Sunday, December 5, 2010
What's at Stake for Whom
Pakistan
|
Wikileaks vs. Gitmo Security Phreaks
Look at the date on this article WikiLeaks and Gitmo... Really! Wow..wait for it: conducting covert propaganda attacks on the internet
| Thu Dec. 13, 2007 7:06 PM PST
This is my new favorite story. It seems that the folks atWikileaks—"an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis"—have busted the "mass communications specialists" at Guantanamo for, wait for it,
"conducting covert propaganda attacks on the internet. The attacks include deleting detainee ID numbers from Wikipedia last month, the systematic posting of unattributed "self praise" comments on news organization web sites in response to negative press, boosting pro-Guantanamo stories on the internet news site Digg and even modifying Fidel Castro's encyclopedia article to describe the Cuban president as "an admitted transexual" [sic]."
Following the trail of IP addresses and "traceroutes," Wikileaks states that most of these changes were made by Guantanamo "mass communications specialist" Richard M. Wolff, who also goes byusnavymc1 on Digg.
Wikileaks has quite a bit of fun at Wolff's expense, including posting his query to a muscle fitness group at Yahoo:
Hi all! I am new to the group and in need of some help. I am in the military, did 9 years active-duty, then for the past 5 years I've been in the reserve. When I left AD, I got a little lazy and gained a few pounds, ok more than a few... lol. Anyhow, I've lost most of the fat I gained before, but I also lost a lot of muscle. I've tried combinations of weight gain and intense workouts, even some ripped
fuel, I do a good amount of cardio as well. Does the cardio hurt me from gaining muscle max? Would I be better off just lifting?
I've been in this routine of getting back in shape for about a year now and I'm looking much better than I did, but I feel I'll never get back into that really ripped form I used to have. I am 5'6", 165lbs, 34 years old. Of course my age might have something to do with it since my metabolism might not be as good as it used to be, but I try to eat healthy and things that digest easily. Should I be eating more red meat? I don't at the moment at all, but I do take a multivitamin everyday so I do get all my vitamins.
Any advice would be great! Also, if anyone knows if I should take something besides ripped fuel to help me gain mass more please let me know. Also, what more can I do (like in the other post) to get rid of the little layer of fat over my abs? They're defines pretty good but can't be seen through that damn little layer of flub. Thanks! Rich
We've all been there Rich. Anyway, if you want to geek out on how Wikileaks tracked Wolff to his meatless, sweaty lair, enjoy. And while you're at it read up on the project, which "was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists....Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."
Mission accomplished.
Update: Dave had a great post that lists some of Wikileaks' other greatest hits.
McCain Partners With Environmental Defense in Support of Action on Global Warming
what is his stance on Global Warming today?
| Tue Jan. 23, 2007 10:01 AM PST
If, as expected, President Bush makes an announcement in tonight's State of the Union pushing for action on climate change, it's likely that he'll have John McCain's support.
That's if a letter I recently got in the mail is to be believed. In a plea for donations, Environmental Defense, a non-profit that advocates market-based solutions to environmental problems, included a letter from McCain that begins:
I'll give it to you straight:
We have a growing crisis on our hands... one that seldom gets the attention it deserves.
I'm speaking about global warming.
McCain explains that if global warming is "left unchecked, we can expect glaciers and polar ice caps to melt, severe storms to become more frequent, prolonged droughts to devastate agricultural lands, sea levels to rise and entire ecosystems to be thrown out of balance." It's almost like he's reading Mother Jones!
For a summary of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, and a run-down of how it compares to competing bills in the Senate, see below.
PS - If McCain, king of the rightward shift, is embracing the idea of action on global warming, I think we can come close to saying the beast of global warming resistance has been slayed. There's more to be done of course, but with crazy old James Inhofe out as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, presidential contender McCain positioning himself the way he is, Democrats pushing for action, and big business pressuring the president to act.... I'm just asking, if Bush comes out strong in favor of fighting climate change tonight, is it time to say, "Relax, celebrate victory"?
Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003
Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act
(As debated in the U.S. Senate on October 30, 2003)
On October 30, 2003, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) brought a revised version of their Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) to a vote in the United States Senate. While the measured failed by a vote of 43 to 55, the vote demonstrated growing bipartisan support for a genuine climate change policy.
The revised version of the bill would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors (as defined by EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). The affected sectors accounted for approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database which would contain an inventory of emissions and registry of reductions.
Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors. Certain subsectors would be exempt if the Administrator determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions. The Commerce Department would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances to determine whether it was consistent with the objective of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change of stabilizing GHG emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Allowances: An entity that was in a covered sector, or that produced or imported synthetic GHGs, would be subject to the requirements of this bill if it (a) owned at least one facility that annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalents – MTCO2E); (b) produced or imported petroleum products used for transportation that, when combusted, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E; or (c) produced or imported HFC, PFC and SF6 that, when used, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E. Each covered entity would be required to submit to the EPA one tradeable allowance for each MTCO2E directly emitted. Each petroleum refiner or importer would be required to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that, when combusted, would emit one MTCO2E. Each producer or importer of HFC, PFC, and SF6 would be required to submit an allowance for each unit sold that, when used, would emit one MTCO2E. The Administrator would determine the method of calculating the amount of GHG emissions associated with combustion of petroleum products and use of HFC, PFC, and SF6.
Allocation of Allowances: The Secretary of Commerce would determine the amount of allowances to be given away or "grandfathered" to covered entities and the amount to be auctioned. The Secretary's determination would be subject to a number of allocation factors identified in the bill. Proceeds from the auction would be used to reduce energy costs of consumers and assist disproportionately affected workers.
Flexibility Mechanisms: Covered entities would have flexibility in acquiring their allowances. In addition to the allowances grandfathered to them, covered entities could trade with other covered entities to acquire additional allowances, if necessary. Also, any entity would be allowed to satisfy up to 15% of its total allowance requirements by submitting (a) tradeable allowances from another nation's market in GHGs; (b) a net increase in sequestration registered with the National Greenhouse Gas Database established by the bill; (c) a GHG emission reduction by a non-covered entity registered with the Database; and (d) allowances borrowed against future reductions (as described below). A covered entity that agreed to emit no more than its 1990 levels by 2010 would be allowed meet up to 20% of its requirement through (a) international credits, (b) sequestration, and (c) registered reductions, but not (d) borrowed credits. An entity planning to make capital investments or deploy technologies within the next 5 years would be allowed to borrow against the expected GHG emission reductions to meet current year requirements. The loan would include a 10 percent interest rate.
National Greenhouse Gas Database: The EPA Administrator would be required to implement a comprehensive system for GHG reporting, inventorying, and reductions registrations. Covered entities would be required to report their GHG emissions and non-covered entities would be allowed to register GHG emission reductions and sequestration. The National Greenhouse Gas Database would be, to the maximum extent possible, complete, transparent, accurate, and designed to minimize costs incurred by entities in measuring and reporting emissions. The Commerce Department, within one year of enactment, would be required to establish, by rule, measurement and verification standards and standards to ensure a consistent and accurate record of GHG emissions, emissions reductions, sequestration, and atmospheric concentrations for use in the registry.
Penalty: Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG.
Research: The bill would establish a scholarship program at the National Science Foundation for students studying climate change. The bill would also require the Commerce Department to report on technology transfer and on the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. industrial competitiveness and international scientific cooperation.
The bill also would make changes to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, establish an abrupt climate change research program at the Commerce Department, and establish a program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the areas of standards and measurement technologies.
If passed, it would have capped 2010 CO2 emissions at the 2000 level. Residential and agricultural areas, as well as other areas deemed "not feasible", would be exempt. As such, approximately 85% of the United State's emissions would have been covered for the year 2000. The bill would have also established a scholarship at the National Academy of Sciences for those studying climatology.[1]
Reductions in emissions under the Act would be to 2004 levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020, and 60% below 1990 by 2050.[2] The 60% target is the level posited for the forthcoming UK Climate Change Bill.
