Vice President Biden Kicks Off Five Days of Earth Day Activities with Announcement of Major New Energy Efficiency Effort

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

April 21, 2010

25 Communities Selected for Recovery Act “Retrofit Ramp-Up” Awards

Washington, D.C. - Vice President Biden will today kick off five days of Administration events around the 40th anniversary of Earth Day with the announcement of the selection of 25 communities for up to $452 million in Recovery Act funding to “ramp-up” energy efficiency building retrofits.  Under the Department of Energy’s Retrofit Ramp-Up initiative, communities, governments, private sector companies and non-profit organizations will work together on pioneering and innovative programs for concentrated and broad-based retrofits of neighborhoods and towns – and eventually entire states.  These partnerships will support large-scale retrofits and make energy efficiency accessible to hundreds of thousands of homeowners and businesses.  The models created through this program are expected to save households and businesses about a $100 million annually in utility bills, while leveraging private sector resources, to create what funding recipients estimate at about 30,000 jobs across the country during the next three years.
"For forty years, Earth Day has focused on transforming the way we use energy and reducing our dependence on fossil fuel - but this year, because of the historic clean energy investments in the Recovery Act, we're poised to make greater strides than ever in building a nationwide clean energy economy," said Vice President Biden.  “This investment in some of the most innovative energy-efficiency projects across the country will not only help homeowners and businesses make cost-cutting retrofit improvements, but also create jobs right here in America."

“This initiative will help overcome the barriers to making energy efficiency easy and accessible to all – inconvenience, lack of information, and lack of financing,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  "Block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, we will make our communities more energy efficient and help families save money.  At the same time, we’ll create thousands of jobs and strengthen our economy."
In addition to the $452 million Recovery Act investment, the 25 projects announced today will leverage an estimated $2.8 billion from other sources over the next 3 years to retrofit hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across the country.  Overall, the program funding was eight times oversubscribed, with more than $3.5 billion in applications received for the just over $450 million in Recovery Act funds available, indicating significant demand for investment in energy-saving and job-creating projects like these nationwide.
Grantees will employ innovative financing models to make these savings accessible, for example by offering low and no-interest loans that are repaid through property tax and utility bills.  In implementing these projects, grantees will deliver verified energy savings and incorporate sustainable business models, to ensure that buildings will continue to be retrofitted after Recovery Act funds are spent.  The Department will use the lessons learned from these pilot programs to develop best-practice guides to comprehensive retrofit programs that can be adopted and implemented by other communities across the country.
The Retrofit Ramp-Up projects, which are part of the overall $80 billion Recovery Act investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, complement the Obama Administration’s ‘Recovery through Retrofit’ initiative, which lays the groundwork for a self-sustaining and robust home energy efficiency industry.  The awards are the competitive portion of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, which was funded for the first time under the Recovery Act to help state, local, and tribal communities make strategic investments in improving energy efficiency, reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions.
Secretary Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, joined Vice President Biden today for the announcement, which was the first of more than two dozen events and activities Administration officials will participate in around Earth Day.  In addition to today’s event, the President will host an Earth Day reception with environmental leaders on Thursday, April 22nd, a video message from the President will air as part of events on the National Mall on Sunday, April 25th, and Administration officials will participate in educational programs with school children, visit wetland and coastal restoration projects and participate in community service projects as part of the President’s Earth Day call to action.  The events will highlight some of the ways the Administration is working to improve the environment, transform American infrastructure for greater energy-efficiency and build a clean energy economy that supports the jobs of the future.  As part of the events, Administration officials will also continue the push for Congress to act on HOME STAR legislation and comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.  A full roster of Administration Earth Day activities is below and more information on the President’s Earth Day call to action is available at www.WhiteHouse.gov/EarthDay. 

