Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism?

Numbers show the U.S. is drifting ever closer to the socialist systems popular within the European Union.

By Shannon Bream

FOXNews.com

 

February 17, 2009

 

With taxpayers shelling out $700 billion to bail out Wall Street and another $787 billion to jolt the sputtering economy, serious questions are being raised about whether all the government intervention is taking the country down the path to socialism.

Numbers show the U.S. is drifting ever closer to the socialist systems popular within the European Union. In 1999, government spending made up 34.3 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, the broadest barometer used to measure the health of the economy. That number is projected to grow to nearly 40 percent by next year.

Government spending within the majority of European Union nations averages 47.1 percent of the GDP, meaning the U.S. is roughly seven points behind -- closer than ever before.

But whether that equates to socialism here depends on whom you ask.

"A technical definition of socialism is that the government owns the production, it owns the factories or the plants or the businesses," said Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

"That's not what's happening here," she added. "It's not that the U.S. is buying up all the factories or businesses. What's going on is we're making investments to get the private sector back on track."

Peter Morici, a University Maryland business professor, said the all of the government spending "runs counter to the basic idea of Jeffersonian democracy, that it's the individual who knows best. The government is there to set up a framework for the individual to prosper, succeed and create wealth."

Morici said America is headed for a European-style social democracy of the 1970s.

"A large state sector, some state ownership of enterprises, big enterprises like banks and automobile companies and a lot of inefficiency that goes with it," he said.

But Boushey disagreed.

"We are looking at an economic crisis caused by the collapse of our financial sector," she said. "If we don't get people back to work, the problem will spiral out of control."

Critics warn that's exactly what happened in Europe when it implemented socialist reforms, forcing unemployment into the double digits.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/17/obamas-policies-ushering-era-socialism/

Could 'Fairness Doctrine' Be Used to Police the Internet?

A report in The American Spectator says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is looking into ways to exert more oversight on the Internet. His office denies the report. 

February 17, 2009

First radio, now the Web?

Media analysts and bloggers are warning that fresh efforts to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine could go too far, following a report that one prominent Democrat is looking into ways to apply the media control standards to the Internet. 

The Fairness Doctrine is a police created decades ago but abolished in the late 1980s that required broadcasters to provide opposing views on controversial issues. 

While some Democrats have talked about reviving the policy, The American Spectator reported Monday that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is taking the call to a new level. The article said aides to the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee met last week with Federal Communications Commission staff to discuss ways to not only enact those policies but give Waxman's panel greater oversight over the Internet. 

"It's all about diversity in media," the Spectator quoted a House energy committee staff member as saying. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? ... Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?" 

The committee vigorously denied the report. A spokesperson called the account "fictitious" in a statement to FOX News. 

"The American Spectator report is false and was written without any documentation or attribution," the statement said. 

FCC spokesman David Fiske also disputed the claims in the piece, saying, "We're not sure that it's an accurate article."

Analysts treated the report with a dose of skepticism as well -- but noted that the idea is not entirely foreign. Robert McDowell, the current FCC commissioner and a Bush appointee, warned in an interview last year that Fairness Doctrine advocates might try to extend their policies to the Web. 

If that is the case, foes and supporters of the doctrine alike say policing fairness on the Internet will prove impossible. Plus they say it's unnecessary and well beyond the scope of the original policy. 

"This borders between stupidity and sheer insanity," said conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher, when told about the Spectator report. "I can't wait until they try to monitor how many conservative posts are on a thread versus how many liberal posts are on a thread." 

He added that Democrats would be only neutralizing dominant liberal blogs that currently help them. He predicted any move to extend Fairness Doctrine principles to the Web would "blow sky high." 

The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration. 

The policy is the scourge of conservative radio hosts, who say it would allow the federal government to skew content on their programs. Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have renewed the call to reinstate the doctrine in recent weeks, say it would bring accountability to the airwaves and help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. 