(As debated in the U.S. Senate on October 30, 2003)
On October 30, 2003, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) brought a revised version of their Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) to a vote in the United States Senate. While the measured failed by a vote of 43 to 55, the vote demonstrated growing bipartisan support for a genuine climate change policy.
The revised version of the bill would require the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors (as defined by EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). The affected sectors accounted for approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database which would contain an inventory of emissions and registry of reductions.
Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors. Certain subsectors would be exempt if the Administrator determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions. The Commerce Department would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances to determine whether it was consistent with the objective of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change of stabilizing GHG emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Allowances: An entity that was in a covered sector, or that produced or imported synthetic GHGs, would be subject to the requirements of this bill if it (a) owned at least one facility that annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalents – MTCO2E); (b) produced or imported petroleum products used for transportation that, when combusted, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E; or (c) produced or imported HFC, PFC and SF6 that, when used, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E. Each covered entity would be required to submit to the EPA one tradeable allowance for each MTCO2E directly emitted. Each petroleum refiner or importer would be required to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that, when combusted, would emit one MTCO2E. Each producer or importer of HFC, PFC, and SF6 would be required to submit an allowance for each unit sold that, when used, would emit one MTCO2E. The Administrator would determine the method of calculating the amount of GHG emissions associated with combustion of petroleum products and use of HFC, PFC, and SF6.
Allocation of Allowances: The Secretary of Commerce would determine the amount of allowances to be given away or "grandfathered" to covered entities and the amount to be auctioned. The Secretary's determination would be subject to a number of allocation factors identified in the bill. Proceeds from the auction would be used to reduce energy costs of consumers and assist disproportionately affected workers.
Flexibility Mechanisms: Covered entities would have flexibility in acquiring their allowances. In addition to the allowances grandfathered to them, covered entities could trade with other covered entities to acquire additional allowances, if necessary. Also, any entity would be allowed to satisfy up to 15% of its total allowance requirements by submitting (a) tradeable allowances from another nation's market in GHGs; (b) a net increase in sequestration registered with the National Greenhouse Gas Database established by the bill; (c) a GHG emission reduction by a non-covered entity registered with the Database; and (d) allowances borrowed against future reductions (as described below). A covered entity that agreed to emit no more than its 1990 levels by 2010 would be allowed meet up to 20% of its requirement through (a) international credits, (b) sequestration, and (c) registered reductions, but not (d) borrowed credits. An entity planning to make capital investments or deploy technologies within the next 5 years would be allowed to borrow against the expected GHG emission reductions to meet current year requirements. The loan would include a 10 percent interest rate.
National Greenhouse Gas Database: The EPA Administrator would be required to implement a comprehensive system for GHG reporting, inventorying, and reductions registrations. Covered entities would be required to report their GHG emissions and non-covered entities would be allowed to register GHG emission reductions and sequestration. The National Greenhouse Gas Database would be, to the maximum extent possible, complete, transparent, accurate, and designed to minimize costs incurred by entities in measuring and reporting emissions. The Commerce Department, within one year of enactment, would be required to establish, by rule, measurement and verification standards and standards to ensure a consistent and accurate record of GHG emissions, emissions reductions, sequestration, and atmospheric concentrations for use in the registry.
Penalty: Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG.
Research: The bill would establish a scholarship program at the National Science Foundation for students studying climate change. The bill would also require the Commerce Department to report on technology transfer and on the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. industrial competitiveness and international scientific cooperation.
The bill also would make changes to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, establish an abrupt climate change research program at the Commerce Department, and establish a program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the areas of standards and measurement technologies.