Retrofit Ramp-Up Awards
The following governments and non-profit organizations have been selected for Retrofit Ramp-Up awards.  These projects are planned to begin in fall 2010.  Final award amounts are subject to negotiation:
Austin, Texas - $10 million
Boulder County, Colorado - $25 million
Camden, New Jersey - $5 million
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning - $25 million 
Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance, Ohio - $17 million
Greensboro, North Carolina - $5 million 
Indianapolis, Indiana - $10 million
Kansas City, Missouri - $20 million
Los Angeles County, California - $30 million
Lowell, Massachusetts - $5 million
State of Maine - $30 million
State of Maryland - $20 million
State of Michigan - $30 million
State of Missouri - $5 million
Omaha, Nebraska - $10 million
State of New Hampshire - $10 million
New York State Research and Development Authority - $40 million
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - $25 million
Phoenix, Arizona - $25 million
Portland, Oregon - $20 million
San Antonio, Texas - $10 million
Seattle, Washington - $20 million
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance - $20 million
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Ohio - $15 million
Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation  - $20 million
For more information on the selected projects, visit HERE.  A map of the selected projects is available HERE.
Retrofit By the Numbers
• Residential and commercial buildings consume 40 percent of the energy and represent 40 percent of the carbon emissions in the United States.  Building efficiency represents one of the easiest, most immediate and most cost effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and save money on energy bills while creating new jobs:
• Existing techniques and technologies in energy efficiency retrofitting can reduce energy use by up to 40 percent per home and lower total associated greenhouse gas emissions by up to 160 million metric tons annually.
• Residential and commercial retrofits also have the potential to cut energy bills by $40 billion annually.
Administration Official Earth Day Events and Activities
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
Thursday, April 22 – Washington, DC
Secretary Salazar will make remarks on the National Mall for Take a Child to Work/40th Anniversary Earth Day/Buddy the Bison Hike sponsored by the National Park Service.  Five hundred local students will participate in the event.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
Wednesday, April 21 – Washington, DC
Secretary Locke will deliver keynote remarks at the Creating Climate Wealth Summit at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. He will address how energy reform can strengthen our security and spur economic growth.
Thursday, April 22 – Jersey City, NJ
Secretary Locke will speak in Jersey City, N.J., at the Lincoln Park restoration project that is turning a landfill into a healthy wetland. NOAA funded this habitat restoration project through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis
Thursday, April 22 – Online Webchat
On Thursday, Secretary Hilda Solis will host a webchat to discuss issues and opportunities related to Earth Day. Also on Thursday, the Department of Labor will issue a report detailing green job training opportunities made available over the past year, including $490 million in Recovery Act funding for green jobs training.
Friday, April 23 – Washington, DC
On Friday, a Job Corps ceremony will honor a winning Job Corps Center for their green construction project.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Thursday, April 22 – Chicago, IL
Secretary Sebelius will hold an Earth Day health event with Housing and Urban Development Deputy Secretary Ron Sims at a Chicago Public Housing Authority site.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan
Thursday, April 22 – Washington, DC
Secretary Donovan will deliver remarks at the Earth Day Network’s 40th Anniversary of Earth Day rally on the National Mall, in which he will highlight the President’s Earth Day Call to Action and HUD’s efforts to develop more sustainable, inclusive neighborhoods, while increasing green job and green housing opportunities for families across the country.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
Thursday, April 22, Secretary LaHood – Chicago, IL
Secretary LaHood will attend an Earth Day event at Daley Plaza in Chicago.  The event includes a school climate video competition for participating school groups and will have alternative fuel vehicles on display.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu
Thursday, April 22 - Washington, DC
Secretary Chu will speak at an Earth Day celebration for Department of Energy employees.
Friday, April 23 – Philadelphia, PA
Secretary Chu will hold a clean energy event in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, focusing on the benefits of energy efficiency.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan
Thursday April 22 – Washington, DC
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will deliver remarks at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day Thursday at the National Mall in Washington.  Secretary Duncan will discuss how education can play a role in developing a green economy.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson
Wednesday, April 21 – Pittsburgh, PA
Administrator Jackson will be in Pittsburgh for an Energy Star event with children from the Sarah Heinz House Boys and Girls Club. This is a club that provides children and teenagers with strong role models and a safe, fun place to go after school, on weekends, and during the summer.
