And I think it becomes pretty clear, after you go through the budget line by line, that if in fact they want to pay for $700 billion worth of tax breaks to wealthy individuals, that that’s a lot of money and that the cuts — corresponding cuts that would have to be made are very painful. So either they rethink their position, or I don’t think they’re going to do very well in 2012. So that’s on the first point.

With respect to the bottom line in terms of what my core principles are –

Q Where is your line in the sand?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent — that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved — that was a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America. Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they’re just trying to figure out how to go about their lives and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us. And that means because it’s a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare was started, it was a small program. It grew.

Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal. This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union.

So my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there. What is helping the American people live out their lives? What is giving them more opportunity? What is growing the economy? What is making us more competitive? And at any given juncture, there are going to be times where my preferred option, what I am absolutely positive is right, I can’t get done.

And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I’m keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight — not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?

And I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.

Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I’ve said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven’t gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

And so the — to my Democratic friends, what I’d suggest is, let’s make sure that we understand this is a long game. This is not a short game. And to my Republican friends, I would suggest — I think this is a good agreement, because I know that they’re swallowing some things that they don’t like as well, and I’m looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.

Can We Finally Call Out the GOP for Being Against Our National Security With Regards to the START Treaty?

President Obama & General Powell Push for a New START


From Wikipedia

START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 . The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.

The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.

PROPOSAL
The first START proposal was presented by United States President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[2] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.

So, the original START Treaty was presented by GOP Hero Ronald Reagan. Ronald ' He defeated the Commies' Reagan.

The President has negotiated START II, and now it needs ratification by the Senate. The problem with is that all treaties need 2/3 majority in the Senate to be ratified.

Of course, the problem is the GOP. They suddenly have a problem with START II.

WHY?

Because President Obama negotiated it.

If this had been George Bush, and he had negotiated anything with our international allies, the first thing that would have been said about any Democrat who opposed it was how the Democrats were once again ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. And, how dare they oppose the President. Aren't they REAL Americans?

You know it. I know it.

START II IS about the national security of the United States of America, and these mofos could care less. It's quite obvious that they could care less. How bad is it?

This is what the dean of GOP Foreign Policy in the Senate - Richard Lugar of Indiana has said to his colleagues:

LUGAR: Please do your duty for your country. We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We’re not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We’re not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us. I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads…could demolish my city of Indianapolis — obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I’ve not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us.

Here is Kyl of Arizona on MTP this past weekend. Please note that they've had the treaty in their hands for MONTHS.

Appearing on Meet The Press, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that the Senate would not be able to ratify the START treaty during the lame-duck session: "If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification, then theoretically there would be time. But he has made it clear that he has a different agenda in mind. And I, I think clearly they've got to set some priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that. Are they going to deal with the issue which is on everybody's mind, that you mentioned earlier, and that is to ensure that we don't have a big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country. These are higher priority items."

Higher priority than the national security of the United States?

G-T-F-O-H


You have other Republicans calling the Senate out for their insanity.

From ThinkProgress:

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

THIS from the man who brought us Unca Clarence.

Richard Lugar, could in no way, be considered a liberal anything. Hell, he couldn't even be considered a moderate anything. He is a conservative, but the man actually thinks about the national security of this country over getting a defeat of the President.

Imagine that - National Security of America and what's in America's international best interests - EVEN IF IT GIVES PRESIDENT OBAMA A WIN - over being a loyal GOP slop.

A REAL American, would want our country to be safe internationally. Would want this country to be in good standing - around the world.

These people are not Real Americans. They are not Good Americans. And, the left has to stop believing that they have any redeeming qualities. That they are nothing but powerhungry animals who could give a rat's ass if this country goes down the tubes, as long as they are in power and can loot the treasury for their friends. They have had MONTHS to look over this treaty. The only reason why they are objecting is because they don't want the President to get any credit for an International Foreign Policy Success.

PERIOD.

A sum up of the GOP Obstructionists with START II on Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama's Post Election Press Conference

And he's still talking about bipartisanship. I'm not quite sure that he gets it.

Why Velma Hart simply is NOT the Posterchild for 'Blacks and this Recession'

I was gonna leave the Velma Hart situation alone, because I just thought it was obvious that she was a plant.