2003 Climate Stewardship Act
The first Act (S. 139, H.R. 4067) was defeated in the U.S. Senate by 55 votes to 43.[1]If passed, it would have capped 2010 CO2 emissions at the 2000 level. Residential and agricultural areas, as well as other areas deemed "not feasible", would be exempt. As such, approximately 85% of the United State's emissions would have been covered for the year 2000. The bill would have also established a scholarship at the National Academy of Sciences for those studying climatology.[1]
[edit] 2005 Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
Under a slightly modified title, but with similar provisions, the Act (S. 1151) was reintroduced to a new Congress. The Act now called for the federal government to play a lead role in researching and commercialising new energy technologies, and particularly nuclear plant designs. [2] The bill was defeated 38 Yea to 60 Nay.[3][edit] 2007 Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act
The substantional strengthening of this Act (S. 280) involved the provision for the emissions cap, immobile in previous Acts, to be gradually reduced, following the theory of contraction and convergence. It was co-sponsored by eleven senators and also received endorsements from the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.[4]Reductions in emissions under the Act would be to 2004 levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020, and 60% below 1990 by 2050.[2] The 60% target is the level posited for the forthcoming UK Climate Change Bill.
Maybe His Bus Will be Called the 'Flip-Flop Express'
McCain was against lobbying reform before he was for it
Last year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), perhaps best known for the campaign finance reform measure that bears his name, sponsored another reform measure that would require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. For McCain, at the time, it was all about his signature domestic policy concern: transparency and accountability in the political process.
This year, McCain opposes the very measure he used to champion.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has told conservative activists that he will vote to strip a key provision on grassroots lobbying from the reform package he previously supported.The provision would require grassroots organizations to report on their fundraising activities and is strongly opposed by groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.While grassroots groups on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the proposal, social conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts a radio program to hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, have been its most vehement critics.
Asked to explain the complete reversal, McCain’s spokesperson said the senator changed his mind after receiving “feedback” from conservative groups, which, coincidentally, just happen to be some of the same far-right activist organizations McCain hopes to impress for his presidential campaign.
Of course, you know what this means — it’s time to update the list of McCain’s biggest flip-flops as he transforms himself from maverick hero to right-wing hack. We’re up to 15 now.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of [tag]Roe v. Wade[/tag] to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher [tag]Jerry Falwell[/tag] as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has nowhired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s [tag]tax cuts[/tag] for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandonedhis own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it. [corrected]
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry [tag]Kissinger[/tag], believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now theHonorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
Remember, McCain still believes his strength as a candidate is his credibility and consistency.
It’s also worth noting that McCain’s desperate attempts to reinvent himself may be backfiring. American Research Group, a New Hampshire-based polling firm, recently found that McCain’s popularity among independents in the Granite State has “collapsed.” (thanks to T.B. for the tip)
“John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.”
McCain is struggling with Republicans who don’t trust him, independents who are disappointed in him, and Democrats who’ve grown disgusted with him. Other than these voters, however, McCain’s in great shape.
Splat!!!!! You have been Hit!!!!!
¯`.¸()`O.¸¸.¸.o´¯`.¸()`O.¨¯`* ´*.¨¯`**´*`O.¸¸.SNOWBALL FIGHT! KEEP IT GOING! o´¯`.¸()`O.¸¸.¸.o´¯`.¸`.¸()`.¸.o´¯O.¨¯`*´*`O.¸¸.
Actual State of the Union, by the Numbers
What will be Obama's State of the Union, by the Numbers in 2011?
| Tue Jan. 23, 2007 6:20 PM PST
President Bush is expected to hail the state of the union as strong tonight, but for Americans worrying about how to make ends meet, the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to numbers compiled today by the Campaign for America's Future.