Thursday, April 22nd - New York City
The Administrator will participate in an urban-focused community service project with Green For All at the Grant Houses Community Garden in Manhattan. Administrator Jackson will take a tour of the garden, deliver remarks to press, students and volunteers and participate in a planting activity with volunteers.  The Administrator will also be a guest on the David Letterman Show to talk about the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and the President’s clean energy and green jobs agenda.
Friday, April 23rd to Sunday, April 25th - Washington, DC
To commemorate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the EPA will be hosting a celebration event Saturday and Sunday, April 24-25, on the National Mall. The event will feature a variety of interactive, family friendly exhibits that highlight the work of the Agency and celebrate its 40th anniversary this year.  Administrator Jackson will appear on The National Mall on Friday to visit the Office of Research and Development’s P3 student participants and recognize winners. P3 is the next step beyond P2 – pollution prevention – and focuses on the three components of sustainability: people, prosperity, and the planet.
White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley
Sunday, April 25 – Washington, DC
Chair Sutley will deliver remarks at the Earth Day Network’s 40th Anniversary of Earth Day festivities on the National Mall.  She will focus on the Obama Administration’s environmental agenda, and how the transition to a clean energy economy can create millions of American jobs while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler
Thursday, April 22 – Washington, DC
The Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler will attend the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division’s (ENRD) Earth Day 2010 event on April 22 at Marvin Gaye Park where it has held its annual Earth Day service celebration since 2004.  In those five years, the Division has been able to help the park purchase over $7,500 worth of trees and landscaping materials as part of the park revitalization event.  ENRD has also devoted over 2,500 hours of employee time to planting trees, removing trash, laying sod, and gardening.
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan and Agriculture Undersecretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager
Friday April 23 – Sussex County, DE
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan will travel to Delaware on Friday to participate in a groundbreaking ceremony for a project that will modernize water quality and public sanitation services in Sussex County through the upgrading of the Inland Bays Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Friday April 23 – Woodland Park, CO
Agriculture Undersecretary for Rural Development Dallas Tonsager will travel to Woodland Park, Colorado, where he will participate in an event marking the use of Recovery Act funds to improve drinking water quality in a subdivision.
Commerce Department Senior Officials
Earth Day Week - Huntington Beach, CA; Cape Hatteras, NC; Seattle, WA; Muskegon Lake, MI; Grande Isle, LA; Maunalua Bay, HI; Jersey City, NJ; and Florida Keys, FL
April 17 through 23, the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) leadership will hold events at American Recovery and Reinvestment Act coastal restoration projects in eight states. The events will highlight job creation in Huntington Beach, California; Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Seattle, Washington; Muskegon Lake, Michigan; Grande Isle, Louisiana; Maunalua Bay, Hawaii; Jersey City, New Jersey; and Florida Keys, Florida.
Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren
Thursday April 22 – Berkley, California
OSTP Director John Holdren will be in Berkeley, Calif., where he will give a free, public, evening lecture on the topic of: “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being: Priorities and Policies in the Obama Administration,” to be held in Sibley Auditorium in the Bechtel Engineering Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
Veterans Affairs Officials
Week-long
Hospital Directors and Regional Office Directors will lead Earth Day events at VA health facilities across the country including Martinsburg, WV; North Texas; Clarksburg, VA; Saginaw, MI; Battle Creek, MI; San Diego, CA; Spokane. WA; Fresno, CA Los Angeles, CA; Long Beach, CA; Reno, NV; Tucson, AZ, Boise, ID; Menlo Park, CA;, Palo Alto, CA and Ft. Harrison, MT.
Treasury Department Initiative
Earth Day Week
With Americans poised to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day this week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced a broad new initiative to dramatically increase the number of electronic transactions that involve Treasury and millions of citizens and businesses, a move that is expected to save more than $400 million and 12 million pounds of paper in the first five years alone.  Treasury will also make an announcement about a change in the Department’s energy consumption that, when coupled with the move from paper to electronic transactions, will greatly reduce Treasury’s environmental impact.
NASA
Earth Day Week – Washington, DC
NASA is taking part in the celebration of Earth Day's fortieth anniversary on the National Mall in Washington beginning Saturday, April 17. The agency's involvement includes 9 consecutive days of activities and exhibits open to the public.  The 'NASA Village,' which contains three domed tents, will highlight the use of NASA science and technology to advance knowledge and awareness about our planet and sustain our environment.