Steve Rendall, a Fairness Doctrine supporter and senior analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, said liberals and conservatives both over-state the impact the doctrine would have on media content. 

He said most talk shows, even those on the right, already comply with the requirements, which he said tread "very lightly" and do not call for absolute balance on the airwaves. 

But he said there is "no justification" for applying the doctrine to the Internet, or any other form of media -- since the doctrine was only meant to apply standards to the privileged holders of limited broadcast licenses. The Internet, by contrast, has infinite outlets for opinion. 

"Cable and Internet are, at least theoretically, limitless in the number of voices that they can present, and it's not at all the same as broadcast," Rendall said. 

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, said it would be "impossible" to regulate balance and neutrality on the Internet. He said he thinks Democrats eventually want to bring those standards to the Web but are struggling to rally the political will to revisit the Fairness Doctrine. 

He said any legislative efforts to reinstate it will probably occur behind closed doors, since doing it out in the open could cause political repercussions. 

The Spectator reported that Waxman's advisers were discussing ways to implement Fairness Doctrine policies without actually calling it the "Fairness Doctrine." 

Other Democrats have openly called for a modern-day Fairness Doctrine in recent weeks, though they were referring more to radio than the Internet. 

"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press two weeks ago. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, though her office has reportedly backed off that prediction. (Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.)

And Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press last week: "We gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." 

During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said then-candidate Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But Obama's White House aides are now leaving open the question. 

Asked if the White House would rule out imposing the doctrine on "FOX News Sunday," senior adviser David Axelrod ducked. 

"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," he said. 

Despite the speculation, nobody has introduced a bill this session to reinstate those policies. 

Meanwhile, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report. 

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/17/fairness-doctrine-used-police-internet/

Lawmakers Worry Whether Obama Tax Cut Will Stimulate Consumer Spending

The Democrats' stimulus plan would give a $400 tax cut to individuals and an $800 cut to couples. That boils down to an extra $13 a week for most workers starting in June, and would fall to about $8 extra per week next January. 

February 16, 2009

President Obama plans to sign his landmark economic recovery package Tuesday, but lawmakers are increasingly concerned that one of the bill's central proposals -- the tax cut for individuals -- will be too small and too temporary to have much effect. 

The stimulus plan would give a $400 tax cut to individuals and an $800 cut to couples. That boils down to an extra $13 a week for most workers starting in June. It would fall to about $8 extra per week next January. 

Some worry the cut is not enough to encourage consumers to go out and spend. And since two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, the effectiveness of the tax cut in spurring workers to open their wallets is key to an economic revival. 

"The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C. "We created more new government than we did jobs and the substance and process cannot repeat itself." 

Moody's economist Mark Zandi also says the nature of the tax cut could reduce the number of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus package. 

"With regard to how much of the tax cut's going to spent for individuals, the White House, I think, is assuming that people are going to behave as if that tax cut is permanent, and I doubt that will be the case," he said. 

Zandi disputes White House estimates that the package will save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. He thinks the package will add 2 to 2.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. 

However, Democrats argue that their tax cut is a far more effective stimulus than the cut under former President Bush last spring, which gave taxpayers a lump-sum refund. 

"Instead of giving one paycheck at once, which George Bush did, and it really didn't stimulate the economy, the economists said 'stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going'," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y. 

The rebates under President Bush were higher-- $600 per person and $1,200 per family, plus $300 dollars per child. But analysts say most taxpayers took the lump-sum rebate and either saved it or paid down debt. 

Economists say that is because they knew the money wasn't a permanent part of their family budgets and decided it was not sufficient to make any major purchases. 

Obama originally wanted a $500 tax cut for individuals and a $1,000 cut for couples in his package, but that got trimmed during negotiations in Congress 

So will $8 dollars a week unleash any more spending than the lump sum taxpayers received last year? 

One factor that could also affect job creation is the extent to which the stimulus helps small businesses, which create about three-quarters of all new jobs. 