On Incomes:
--Median household income in 2000: $47,599
--Median household income in 2005: $46,326
(US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005)
--Median household income in 2005: $46,326
(US Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2005)
--Salary of a full-time minimum wage employee without vacation: $10,712
--Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours
(Forbes Magazine. "What the Boss Makes." April 20, 2006)
--Average time for top CEOs to earn that sum: 2.06 hours
(Forbes Magazine. "What the Boss Makes." April 20, 2006)
--Federal minimum wage in 2000: $5.15/hr
--Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr
--Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562
--Federal minimum wage in 2006: $5.15/hr
--Loss in purchasing power, full time worker annually: $1,562
On Energy Prices:
--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.15 per gallon
--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.42 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 4, 2007)
--Average price of home heating oil on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.42 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 4, 2007)
--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 3, 2000: $1.31 per gallon
--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.38 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 5, 2007)
--Average price of gasoline on Jan. 1, 2007: $2.38 per gallon
(U.S. Energy Information Admin. Jan. 5, 2007)
--Exxon Mobil profits in 2000: $7.9 billion
--Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion
(CNNMoney.com, accessed Jan. 19, 2007)
--Exxon Mobil profits in 2006: $36.1 billion
(CNNMoney.com, accessed Jan. 19, 2007)
On Education:
--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2000: $9,958
--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2006: $12,796
(Costs include tuition, fees, room & board. MSN Money 2000/Associated Press. Jan. 14, 2005. College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2007)
--Average cost of a year at a public four-year college in 2006: $12,796
(Costs include tuition, fees, room & board. MSN Money 2000/Associated Press. Jan. 14, 2005. College Board. Trends in College Pricing 2007)
On Health Care Costs:
--Americans without health insurance, 2000: 38.2 million
--Americans without health insurance, 2005: 46.6 million
(US Census Bureau, Sept. 2001; US Census Bureau, Aug. 2006)
--Americans without health insurance, 2005: 46.6 million
(US Census Bureau, Sept. 2001; US Census Bureau, Aug. 2006)
--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2000: $135
--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2006: $248
--Personal bankruptcies due to medical bills: 55 percent
(The Kaiser Family Foundation, Sept. 26, 2006; Health Affairs Health Policy Journal, Feb. 2, 2005)
--Average monthly worker contribution for family coverage in 2006: $248
--Personal bankruptcies due to medical bills: 55 percent
(The Kaiser Family Foundation, Sept. 26, 2006; Health Affairs Health Policy Journal, Feb. 2, 2005)
On Debts and Deficits:
--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2000: $33.8 billion
--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)
--Monthly U.S. Trade Deficit in October 2006: $58.9 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics. Jan. 10, 2007)
--Loss of value of U.S. dollar relative to the Euro, Jan. 24, 2000 to Jan. 23, 2006: 23 percent
(X-rate.com, accessed Jan. 23, 2006)
(X-rate.com, accessed Jan. 23, 2006)
--US Budget Deficit in FY 2000: $230 billion surplus
--US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit
(White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2007; White House Office of Management and Budget. Table S-1. 2006 budget totals)
--US Budget Deficit in FY 2006: $423 billion deficit
(White House Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables, Fiscal Year 2007; White House Office of Management and Budget. Table S-1. 2006 budget totals)
--US National Debt in FY 2000: $5.7 trillion
--US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion
(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)
--US National Debt in FY 2006: $8.5 trillion
(Bureau of the Public Debt, Jan. 16, 2007)
Texas Republican: Get rid of the CBO
Of Course a Republican who wants to get rid of the CBO because they believe that cutting taxes for the rich would be a disaster and add to the deficit. Who knew?!!!!!!!!!!
- 12/03/10 12:18 PM ET
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), known for his tendentious remarks on the House floor, argued Thursday night for the elimination of the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research agency that has existed since the 1970s.
Gohmert also disputed the CBO's conclusion that extending the Bush tax cuts would increase the federal deficit.
"And despite the misinformation spewed on this floor, the fact is that when taxes have been cut, revenues go up — each time it's been done. But we have such an ignorant way for CBO to operate, so for this political animal, and I know people say it's bipartisan — baloney. CBO is not bipartisan," he said.
"They can say what they want. But if CBO were really bipartisan, the facts wouldn't be so clear as they are about what CBO has done. Uh, they are quite partisan ... We need bills scored by groups that can look at history and reality."
Gohmert also said the CBO did "the president's bidding" when making conclusions about the fiscal impact of March's healthcare overhaul.
This is not the first time the Texas Republican has called for the office's elimination. He made a similar speech on the floor in May, calling the CBO "willing lackeys" for Congressional Democrats.