Her segment on Hardball:

There is a reason why Black folks are going---' woman, please'.

A household with TWO INCOMES?

Children in PRIVATE school?

And her pain is not being able to have a new car?

When Black unemployment is double that of the rest of the nation, and everybody knows somebody who is un - or UNDER - employed......

if you were trying to find someone Black... this woman shouldn't be your posterchild for 'what has happened to the Black community during this recession.'

Black folks listen to her and go ' what recession for VELMA'?

I'm not hating on Velma and her family.

I'm glad she and her husband were gainfully employed. but, if you want to face of this recession....(I don't usually go personal here, but I will on this occasion.)
If you want to see the face of Black unemployment, you can look at me.
I was fired from a job where I had nothing but excellent reviews. Call it downsizing, but it meant that I was out of a job.

I also know that I am blessed, and though it hurt, I've come upon luck that others have not.

The exact week that I was fired from my job, I got a call for a Supervisor's position in a local Census Bureau office. I had applied for a weekend position, and this came up, and though the hours were 'non-traditional', I gratefully took it. The pay wasn't what I was making, but it was enough to cover my cost of living, because I had long since turned into a ' cash is king' household, cutting out frivolities. I spent 8 months employed by the U.S. Census, and I want to thank the U.S. Constitution for mandating that it be done every 10 years.

Working at the Census, I saw a slice of the face of unemployment in this country. From our office, I got to interact with a nice diverse set of people. The bosses above me, save one, were all Black men. Highly educated Black men who had spent many years in Corporate America before being downsized. I worked with a number of people who were self-employed until the recession hit, and the businesses that had sustained them for years, but this economy was just THAT BAD.

Of all the ethnic groups, I'd say that the Latinos were by far the youngest people working in the office. The Blacks and Whites, pretty much without exception, were people with experience in the working world. By virtue of seeing their work ethic up close and personal, I can't believe that they were fired for being unproductive - it's just that bad of a market out there. Got to know many folks who were bitten by the downturn in real estate- genuine investors that had been bitten hard by the market, and the ramifications of folks skipping out because they just couldn't pay rent.

I'll never forget sitting at lunch one day with one of my colleagues - a 20+ year veteran of ad sales, said that she felt the Census was a sort of ' Main Street' bailout of sorts. That for many folks, it helped them just in time, gave them a sense of purpose, and stopped the pounding of the spirit that unemployment can cause. I had to agree with her.

One of the best things about the Census was working with so many veterans, from different wars, and to meet the younger people who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hearing their opinions about what was going on there was interesting. And, they were another reason why Ms. Hart irked me. The veterans I spoke with at the Census had nothing but positive things to say about this President. They see the changes in how veterans are treated and appreciated that it was trickling down to the ground level with the soldiers.

Even as the Census wound down, another blessing came my way, and a random resume I sent out half-heartedly came through with an interview, and a new position. I'm not making what I was making before I got fired, but, it's pretty close, and I feel fortunate to have found it. Remember to always count your blessings.

Listening to Mrs. Hart, I just didn't see how she missed all the blessings she has.

She's a CFO, talking about private school and bummed about a new car. Does she not realize how many folks would love to have her ' issues'?

Has the recession skipped her family?

I ask this, because there was a new report out about successful Black people and philanthropy.

In Affluent Blacks More Charitable, Feel Greater Responsibility to Provide Financial Support to Family Than Non-Blacks

Affluent Black Americans are more likely to give to charitable causes and feel responsible for providing financial support to adult family members than affluent non-Blacks, according to a Northern Trust survey of "Wealth in Black America."
...................

Significant differences in charitable giving between affluent Blacks and non-Blacks

Affluent Blacks feel greater responsibility to provide financially for adult family members than non-Blacks.
Affluent Blacks, more than non-Blacks, feel responsible for family members and expect to provide them with consistent financial support over the next ten years, according to the survey.

Currently, 50 percent of affluent Blacks said they provide financial support to adult children; 32 percent to siblings; 21 percent to nieces or nephews; and 18 percent to cousins. In particular, financial support of adult children has risen dramatically in the financial crisis, up from 24 percent in 2008.