"The tax provisions in the final compromise were gutted when it comes to business," Graham said. 

He complained that a tax benefit for business was cut from $67 billion to only $4 billion. 

Republican Rep. Peter King, N.Y., said others who do little to create jobs get far better treatment. 

"We give more tax relief to the arts than we do to small businesses," he said. 

FOX News' Jim Angle contributed to this report. 

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/16/lawmakers-worry-obama-tax-cut/

Religious liberty

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  December 31, 2008

Same-sex marriage made plenty of news in 2008, from court decisions legalizing it to the adoption of amendments banning it to the ongoing battle over Proposition 8 in the one state - California - where both occurred.

But one front in the marriage wars rarely gets the coverage it deserves: the drive by gay activists to punish religious believers whose faith forbids homosexual relationships. Consider three (of many) recent cases:

In April, photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,637 by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission for declining to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Huguenins didn't want to take a job that would have required them to disregard their Christian values. But the commission ruled that in turning down the work, they had illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Marcia Walden, a licensed counselor in Georgia, was fired for referring a lesbian client to someone better suited to help her. "Jane Doe" had approached Walden for counseling on her same-sex relationship, a request with which Walden recognized her own religious beliefs were in conflict. Rather than provide insincere counseling, Walden referred Jane to a colleague. That colleague commended her for doing "the right thing" by making the referral, but Jane later filed a complaint, and Walden lost her job. Just last month, the dating site eHarmony agreed to begin providing gay and lesbian matchmaking services in order to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination. eHarmony was founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren in 2000 and had never provided a same-sex option. But rather than use a dating service that catered to gays, a New Jersey man decided to sue eHarmony for not doing so. New Jersey's attorney general jumped into the case and eHarmony caved under pressure.

For many gay marriage supporters, it is not enough that same-sex relationships be normalized: Any private reluctance to embrace that normalization must also be penalized. Freedom of religion is the first of our liberties, the guarantee that opens the First Amendment. But religious liberty is under assault by gay activists, and the First Amendment is getting battered. It ought to be a bigger story.

[Source URL]    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/31/religious_liberty?mode=PF

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

Democrats Consider Reviving 'Fairness Doctrine'

February 12, 2009

A political battle is brewing over control of the radio airwaves as Democrats consider pushing for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcast stations to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.

But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.

"I can't think of anything worse than to have government in a position to dictate the content of information going over public radio," said Inhofe, a Republican. "The whole idea is that it has to be market driven. We have a lot of progressive or liberal radio shows but nobody listens to them and every time one tries to get on, they are not successful."

Inhofe and other critics believe those pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- nicknamed the Hush Rush Doctrine -- want to diminish the influence of Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. Supporters insist that's not the case.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press Wednesday that the Fairness Doctrine is needed not to remove any conservative voices, but to ensure that there are a few liberal shows on the air.

During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But his White House spokesman has since left the door open.

"I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Inhofe says Democrats and liberal advocacy groups aren't going to let the matter drop.

"They are committed to make this happen," he said. "We got to be ready."

Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but he said he has not gotten a single Democrat to co-sponsor it. 

FOX News' Molly Henneberg contributed to this report.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/12/dems-consider-reviving-fairness-doctrine/

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House

February 9, 2009

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country. 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers. 

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department. 

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority. 

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census. 

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau. 

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/09/gop-sounds-alarm-obama-decision-census-white-house/

Bill Press: 'Fairness Doctrine' Will Remedy 'Conservative Media Conspiracy'

Bill Press: 'Fairness Doctrine' Will Remedy 'Conservative Media Conspiracy'

By Brent Baker

February 8, 2009

Bitter over the decision, by the owner of the Washington, DC area radio station which carried his show and other left-wing hosts, to drop its liberal talk show format which didn't garner enough listeners to even show up in the latest ratings, Bill Press charged in a Sunday Washington Post op-ed:  

There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.