Blog posts on this issue

• 
  
  April 22, 2010 12:11 PM EDT

  OSTP Celebrates Earth Day 2010 with Public Lecture, New GLOBE Report

  OSTP Director John P. Holdren will give a free public lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, this evening as part of the White House’s celebration of Earth Day 2010. Dr. Holdren’s talk, "Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being: Priorities and Policies in the Obama Administration," will highlight Administration initiatives that are addressing the pressing economic, environmental, energy-, and climate-related challenges facing the Nation today.
• 
  
  April 22, 2010 10:52 AM EDT

  Happy Earth Day!

  In honor of the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, Nancy Sutley discusses the importance of protecting the environment now and for future generations.
• 
  
  April 22, 2010 10:41 AM EDT

  Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on the Clean Energy Transformation

  The Recovery Act created more that 80,000 clean energy jobs in the first quarter of 2010, according to a new supplement to the CEA's Third Report to Congress on the Recovery Act, which was released on April 14, 2010.
• view all related blog posts

Backers defend AZ crackdown on illegal immigrants

April 15, 2010

Jonathan J. CooperSupporters of the nation's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration, on the verge of approval in the Arizona Legislature, say the state law is necessary to help stamp out crime and keep citizens and law enforcement officers safe.
The measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are here illegally.
Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months, and fined $2,500.
"No longer will we sit by and let our citizens be killed, maimed, injured (and) hurt," said Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the measure.
But civil rights activists warn that Arizona is inviting rampant racial profiling and police-state tactics.
"That is an unprecedented expansion of police power," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. "It's giving police officers a green light to harass anyone who looks or sounds foreign."
The ACLU and immigrant rights groups are demanding Republican Gov. Jan Brewer veto the measure if it reaches her. The Republican has not announced whether she will sign it, but said she is a strong supporter of pragmatic immigration laws.
Her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now President Barack Obama's Homeland Security secretary, vetoed similar proposals.
Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter. And many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear that immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.
The law also would crack down on employment for illegal immigrants by prohibiting people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day labor on street corners. Also, a judge could fine a city for not enforcing the immigration law vigorously enough.
The new measure would be just the latest crackdown of its kind in Arizona, which has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
Pearce, the bill's sponsor, has been the driving force behind Arizona's tough new measures, including a law copied in other states that punishes companies caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. He insists the measures are aimed at enforcing immigration laws, not racial profiling.
"I believe handcuffs are a great tool, but you have to put them on the right people," said Pearce, a former cop who can list the local officers killed or wounded by illegal immigrants. "Get them off the police officers and put them on the bad guys."
Supporters of the crackdown also point to Phoenix's high kidnapping rate, which law enforcement says is fueled by immigrant and drug smugglers who snatch their rivals or their family members as a way to collect unpaid debts, make quick money or as retaliation for earlier abductions.
Anger over the porous Mexican border mounted last month when an Arizona cattle rancher was shot to death. Investigators said he may have been killed by drug runners working for cartels based in Mexico.
The new measure is supported by police unions representing rank-and-file officers, who deny they would engage in profiling.
It is opposed by police chiefs, who worry that the law would be too costly, that it would distract them from dealing with more serious problems, and that it would sow such distrust among immigrants that they would not cooperate with officers investigating other crimes.
Legal immigrants fear the law would give officers easy excuses to stop them, and that even U.S. citizens could find themselves detained if they can't prove their legal status.
"When they come up with these things, it doesn't matter if I'm here legally," said Jose Melendez, a 55-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Guadalajara, Mexico. "If they see a Mexican face and a Mexican name, they'll ask for papers."
Anti-immigration activists say the larger goal is to discourage illegal immigration by making the U.S. inhospitable.
"Most illegals would leave on their own if they felt the U.S. was serious about our laws," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee.
House Republicans passed the bill on a party-line vote Tuesday. The Senate approved it in February but must vote on changes made in the House before sending it to the governor.
___
Associated Press Writer Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Ariz., contributed.