When asked what needs would be met by their financial support of those family members, general living expenses was the No. 1 response, displacing long-term care and disability, which was the top response in 2008. This year, 59 percent cited general living expenses compared with only 42 percent in 2008.

Maybe Mrs. Hart just doesn't have this experience. Could be, but then nearly everyone I know can't do six degrees of separation between themselves and someone who has been affected by this recession that's family. We aren't talking about Pookey and Ray-Ray, but the family that never thought they'd be in this position, that this recession has put in this position.

You want to beat up the President about the ' Black face' of this recession, with unemployment double the national rate? Take a trip up to Detroit and talk to some former GM workers, who were good workers, and lost their jobs because of the bankruptcy and rebuilding the company.

Why don't you go find some of those highly educated Black teachers summarily dismissed by Rhee in DC. Sure, some of them might have been bad teachers, but I'm going to lay money & say not all of them were.

I don't hate on Velma because she's successful...that's fine.

But, don't put this woman up as representative of the true Black middle class in America. And definitely don't have her lying on national TV.

Obama Falling Short When It Comes To The Economy- My Concerns About the Stimulus Package Have Turned Out to Be Justified

Back in January 2009, I wrote that the $800 billion dollar stimulus was mostly a waste and wouldn't have the desired impact on the economy long-term. (and of course the echo-chamber that is the DailyKos dismissed everything I wrote, because no one can criticize or even question President Obama). Much of the money was wasted on local pork projects for individual Congressional districts. It was not part of a cohesive plan to create long term employment. Paul Krugman and others argued that the stimulus wasn't ambitious enough. I basically came to the same conclusion.

The response should have been more robust. But even with $800 billion, there was an opportunity to create millions of jobs (sustainable jobs) by transforming the American workforce, and creating new industries. President Obama and the Country missed a golden opportunity that may never come again, to invest billions in the energy of the future, to transform the nations infrastructure, help small businesses, transform transportation and to retrain workers for the jobs of the future. It turns out that I was correct last year. Although in this case, I hate to say that I was right.

What Should Have Been Done - What Is Still Possible


1. We should put a few hundred billion dollars into establishing a new green industry in this Country. How? There should be additional stimulus... this time the funds should be targeted properly, with the goal of creating long-term, sustainable jobs. This could be done with $200-$300 billion.... or an amount sufficient enough to boost growth and create jobs.

A). Encourage to creation of wind farms with tax incentives, royalty incentives for farmers/landowners, etc.

B). Encourage Counties, and local communities to use wind and solar to reduce their energy costs. The Federal government could help out by paying a portion of the initial capital investment to get the projects started. (If you can reduce electric bills by 25%, 30%, 40%, 50% in local communities, people would respond favorably). Yes, some taxes would be involved to get these projects going, but the citizens could make that money back and then some in the long run through the savings on their energy costs. Not only would the projects save money on energy long term... but they would create jobs. We could blanket this Country with solar and wind projects over the next 10 years.

C). Provide low interest or no interest loans and grants to start-up companies, and existing companies that are involved in green energy, green manufacturing, green energy transportation, and research/technology. Provide millions in grants to start-ups with the best proposals, the best ideas and the best promise. Provide loans to existing companies that want to expand their factories, as long as they agree to hire Americans here at home. Encourage other companies to provide venture capital to new businesses.

D). Create a quasi-federal Research & Development agency that would use the talent and clout of the Federal government to conduct research and to find breakthroughs in energy. This agency could also be responsible for providing low cost research space for the future Bill Gates's or Paul Allen's of the energy sector.  This agency would also be responsible for holding major grant competitions for private industry and individuals to encourage fresh ideas, out of the box thinking, new technologies, new patents, new breakthroughs, etc... to create the next big thing. The point of this would be to award grants for/and perhaps even subsidize (for a time) the best & brightest ideas. The purpose of the government playing this role would be to spark competition and help fund new projects (directly or indirectly by encouraging private investment). One of the biggest complaints from the R&D and Tech communities is that there are not enough incubators (low cost research facilities and cheap business space) for small start-ups, and not enough capital to turn research into good ideas and good ideas into new technologies and new technologies into jobs. It takes a lot of Capital to do this.... and private investors are reluctant right now...and there aren't enough of them, and we know banks aren't really lending money. The government should come in and fill that gap and play the role of facilitator.