In the February 8 piece, "Another Right-Wing Conspiracy in Washington? [1]", Press lamented that while the owner of WWRC, dubbed "Obama 1260" by owner Red Zebra, "will add Ed Schultz to its conservative lineup on 570 AM," he'll be "outgunned in this market by at least 15 conservative talkers."

He proceeded to list them without, however, acknowledging that the DC market has a far-left Pacifica station as well as two stations which air NPR talk shows: "Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, Michael Smerconish, Michael Savage, Andy Parks, Fred Grandy, Bill Bennett, Monica Crowley, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Miller and Lars Larsen. No matter how good Schultz is, that's not a fair contest -- nor a fair use of the public airwaves."

But many of those conservative hosts are hardly pulling in great ratings in the DC market either, though more listeners than the station which aired Press, so maybe DC just isn't a very good market for talk radio and thus switching to a low-cost financial news format, as WWRC will do on Monday, makes business sense. Last Monday, on his DCRTV.com [2] blog, Dave Hughes noted:

The last PPM numbers it had when it ranked showed WWRC in 35th place full-day, age 12+. Red Zebra's co-owned righty talker, WTNT, while it may have seen its ratings rise a bit of late, still ranked 32nd overall in the latest ratings round-up. WTNT's Bill Bennett morning show was its highest-rated at 25th place. Even at the market's dominant righty radio talker, Citadel's WMAL, things are not good. It placed 16th in the latest PPMs, with middayer Rush Limbaugh in 12th.

[UPDATE: The Radio Equalizer offers [3] a detailed dissection of the fallacies in the Press op-ed.]

---

Links:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602511.html
[2] http://www.dcrtv.com/
[3] http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/02/bill-press-wants-government-to-regulate.html

[Source URL]    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/08/bill-press-fairness-doctrine-will-remedy-conservative-media-conspiracy

We Are All Socialists Now

We Are All Socialists Now

 

In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas, NEWSWEEK

 

From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

The interview was nearly over. On the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for "fish passage barriers" (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. "It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009," the host said, signing off. "We're counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman."

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not—and many, especially Congressman Pence and Hannity, do not—the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The architect of this new era of big government? History has a sense of humor, for the man who laid the foundations for the world Obama now rules is George W. Bush, who moved to bail out the financial sector last autumn with $700 billion.

Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government. The story, as always, is complicated. Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew. But the economy grew just as fast, so government as a percentage of GDP remained about the same. Much of that economic growth was real, but for the past five years or so, it has borne a suspicious resemblance to Bernie Madoff's stock fund. Americans have been living high on borrowed money (the savings rate dropped from 7.6 percent in 1992 to less than zero in 2005) while financiers built castles in the air.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.

[Source URL]    http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

Competing Stimulus Bills Divide Congress

Competing Stimulus Bills Divide Congress

AP

February 7, 2009

With the Senate expected to narrowly approve its version of an economic stimulus bill, lawmakers from the House and Senate will With the Senate expected to narrowly approve its version of an economic stimulus bill, lawmakers from the House and Senate will face difficult negotiations over spending for tax cuts, education and aid for local governments.

The $827 billion measure is on track to pass the Senate on Tuesday, despite stiff opposition from the GOP and disappointment among Democrats, including President Barack Obama who labeled it imperfect.

Obama and Senate Republicans bickered over his historically huge economic recovery plan after states and schools lost tens of billions of dollars in a late-night bargain to save it.

The Senate convened in a rare Saturday session to debate a compromise reached between a handful of GOP moderates led by Susan Collins of Maine, the White House and its Senate allies.

The agreement stripped $108 billion in spending from Obama's plan. Changes included cutbacks in projects that likely would give the economy a quick lift, like $40 billion in aid to state governments for education and other programs.

The bill retained items that also probably won't do much for the economy, such as spending $1 billion to fix problems with the 2010 Census.