Fiscal hawks hope deficit panel starting point for budget deal
- 12/04/10 06:12 PM ET
Fiscal hawks on both sides of the aisle are hopeful that the work done by President Obama's deficit commission will help Congress find a workable compromise on budget issues in the months ahead.
While the presidential panel failed to officially endorse a plan at its final meeting on Friday, the group came closer to consensus than many had expected. Eleven of the panel's 18 members voted for the proposal, even though it touched the “third rail” of Social Security and included tax increases.
Nonetheless, the final vote tally of 11 in favor, 7 opposed, was not enough to move the deficit recommendations to a floor vote in Congress. Under the executive order signed by Obama that established the commission, 14 of the panel's 18 members had to agree to plan in order for it to reach that point.
Many of the commission members who were "no" votes on the plan, including House Republicans, expressed enthusiasm for the deficit-reduction framework and said it deserves to be the starting point for future talks. On the left, "no" votes Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) called it a "template," while former union president Andy Stern said it deserves a vote in Congress.
The fact that a majority of the panel voted in favor of the plan was a surprising turnaround. Observers had expected that the plan’s mix of tax revenue increases and cuts to entitlement programs would prove too radioactive for any elected commission members to back.
The fiscal commission's co-chairman, Democrat Erskine Bowles, expressed the prevailing pessimism back in July when he said, "Anybody who thinks we have a big chance to get this done is crazy."
The political pain was palpable in the Dirksen hearing room on Friday as panel co-chairman Alan Simpson noted that the vote was likely the most difficult some panelists had ever taken.
“I thought frequently, 'Thank God I’m not running again,'" outgoing House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said in announcing his vote in favor of the plan. Spratt lost his re-election bid in November and was the only House commissioner to vote in favor.
Highlighting the political peril endorsing the plan carried, powerful constituencies blasted it this week. AARP called the report's recommendations “unbalanced” and said they would raise out-of-pocket costs for Medicare recipients by as much as $7,500.
The influential conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, meanwhile, warned GOP signatories of its Taxpayer Protection Pledge not to support the plan because it eliminates tax credits that partially pay for new spending.
Democrat deficit hawks think the administration should seize on the plan as a reasonable compromise and run with it, rather than wait for House Republicans to seize the initiative next year, even though the plan has cuts to entitlement spending that could inflame the liberal base.
One of the commission's members, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), on Friday called for a budget summit between the White House and congressional leaders as the next step in efforts to reduce tackle the nation's budgetary issues.
Similarly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Friday’s vote is a sign that a “bipartisan consensus” is forming around “putting our entitlements on more stable footing; responsible spending cuts that take all parts of our budget into account, both non-defense discretionary and defense; and fair tax simplification that also raises revenue.”
Even though House Republicans want to get a crack first at drafting their own more austere budget resolution, they said they too will use elements of the plan as a starting point.
Another member of the commission, incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), on Friday issued a detailed analysis of the plan, pointing out that “many of its elements are surely worthy of further pursuit.” Ryan was one of the "no" votes.
"It is a serious and credible deficit-reduction plan," Ryan wrote. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to build on the success of this commission."
Ryan praised the plan for freezing spending in 2012 at 2010 levels and then requiring a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending between 2013 and 2015. He said the cuts should go deeper, however, in line with the Republican Pledge to America platform. Spending should be cut to 2008 levels next year, he said.
From the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, incoming Chairman David Camp (D-Mich.) Friday vowed to hold hearings on the plan next year.
Under intense pressure from freshmen and the Tea Party to make deep cuts fast, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that Congress needs to establish its fiscal credibility by making cuts quickly next year.
Cantor and likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not flatly reject the commission's plan, however. Boehner said that, with the commission's work complete, it's time to have an "adult conversation" on the debt.
Third Way President Jon Cowan said in an interview that Obama should take up most of the plan into his next budget since the plan is a far better place to start than a Ryan austerity budget.
"My message to progressives, and I am one of them, is that unless we take on the task of trimming our cherished entitlement programs they are going to collapse under their own weight," Cowan said.