E). There is a need to create more public works programs. Not on the level of the New Deal... but something along those lines.

F). We need a national strategy on energy and transportation. Currently, regions, and individual States are working on their own high speed rail systems. It would make more sense to make this a unified national system, for a variety of reasons (one reason is to increase economies of scale which would improve purchasing power and would actually lower costs for local States. Costs would also be lowered by spreading the cost burden. There would also be an advantage of establishing standardization...standard track, standard train parts, etc... again.. lowering costs overall. Currently, with the disjointed approaches, by Amtrak on the East Coast...and with projects in California, Illinois, etc. It is hard to see how these systems could be tied together in any kind of cohesive system. In China, Spain, Japan, Germany...and other nations... these projects are unified, national efforts... not disjointed State-by-State projects. As a result, those systems overseas operate more efficiently and smoothly. With all the levels of government in our system.... it will take years for these projects to get off the ground... if they get off the ground at all. When they do, the impact won't be maximized because the systems won't be tied into any comprehensive national network.

G). Help to create the demand for Green energy... by offering a system of tax incentives for businesses, homeowners, and landlords of apartment properties.

2. Help small businesses.


President Obama should have been spending more time rolling up his sleeves, working on repairing the economic mess that was left for him by George W. Bush and the Republi-cons. He should have been on our TV screens addressing the nation once a week... or at least on a regular basis...during prime time, highlighting all the efforts by Republicans to obstruct progress. And he should be doing this right now. If that means interrupting dinner time for Americans... then so be it. Most Americans are unaware that the Republicans blocked efforts to help small businesses.... (while at the same time the Republicans were going on TV and Radio claiming -with a straight face- that the President was doing nothing to help small businesses... only in America can con artists get away with this kind of nonsense). It is the Presidents responsibility to keep Americans informed about what he is doing to improve the situation.

He should have spent more time making plans to create jobs... should have participated in nationally televised town hall meetings, .....and should have been looking busy...like a man concerned. You have to look busy. Perception is 50% of the job. That's one part that you can actually control. Yet he has blown almost every opportunity to do so over the past few months. Bush & his handlers understood the importance of perception...they squeezed every drop out of it that they could, and they were able to make one of the worst Presidents in American history seem like a warm, caring, personable, halfway intelligent and concerned character. This is how they were able to create success...even as Bush made a routine out of lying to the American people...and as he was driving the Country over a cliff.

Obama Administration Easing Rules For Soldiers With PTSD

From the NYTimes:

V.A. Is Easing Rules to Cover Stress Disorder
By JAMES DAO
Published: July 7, 2010

The government is preparing to issue new rules that will make it substantially easier for veterans who have been found to have post-traumatic stress disorder to receive disability benefits, a change that could affect hundreds of thousands of veterans from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

The regulations from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will take effect as early as Monday and cost as much as $5 billion over several years according to Congressional analysts, will essentially eliminate a requirement that veterans document specific events like bomb blasts, firefights or mortar attacks that might have caused P.T.S.D., an illness characterized by emotional numbness, irritability and flashbacks.

For decades, veterans have complained that finding such records was extremely time consuming and sometimes impossible. And in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, veterans groups assert that the current rules discriminate against tens of thousands of service members — many of them women — who did not serve in combat roles but nevertheless suffered traumatic experiences.

Under the new rule, which applies to veterans of all wars, the department will grant compensation to those with P.T.S.D. if they can simply show that they served in a war zone and in a job consistent with the events that they say caused their conditions. They would not have to prove, for instance, that they came under fire, served in a front-line unit or saw a friend killed.

The new rule would also allow compensation for service members who had good reason to fear traumatic events, known as stressors, even if they did not actually experience them.

When someone volunteers to join the Armed Services of this country...to put their lives on the line for this country..

the least, and I do mean the least we can do in return, is make sure that they are taken care of if they return to this country damaged - IN ANY WAY.