Among the most difficult cuts for the White House and its liberal allies to accept was the elimination of $40 billion in aid to states, money that economists say is an efficient way to pump up the economy by preventing layoffs, cuts in services or tax increases.

For all the talk of cuts, the bill retains the core of Obama's plan, designed to ease the worst economic recession in generations by combining hundreds of billions of dollars in spending to boost consumption by the public sector with tax cuts designed to increase consumer spending.

Much of the new spending would be for victims of the recession, in the form of extending unemployment insurance through the end of the year and increasing benefits by $25 a week, free or subsidized health care, and increased food stamp payments.

Obama acknowledged the bill was far from perfect but said it would be too dangerous to leave it lifeless on the table.

The cost of the House version of the bill is $820 billion and is weighted more toward sending money to states and local governments.

Obama will take his case to the American people Monday with his first prime-time news conference.

[Source URL] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/02/08/competing-stimulus-bills-divide-congress/

Political Battle Brews Over 2010 Census

Political Battle Brews Over 2010 Census

President Obama's decision to share oversight of next year's Census has sparked protest from GOP lawmakers.

FOXNews.com

Saturday, February 07, 2009

 

A political battle has erupted over next year's census with Republican lawmakers protesting President Obama's decision to take a bigger role in supervising the process.

The Census Bureau director, who reports to the commerce secretary, now also will keep the White House directly in the loop.

The White House says it is following a historical precedent and that this simply shows that the census is a priority for the president. But Republicans say it looks like a political power grab.

"The United States census should remain independent of politics," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "It should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."

"I'm very concerned," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told FOX News. "The Census Bureau has worked for decades to get rid of the cronyism and the partisan politics that had permeated that agency.

"And they have done it by bringing professionalism to the agency and making certain that individuals that came there went through a very thorough process. Anytime there is an administration that will tamper with that, this is a concern to anyone."

Blackburn, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says the committee will hold hearings to investigate the change.

The census count is supposed to be a non-partisan process. But it also helps to determine how congressional lines are drawn. And it shows the demographic changes of the nation of the past 10 years, which could shift billions of dollars in federal funding for things like schools and roads and job training.

Some Republicans suspect this could be a move by the White House to gerrymander those political boundaries so they benefit Democratic candidates.

The move comes after some advocates worried that Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Obama's nominee for commerce secretary, wouldn't push hard for a count of Hispanics and other minorities in the census.

Boehner said the White House oversight "appears to be motivated by politics" because Gregg has been picked by Obama to take over the Commerce Department.

But Obama officials insist they're simply returning to the model used under President Clinton.

"I think the historical precedent of this is there's a director of the census that works for the secretary of commerce, the president and also works closely with the White House to ensure a timely and accurate count," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

The Clinton and Bush administrations had different ways of dealing with the census. The Clinton administration placed a panel of experts at the Census Bureau in charge of adjusting data for people the census missed or double-counted. Clinton officials said it would insulate the decision from political pressure.

The Bush administration changed those regulations before that panel ruled on the 2000 results, leaving it up to the commerce secretary to oversee the bureau's work.

FOX News' Caroline Shively contributed to this report.

[Source URL]    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/07/political-battle-brews-census/

George Stephanopoulos Links Obama's Islamo Dictatorship Metaphor to GOP

George Stephanopoulos Links Obama's Islamo Dictatorship Metaphor to GOP

By Scott Whitlock

February 6, 2008

On Friday's "Good Morning America," George Stephanopoulos turned a statement that Barack Obama made about corrupt Islamic dictatorships and made it into a metaphor on congressional Republican opposition to the President's stimulus bill. Speaking of the difficulty Obama has had with passing his multi-billion dollar spending bill, Stephanopoulos instructed, "And to borrow a metaphor from the President's inaugural address, he might have to replace his open hand with a clenched fist." [audio excerpt available here [1]]

In comparison, during the President's inaugural address [2] on January 20, Obama spoke to the Muslim world and asserted, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." GMA news anchor Chris Cuomo seemed to understand Stephanopoulos' linkage. He complained, "Who knew that the clenched fist would be about Congress? We thought he was talking about foreign people, foreign countries, then."