The next key moment in the debate over the deficit could come this spring, when Congress will need to vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. One administration official said a six-month timeframe for new negotiations on a deficit-deduction plan could be proposed as a compromise with Republicans in exchange for a temporary increase on the debt ceiling.
While the presidential panel failed to officially endorse a plan at its final meeting on Friday, the group came closer to consensus than many had expected. Eleven of the panel's 18 members voted for the proposal, even though it touched the “third rail” of Social Security and included tax increases.
Nonetheless, the final vote tally of 11 in favor, 7 opposed, was not enough to move the deficit recommendations to a floor vote in Congress. Under the executive order signed by Obama that established the commission, 14 of the panel's 18 members had to agree to plan in order for it to reach that point.
Many of the commission members who were "no" votes on the plan, including House Republicans, expressed enthusiasm for the deficit-reduction framework and said it deserves to be the starting point for future talks. On the left, "no" votes Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) called it a "template," while former union president Andy Stern said it deserves a vote in Congress.
The fact that a majority of the panel voted in favor of the plan was a surprising turnaround. Observers had expected that the plan’s mix of tax revenue increases and cuts to entitlement programs would prove too radioactive for any elected commission members to back.
The fiscal commission's co-chairman, Democrat Erskine Bowles, expressed the prevailing pessimism back in July when he said, "Anybody who thinks we have a big chance to get this done is crazy."
The political pain was palpable in the Dirksen hearing room on Friday as panel co-chairman Alan Simpson noted that the vote was likely the most difficult some panelists had ever taken.
“I thought frequently, 'Thank God I’m not running again,'" outgoing House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) said in announcing his vote in favor of the plan. Spratt lost his re-election bid in November and was the only House commissioner to vote in favor.
Highlighting the political peril endorsing the plan carried, powerful constituencies blasted it this week. AARP called the report's recommendations “unbalanced” and said they would raise out-of-pocket costs for Medicare recipients by as much as $7,500.
The influential conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, meanwhile, warned GOP signatories of its Taxpayer Protection Pledge not to support the plan because it eliminates tax credits that partially pay for new spending.
Democrat deficit hawks think the administration should seize on the plan as a reasonable compromise and run with it, rather than wait for House Republicans to seize the initiative next year, even though the plan has cuts to entitlement spending that could inflame the liberal base.
One of the commission's members, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), on Friday called for a budget summit between the White House and congressional leaders as the next step in efforts to reduce tackle the nation's budgetary issues.
Similarly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said Friday’s vote is a sign that a “bipartisan consensus” is forming around “putting our entitlements on more stable footing; responsible spending cuts that take all parts of our budget into account, both non-defense discretionary and defense; and fair tax simplification that also raises revenue.”
Even though House Republicans want to get a crack first at drafting their own more austere budget resolution, they said they too will use elements of the plan as a starting point.
Another member of the commission, incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), on Friday issued a detailed analysis of the plan, pointing out that “many of its elements are surely worthy of further pursuit.” Ryan was one of the "no" votes.
"It is a serious and credible deficit-reduction plan," Ryan wrote. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to build on the success of this commission."
Ryan praised the plan for freezing spending in 2012 at 2010 levels and then requiring a 1 percent cut in discretionary spending between 2013 and 2015. He said the cuts should go deeper, however, in line with the Republican Pledge to America platform. Spending should be cut to 2008 levels next year, he said.
From the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, incoming Chairman David Camp (D-Mich.) Friday vowed to hold hearings on the plan next year.
Under intense pressure from freshmen and the Tea Party to make deep cuts fast, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said that Congress needs to establish its fiscal credibility by making cuts quickly next year.
Cantor and likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) did not flatly reject the commission's plan, however. Boehner said that, with the commission's work complete, it's time to have an "adult conversation" on the debt.
Third Way President Jon Cowan said in an interview that Obama should take up most of the plan into his next budget since the plan is a far better place to start than a Ryan austerity budget.