This has not been the case, especially during the Bush years, where they fought increasing services to the common soldier, and did what they could to rig the system so that the soldiers that needed help, couldn't get help.

This sea change from the Obama Administration is wonderful, and should be praised.

The Oil Spill Disaster, President Obama, and a Confused GOP

As the oil spill disaster has unfolded over the past several weeks, I have been dismayed by the images and the coverage. I have been especially annoyed by Republicans hoping to use the catastrophe against President Obama by calling it his Katrina- with the mainstream media more than willing to entertain the Republican talking points. All they are concerned with is the next election or the next opinion poll. I was especially annoyed by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Mr. Anti-Big Government himself (particularly the Federal Government).

Republicans have been thrown for a loop by the Gulf oil spill disaster. It is clear that they are extremely confused. In the early days of the disaster, they were warning Obama not to be too heavy handed against the oil industry and to take a soft approach towards BP. In response to his tough talk, they suggested that too much government involvement in BP because of to the disaster would be inappropriate and would be tantamount to fascism (they were already accusing him of fascism during the first couple of weeks of the disaster). They wanted the clean-up to be handled by BP.

However, once the disaster went into its third week and it became clear that the folks at BP were lying about the amount of oil being released and were not doing everything possible to contain the leak… Republicans started to whisper that it was Obama’s Katrina. They were hoping that they could make political hay out of the suffering of others along the Gulf Coast. Once the disaster went into its fourth week, Republicans (and Progressives) started to scream for a government takeover of the Gulf operations (while at the same time, still playing up the nonsense about fascism….to keep their political base energized - the biggest hypocritical jackasses that I have ever seen in my life). Leading the charge has been Bobby Jindal… the biggest Republican Jackass associated with this disaster. He has certainly been the one with the biggest mouth. Now all of a sudden he wants the government to take control from the private sector. This is the same man who lambasted the President last year about too much government - that government was too big and should have a very limited role in American life. Now this jackass is on TV everyday attacking the President (along with other Republicans) for not taking over the operations in the Gulf of Mexico from BP. Mr. Anti-Federal Government has been calling for a federal takeover of the cleanup. Some have suggested that Obama also take over the containment operations at the well site itself. Admiral Thad Allen has had to explain to a number of these idiots that the Navy simply doesn’t have certain special deep sea robotic equipment nor the expertise to cap oil gushing from a well 5,000 ft below the surface. This event has highlighted how confused and confounded Republicans are about what the role of government should be. They don’t seem to know what they want.

I personally believe that a criminal investigation should have started sooner, and everything that the jackasses at BP did from day #1 should have been watched closely and documented. Independent scientists and Federal investigators should have been brought in right away, and documents and any evidence should have been preserved. The Federal government should have taken control of overall operations, while leaving BP in charge of leak control. Instead, it appears that the perpetrator was left in control of his own crime scene for several days….potentially allowing BP to get rid of evidence, tamper with evidence, to turn off cameras, lie or mislead others about the amount of the spillage (because they had/have a financial interest in doing so), and potentially get rid of documents, delete files, and encourage workers not to talk to the media and perhaps even investigators. This is basically the equivalent of police detectives allowing a murder suspect to stay behind and control his own crime scene days after the killing. It makes no sense and it doesn’t happen like this anywhere in the civilized world outside of the realm of corporations. A crime scene in the real world is secured immediately, evidence is preserved just as it was after the incident…or to the degree that this is possible, documents/records are collected and witnesses are identified and separated. This is standard operating procedure. In this situation, the suspect has fewer opportunities to collude, develop a good lie, or to get rid of evidence. Why should we behave any differently when dealing with a corporation like BP? Clearly they are just as capable of doing harm and engaging in serious, outrageous criminal activity as any other organization, group or individual.