Earlier in the segment, Cuomo introduced the discussion of the stalled stimulus bill and Republican opposition by fretting, "So, simply put, where is the love? This was supposed to be about bipartisanship. Seems more bitter than ever down there."

This past week, the MRC has repeatedly covered the story, first broken by Politico, that Stephanopoulos has been having daily conference calls with Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. See an MRC press release [3] for more.

A transcript of the February 6 segment, which aired at 7:16am, follows:

CHRIS CUOMO: Congress met late into the night, arguing over that economic stimulus bill. A much bigger and more bitter battle than President Obama ever expected. So, let's bring in ABC's chief Washington correspondent, and, of course, host of "This Week," Mr. George Stephanopoulos, with the bottom line." Good morning, George. How are you?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Hey, Chris. Good, thanks.

CUOMO: So, simply put, where is the love? This was supposed to be about bipartisanship. Seems more bitter than ever down there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sure is, Chris. We've seen nothing but partly-line votes so far in both the House and the Senate. But as you said, the Senate was working late into the night last night. And there's a bipartisan group, led by Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska. They worked into the night. They're going to meet again this morning. And White House and Senate sources from both parties that I talked to, just this morning, are holding out some hope that this group is going to come together with an agreement today, to cut about $100 billion or so out of the President's package. Bring it to about $800 billion. If they reach that agreement, you will see the bill pass with bipartisan support some time later today. If not, we are going to be in for much more pitch battles.

CUOMO: So, and the question is, it does seem to be so fundamentally about ideology. The Republicans don't want to spend this kind of money. The Democrats seem totally insistent on it. Can President Obama go to the people? Can he use that as his trump card here?

STEPHANOPOULOS: It might be what he has to do, Chris. You're starting to see elements of that just in the last couple days. The President's gotten much tougher in his speeches. Now, the President's package has actually been losing public support. But the President remains very popular. And to borrow a metaphor from the President's inaugural address, he might have to replace his open hand with a clenched fist. If this bipartisan agreement doesn't come today, you'll see the President making more public pitches, going out after these unemployment numbers come today. And he's also planning primetime a press conference on Monday night. And you can expect a tough pitch, if this bipartisan deal doesn't come together today.

CUOMO: Who knew that the clenched fist would be about Congress? We thought he was talking about foreign people, foreign countries, then. Let me ask you, any chance that the 13^th, you say that this weekend is very important- do you think they can get it done by February 13, which is what Boehner said to us on the show.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it's what the President is hoping for. He wants to sign the bill on President's Day, February 16. It all depends on this deal today. If they come together today, then the bill will likely go to a conference between the House and the Senate next week. And they likely can come together by the 16. If not, it's going to be very, very difficult.

CUOMO: President says crisis could turn to catastrophe. George, thank you very much for the bottom line. Appreciate it.

____________________________

Links:
[1] http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2009/02/2009-02-06-ABC-GMA-Steph.mp3
[2] http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/21/we_seek_a_new_way_forward
[3] http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2009/press20090204-letter.asp

[Source URL]    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/02/06/george-stephanopoulos-links-obamas-islamo-dictatorship-analogy-gop

 

Obama concerned about justice for terror suspects

February 5, 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, preparing Friday to meet with families of terror victims, is concerned that Guantanamo Bay detainees have been held for years without trial. Obama wants to close the detention center in Cuba, and has signed an executive order to do so within a year.

He has invited relatives of Americans killed in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the next year to the White House for a meeting Friday afternoon.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says Obama will discuss his plans for Guantanamo Bay with the terror victims' families. Many of those families disagree with the president's plan to close the detention center.