Poll: 78 percent don't trust big government

Trust numbers 'rarely get this low,' survey sponsor says

 

 

By LIZ SIDOTI

The Associated Press

updated 7:56 p.m. ET, Sun., April 18, 2010

WASHINGTON - Can you trust Washington?

Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they can't and they have little faith that the massive federal bureaucracy can solve the nation's ills, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center that shows public confidence in the federal government at one of the lowest points in a half-century.

The poll released Sunday illustrates the ominous situation facing President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively effects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.

About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.

'Rarely gets this low'
"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. "Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on."

And, he added: "Politics has poisoned the well."

The survey found that Obama's policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.

But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate's hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.

"I want an honest government. This isn't an honest government. It hasn't been for some time," said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.

In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.

In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy — or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse — violence.

'Nothing wrong' with distrust
Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate's lack of confidence.

"This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to "nonsense" that goes on during campaigns that leads to "promises made but not promises kept." Still, she added: "Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It's something we do as Americans and there's nothing wrong with it."

Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: "It's clear Washington is broken. There's too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve."

And, he added: "It's going to be reflected in the elections this fall."

But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush's re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.

"What the country wants is a community solution to the problems but not necessarily a federal government solution," Dowd said. Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it's about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.

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

The State of Hypocrisy

April 18, 2010

By Ruben Navarrette

SAN DIEGO -- In the late 1990s, I took a job writing for a newspaper and moved to Arizona.
At least I think it was Arizona. The place I remember bears little resemblance to the one you hear about today.
Back then, nativists were on the political fringe; now they're becoming mainstream. Republicans were anxiously reaching out to Hispanics; now GOP legislators are making Hispanics anxious with race-baiting measures to end affirmative action. Political leaders, including the Republican governor, had torpedoed efforts to bring before voters a ballot initiative that would have denied education and social services to illegal immigrants; now Arizonans are in such a punitive mood that they would easily approve such a measure.
Back then, none other than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was quoted as saying there wasn't much his deputies could do about illegal immigration since being in the country without documentation wasn't a crime; now Arpaio is so bent on rounding up illegal immigrants that even after the Obama administration stripped him of the authority to determine someone's legal status, he kept on doing it.
And perhaps most significantly, back then the business community was so desperate for labor that it was doing everything but recruiting illegal immigrants and offering them signing bonuses to make beds, cook meals, build homes and otherwise help construct a paradise in the desert; now that a lot of the work has been done, Arizonans want to portray themselves as innocent victims of an invasion. Fifteen years ago, Arizonans wanted cheap labor; today, they want your sympathy.
Arizona lawmakers think they're showing how tough they can be in passing a harsh new law that makes it a state crime to be in the United States without the proper legal documents. But really, all they're doing is showing their hypocrisy. If the legislators who voted for this law were serious about trying to curb illegal immigration, they would cut off the job magnet. The Arizona Legislature focused on employers a few years ago, but the effort was aimed at companies as opposed to individuals. Start locking up soccer moms for hiring undocumented housekeepers or Paradise Valley lawyers for outsourcing their yardwork and then we'll talk.
The new legislation, billed as one of the strictest anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, would grant police the power to stop anyone suspected of being in the country illegally and verify their immigration status.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican intent on scoring political points by railing against illegal immigrants, will likely sign the bill. And, shortly thereafter, the lawsuits will fly as critics try to get the law tossed out by the courts. There's a good chance of this happening. The law appears to be an unconstitutional power grab by the state that usurps the authority of the federal government to establish and enforce U.S. immigration policy. It will also almost certainly lead to racial profiling of Latinos, including those born in the United States.
This bill is as bad as they come. Not surprisingly, it is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, who has spent years teaching Arizonans division. By tapping into a fear of foreigners, Pearce has successfully scared up votes, headlines and political contributions. Some lawmakers accomplish those things through visionary leadership, courageous acts and soaring rhetoric. People like Pearce do it by pandering to racists and playing to the lowest common denominator.
The real tragedy in all this is that the bill, which professes to take a hard line against illegal activity, will almost certainly produce much more of it. By proposing a law that deputizes every local and state law enforcement officer in Arizona to enforce immigration law, Pearce has single-handedly destroyed the trust between law enforcement agencies and the immigrant communities they have spent years trying to better serve. Good luck finding people who are willing to report crimes and be interviewed as witnesses now that they are afraid they might be arrested or deported. That makes these communities easy prey for criminals and makes the job of law enforcement much harder.
This measure is not wise, or helpful or defensible. In fact, in many ways, it's a surefire recipe for disaster. And it's also the kind of thing that the Arizona I'm familiar with would never have considered.

ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

The Real Story of Americans' Immigration Views

April 18, 2010

By David Paul Kuhn

Americans support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.
But another picture often emerges from the chattering class. Americans' opposition to illegal immigration is wrongly described as opposition to immigration itself.

Immigration is America's most contentious of unresolved issues. The public remains divided over aspects of the issue. They do, however, understand the issue. Yet all too often Americans' fairly sophisticated view of immigration is simplified. And that simplification tends to skew the facts.
Friday's New York Times exemplified the problem. The nation's premier newspaper reported on a new immigration study. "In 14 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas," the story read, "more immigrants are employed in white-collar occupations than in lower-wage work like construction, manufacturing or cleaning.
"The data belie a common perception in the nation's hard-fought debate over immigration -- articulated by lawmakers, pundits and advocates on all sides of the issue -- that the surge in immigration in the last two decades has overwhelmed the United States with low-wage foreign laborers," the Times continued.
But the study's findings actually substantiate those "common perceptions."
The public perceives illegal immigrants as significantly more likely to be "low-wage foreign laborers" and add to the ranks of those relying on public and private social services. However, cherry pick the facts and another conclusion could be reached.
"Overall, 48 percent of immigrants work in white-collar jobs-managerial, professional, sales, and administrative support. By comparison, 52 percent work in service, blue-collar, or farming, fishing and forestry jobs," according to the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute study, commissioned by the Times. This is the picture that emerges from all 25 cities studied.
The Times conflates views on legal and illegal immigrants. The issue is not what it reports, but what the Times does not.
Only about one in 10 illegal immigrants work in white-collar professions, the study concluded.
"There is no doubt that undocumented workers are much more likely to be in lower skilled jobs and much more likely to have less education," said David Kallick, the principal author of immigration analysis. The authoritative 2009 Pew Hispanic Center study -- that Kallick's analysis relied upon to track unauthorized immigrants' employment -- sheds more light on the gap between legal and illegal immigrants.
Pew found that 35 percent of legal immigrants have at least a bachelor's degree, three points above the level for the U.S.-born workforce. By comparison, less than half as many illegal immigrants, 15 percent, have a bachelor's degree.
The differences between legal and illegal immigrants are inseparable from how Americans view the two. In 2007, with Washington debating immigration reform, polling organizations looked more deeply into the issue. An ABC News poll asked if illegal immigrants help or hurt the country. It asked the same question about legal immigrants. A majority of Americans, 54 percent, said illegal immigrants "do more to hurt the country." Yet 59 percent said legal immigrants "do more to help the country."
The same trend is visible in key swing states like Ohio. About two-thirds of Ohioans said illegal immigrants "hurt the country" while nearly three-quarters believe legal immigrants "help the country," according to a Quinnipiac poll in 2007.
The "why" behind this legality fault line is more complicated. Americans' concern about legal status is intractable from the correlated issues.
It's not generally a matter of job competition. At least a majority, 56 percent, believe that illegal immigrants "mostly take jobs that nobody wants," according to a 2007 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. Other polls show more than two-thirds share this view.
There is however an absence of detailed data on the Great Recession's impact on the jobs issue. At least two-thirds of all job losses in the recession are among blue collar workers. And as studies indicate, most illegal immigrants are blue collar.