Dear President Obama - Every Now and Then Americans Like to See a Glimpse of John Wayne in Their Leaders

I have also been dismayed by President Obama. Although this is not his Katrina….his response and his ability to muster resources has left a lot to be desired. Obama should have called for more tankers and should have put more resources on containment boom duty. There should have been a call for volunteers and more boats. There is no reason why oil should have been coming ashore in areas where containment boom was sitting unattended on docks and where boats and other resources were not being used, as was the case in Southern Louisiana over the past couple of weeks. There is no reason why oil is still coming ashore while there is no robust containment effort underway to stop it. We are talking about an event that provided 3, 4, 5 weeks notice that an oil slick was probably going to be threatening the U.S. Gulf Coast. He should have addressed the nation from the White House, and explained to the American people exactly what the problem was and what his plan of attack was going to be…and he should have marshaled resources….in part by mobilizing the American public by telling them what he needed them to do. If he would have done that weeks ago… we would have had an armada of boats, ships and an army of volunteers in the Gulf, on top of what we already have. Instead, he has gone on trips, has been on Democratic fund-raisers, and has been focused on all sorts of other mundane issues. To the American people, it looks like he’s not connected with what is going on. He certainly isn’t very good at creating a sense of urgency for certain things…this event has been a perfect example.

Even if he is connected…the point is, he doesn’t look like it. The Gulf disaster has really highlighted the weakness in PR that he has been dealing with even before he became President. This PR problem is something that I pointed out a couple of years ago… now everyone can see it. It’s exposed like an open sore. I know there are thousands of people working in the Gulf…and there are hundreds of Coast Guard folks working… but the cameras aren’t showing enough of that, at least they weren’t showing it in the first few weeks of the disaster. This allowed Republicans to run with a narrative that suggested that he wasn’t doing enough. Controlling perception can be as much as 50% of the job for a political figure. The best President in the World can fail if his PR is no good. On the contrary, an idiot can convince a nation to jump into a war that it doesn’t need, as long as he has a powerful and effective PR machine behind him. And there are/have been many examples of these kinds of leaders around the World. President Obama’s political advisers have been doing a horrible job of controlling their message, keeping Obama engaged, and understanding what Americans are feeling.

I also agree that Obama has not been forceful or passionate enough during this crisis. Yes, I criticized the Bush Administration for its cowboy diplomacy and for having a John Wayne approach to everything. But the keyword here is “everything”. The Texas Cowboy President being on duty all the time and the oversimplification of issues just doesn’t work. However, there is a large part of America that does want to see a take charge, John Wayne, ass kicking kind of man in its Presidents on occasion…. and always has. Even Progressives like to see this in their Presidents (don’t let them tell you they don’t). George Washington had it. Abe Lincoln had it. FDR showed it in his speech after the attack on Pearl Harbor. JFK showed his John Wayne during the Cuban missile crisis (although I - and several experts- would have rather seen another approach). Reagan showed it when he told Libya to go to Hell…and dropped bombs when they didn’t do what he asked them to. George H.W. Bush showed his John Wayne when he yelled at Saddam Hussein… demanding that he get the Hell out of Kuwait or he was going to insert his foot in a very sensitive place. (H.W. Bush didn't literally say that last part of course, but his visceral emotion said it...and that's the point). These are the kinds of flickers of anger and strength and visceral emotion that every strong President has to have and should be prepared to show. There is just no way around it. And when Americans don’t see it…. When they don’t see you as their vessel for expressing their feelings to the rest of the world, you appear disconnected. Americans want a man who feels deeply…but who is strong…. Or can at least appear so… like John Wayne in the classic film “The Longest Day” (still one of my favorite war movies… have seen it at least 7 times… but I never get tired of watching it). The point is… Americans like to see a strong leader….a take charge kind of a man. Not someone who doesn’t show glimpses of anger and who is fund-raising in the middle of a national catastrophe.

Obama still has time to get it together. All is not lost. Attorney General Eric Holder has just announced a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the spill (although the announcement came several weeks late IMO). His advisers (many of whom should be replaced) finally got the message to him…. Or he figured it out for himself.. that he needs to be more hands on with the Gulf disaster. He has learned that he needs to “appear” more engaged…regardless of what he has been doing behind the scenes in some obscure Situation Room. Americans don’t know much about that mundane stuff…and they frankly don’t care. What they want to see is a man who appears on top of the situation. And in America…that means being on the scene…. early and often. Running the Country is not like running a law firm or being an academic in Chicago or Cambridge Massachusetts.

P.S. You can check out "The Longest Day" online.... I believe the whole movie will play. (Love that film).