Obama "wants to discuss his plan to bring about changes in Guantanamo that he believes will make this country safer and bring about the very same swift justice that they desire on behalf of those that they know that have been killed," Gibbs said.

"The main concern that the president has is the military commission's failure to bring those in detention to swift justice," he said.

Obama is now reviewing the system, and likely to scrap it, to make sure the 245 suspects who remain there are given international and U.S. legal rights. That review largely will determine whether the terror suspects should be tried in courts in the United States or released to other countries.

About 15 victims' relatives are to meet mid-afternoon with Obama, many of whom are upset about over his Jan. 22 order to halt legal action on the Guantanamo cases.

The meeting was scheduled for the day after a senior Pentagon judge dropped charges against an al-Qaida suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of masterminding the 2000 USS Cole bombing and is being held at Guantanamo.

A legal move late Thursday by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, marked the last active war crimes case there.

Family members say they've already waited too long to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in 2000, said he would be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Seventeen U.S. sailors died on Oct. 12, 2000, when al-Qaida suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, as it sat in a Yemen port.

The Pentagon last summer charged al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian, with "organizing and directing" the bombing and planned to seek the death penalty in the case.

New charges against al-Nashiri could be brought again later, and he will remain in prison for the time being.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said he was concerned about the order to suspend charges against al-Nashiri. Smith said al-Nashiri had "orchestrated the mass murder of American soldiers" and must be punished.

"I urge them to reinstate the charges as quickly as possible and in a manner that ensures justice for the families and victims," Smith said in a statement Friday.

Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons. 

______________________

Associated Press writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.

 

[Source URL]    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo

Religious Discrimination Embedded in Stimulus Bill

Religious Discrimination Embedded in Stimulus Bill

Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post Reporter

February 3, 2009

The economic stimulus bill before the Senate contains a provision that would discriminate against religious activity, according to a Christian legal firm.

The legislative team at American Center for Law and Justice has noticed that a provision in Section 803 of the measure contains language that would prohibit schools that accept funding for the renovation of university facilities from allowing religious activity to take place at those facilities.

ACLJ made the observation on Tuesday.

The provision reads: "Grants awarded under this section shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, and repairing institution of higher education facilities that are primarily used for instruction and research," according to ACLJ, which specializes in protecting religious liberties.

Funds may not be used for "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities -(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

"This is a discriminatory measure that must be removed from the stimulus bill," writes Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of ACLJ on his Trial Notebook blog.

The D.C.-based legal group says the provision would prohibit universities that allow student groups to use facilities for Bible studies or worship services from receiving federal funds under the stimulus package.

ACLJ said its teams are looking into the issue.

President Obama's economic stimulus plan was approved by the House last week without a single Republican vote.

The bill has drawn fire from pro-family groups because it set aside $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STD) but killed funding for abstinence education programs.

On Monday, Senate Democrats dropped the controversial STD program from the bill after Republican leaders released a list of provisions they deemed "wasteful," reports CNN.

The Senate version of the bill stands at nearly $900 billion, while the House version included approximately $825 billion in funding.

President Obama wants a bill signed by Presidents' Day.

[Source URL] http://christianpost.com/Society/General/2009/02/religious-discrimination-embedded-in-stimulus-bill-03/index.html

At retreat, Obama Goes on the Offensive

Glenn Thrush, Patrick O'ConnorFebruary 5, 2009

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.

In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.

"I welcome this debate, but we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin," said President Obama – sounding more like Candidate Obama than at any time since he took the oath of office less than a month ago.

Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It's spending — that's the whole point! Seriously."

Stabbing hard at Republicans who once aligned themselves with his predecessor, Obama made it clear that the problems he seeks to address with his recovery plan weren't ones of his making.

"When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things," he said. "No. 1, when they say, 'Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we've got this huge deficit?' – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.

"I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

After his remarks, Obama, clearly caught up in the moment, made the party get-together feel even more like a campaign rally with his signature call-and-response chant.