"My message to progressives, and I am one of them, is that unless we take on the task of trimming our cherished entitlement programs they are going to collapse under their own weight," Cowan said.
The next key moment in the debate over the deficit could come this spring, when Congress will need to vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. One administration official said a six-month timeframe for new negotiations on a deficit-deduction plan could be proposed as a compromise with Republicans in exchange for a temporary increase on the debt ceiling.
Interesting Comments
There will be no such bravery, no such much-needed sacrifice. The thing about the bi-partisan commission's recommendation: it was a PACKAGE. 1 solid object, from the brightest minds of the Left and the Right. Packaging the unshaven rough stuff, without pulling any punches. Take out ANY one thing—- to favor Republican partisan wants or Democratic party wants—- and it dissolves completely, as chaotic bickering will erupt over every tiny aspect, and, has happened throughout the entire last century, the whole prospect of what's GENUINELY needed—- bravery over politics—- will be thrown overboard in favor of partisan posturing in preparation for the next election cycle.BY on 12/04/2010 at 20:25
I'm basically with Abe. I think it is a very good at least start towards a solution to a problem that can no longer be ignored. All one needs to do is to look at the riots in Greece, and all over Europe to see what is in our future if we do not make very difficult decisions, and quick. I'm in Real Estate and know first hand how many would be affected by the end of the mortgage deduction, but I say it is worth the sacrifice. We would get 3 simple brackets 8,15,23%. The corporate rate would come down to 25% which would encourage hiring. No one is going to like it all. But I agree with you Honest Abe, if we want to leave our kids a better future we need to "man up" and get this done.BY on 12/04/2010 at 21:48
danceswithtrees : that would only work if people receiving those rates signed a contract that they would create work for others
penalty of death for not.BY on 12/04/2010 at 22:45
penalty of death for not.BY on 12/04/2010 at 22:45
Fiscal Hawks, my A**.As one wag put it..this was a compromise between the left..and the far left. It institutionaliz es Obamacare..you think Sen. Coburn missed that part? It does not touch on Stupid trade deals, the cancer of illegal immigration, the cancer of steroids of Chain Migration of the world's poor in staggering numbers..The Price of shipping all industrial production overseas..like the current Free Trade deal with S.Korea..THE POISON PILL…USA cars have to met 'safetly' stands of S.Korea. So S.Korean safetly standards for autos are FAR lower than the USA. So every USA card made .all 25,000 that can 'sell: in S korea WILL be so much higher priced..they are unaffordable. THEN S.Korea..with much cheaper autos because their polticans don't pile safety..Greenie stuff on their autos..CAN SHIP THOSE CARS INTO THE USA..WITH MUCH LOWER SAFETY STANDARDS..SELL AS MANY AS THEY CAN..THIS IS WHY THE USA HAS A TRADE DEFICENT WITH EVERY FREE TRADE DEAL WITH ANY NATION. OBAMA IS A LIAR IF HE SAYS IT WILL BENFIT THE USA..AND I DON'T SAY THAT LIGHTLY. CUTTING OLD PEOPLE…IS GOING TO DO LITTLE TO SOLVE THE MESS OUR CORRUPT POLITICANS AND TRADE TEAMS HAVE CREATED..AND the endless wars in God only knows how many nations? Think of drug testing all Govt. Checks? I mean..Private business does it. How many drug addicts do we have to support and buy the drugs for them? How many children is one single mother allowed to have before some one says NO MORE. How many bailouts for how many banks? Anyone getting a handle on the secret Global Federal Reserve that can PRINT USA DOLLARS AT WILL and IN SECRET? What about the Orgy of rewarding Special Interests groups The democrats are doing in a lame duck session? They think we will forget Pifford? Food safety bill for Montsora..Think Soros. Dream Act? NEVER. WE WILL NEVER FORGET. Nov. 2012..not that far away.ANd Republicans ..stuck on defending the Rich..who trickle down nothing and create NO or very jobs that pay over Minimum wage? UGH. Bush flashback. Double Ugh.BY on 12/05/2010 at 08:07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)