"Fired up?" he asked the Democratic lawmakers. "Ready to go!" a group of them shouted back.

In his speech, Obama went on to contrast the kind words of House and Senate Republican leaders with their increasingly strident opposition to the stimulus package.

"We were complimented by Republicans saying, 'This is a balanced package . . . we're pleasantly surprised,'" he said. "Suddenly, what was a 'balanced package' is suddenly out of balance."

 

As the Senate deliberated in Washington – and packed it in for the night without finalizing a deal — Obama brushed pressed House Democrats to finalize the bill "without delay" when it emerged from the upper chamber.

"Let's think big right now," the president urged House Democrats. "Let's not think small."

Obama's words bore only a vague resemblance to the prepared remarks the White House distributed to reporters as he began to speak. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Obama appeared to ditch his TelePrompter about a third of the way through the speech.

"He went to his heart, I think he spoke from his heart," Clyburn said. "He went back to being the Barack Obama that Americans fell in love with when they went to the polls." 

Despite the hero's welcome Obama got in Williamsburg, there remain some skeptics of the plan within his own party. But if there was any tension between Obama and the House Democrats, it was hard to see it in the room. Before Obama spoke, House Democrats and their spouses posed for cell phone photos with the president – and even with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, gobbling berries and cream in white shirtsleeves, rushed out of the hall at one point, barking into his cell phone along the way as he wove between tables packed with his former House colleagues.

When Obama finally spoke, he called Pelosi "a rock" and "the great speaker of the House." And he said that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obeyand other House chairmen had acted with "discipline" in passing their version of the stimulus bill.

And while Obama said Americans are looking for the parties to work together on the stimulus, he said that it's time to move past "the false theories of the past," including the notion that tax cuts could cure all ills. In the process, he reminded the Democrats in the room – and the Republicans back in Washington – that he won the election in November.

"If you're headed for a cliff, you've got to change direction," Obama said. "That's what the American people called for in November, and that's what we intend to deliver."

But Democrats have their work cut out for them if they are going to approve the package without any GOP votes. As Obama circled the room and posed for photos before he spoke, a person in the room spotted Phil Schiliro, the president's top legislative liaison, huddled in a tense conversation with Obey, the principal author of the House — a reminder that the bill still has a ways to go.

After the speech, Obama fielded a range of questions from Democrats in the room.

Hoping to keep jobs in his district, Georgia Rep. David Scott appealed to Obama to continue production of the F-22 fighter plane.

Responding to a question from Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack, Obama said that Gen. David Petraeus and other Pentagon officials are reviewing the military situation inAfghanistan – and that he would emphasize diplomacy with Pakistan and articulate a clear strategy for the U.S. military there.

Among the many hurdles he faces, Obama must referee an emerging divide between the fiscal conservatives in his party and those Democrats who want him to increase federal funding for key domestic priorities like education and health care. Responding to a question from Pennsylvania Rep. Chaka Fattah about that balance, Obama said, "We've inherited a mess. It's our job to clean it up."

But the president promised to begin with homeowners facing foreclosure, telling the assembled Democrats that he would include money for distressed households in the next installment of federal funding to purchase distressed mortgage-related debt.

In his bid to overcome partisan gridlock, Obama promised the assembled Democrats that he and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, would work together to mobilize voters on big issues, like energy and health care reform, utilizing the party's campaign committees in the process.

Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin, who hasn't been able to walk since he was 16, asked Obama if he would remove the executive ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, Obama replied, but only after he and congressional leaders figure out a way to prevent opponents from overturning it.

The president closed his remarks by telling lawmakers and their families that he is "grateful and humbled" to be the leader of their party – and he said his "greatest partner," Pelosi, "delivers on everything she promises."

[Source URL] http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090206/pl_politico/18482/print;_ylt=AsjgP9VkSnpfZhO5vAv9qrnCw5R4;_ylu=X3oDMTB1MjgxN2UzBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDdG9vbHMtdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--