We do know from a recent M.I.T. and Harvard study, also citied by the Times, that six in 10 Americans oppose an increase in low-skilled immigration. And as noted above, illegal immigration strongly correlates to low-skilled immigration.
Cultural protectionism is likely not a major factor either. A 2007 Gallup poll, while it failed to differentiate legal status, clarifies this point. Based on six issues, Gallup asked Americans "whether immigrants to the United States are making the situation in the country better or worse?" The only issue that a plurality said "better," 40 percent, was "food, music and the arts." The majority said "worse" on the issues of crime and taxes.
Taxes especially evoke why, to Americans, illegal immigration concerns social services. More than two-thirds of voters view illegal immigrants as a significant strain on the U.S. budget, according to a recent Rasmussen poll.
Moreover, according to a 2006 Rasmussen poll, about six in 10 Americans favor an immigration policy that "welcomes all immigrants except national security threats, criminals, and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system." Illegal immigrants are ineligible for welfare. But "welfare system" tends to be a catchall for the public's anxiety about strained safety nets (such as the use of emergency rooms for healthcare needs).
The poverty rate for adult illegal immigrants is 21 percent, compared to 13 percent for legal immigrant adults and 10 percent for U.S.-born adults, according to Pew.
Pew also finds that 47 percent of illegal immigrants are not high school graduates, compared to only 22 percent of legal immigrants and 8 percent of Americans.
This is one reason immigration is such a divisive issue. It relates to many of the most contentious issues. We know from polls that a majority of Americans believe illegal immigrants in the nation will, and should, be offered a path to citizenship or be allowed to stay as guest workers. Notably, polls show they favor such a policy in conjunction with increased border security. The 2007 LA Times/Bloomberg poll placed the number in favor of citizenship at six in 10. A 2009 CBS/New York Times poll found that 44 percent, the plurality, favor a path to citizenship while 22 percent favor a guest worker status. Americans appear to link the immigration issue to the hotly debated subject of safety nets, from welfare to healthcare, perhaps for this reason. They believe it's likely many illegal immigrants will one day become eligible for these programs. About six in 10 illegal immigrants lack health insurance, more than twice the level for legal immigrants and about six times the rate of U.S. adults.
In fact, most Americans view the availability -- or the potential availability -- of safety nets as magnet for illegal immigration. The recent Rasmussen poll found that about two-thirds of voters believe that the "availability of government money and services draw illegal immigrants" to the nation.
Some read this desire to limit illegal and low-skilled immigrants as callus. But the United States has unique problems. It is the only first world nation that shares a land border with a third world nation (providing Turkey is considered second world). Yet it is also uniquely open to immigrants. The United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other nations combined, according to a 2006 Department of State report.
It's clear Americans favor more skilled legal immigrants. Far more difficult is creating a policy that meets that public desire. There are several proposals in Congress to encourage the immigration of highly skilled or well-educated immigrants. It will be an uphill battle.
Back in 2007, with Congress mired in the immigration debate, a bipartisan Senate proposal for a "merit-based system" infuriated some activists. The proposal would have used a point system to weigh desired skills, similar to programs used from England to Australia to Canada.
"At best, Congress might set up a pilot program. That's probably the best scenario for points system advocates," said Cornell University's Stephen Yale-Loehr, one of the nation's leading experts on immigration law and an advocate of a merit-based system. But Yale-Loehr added, "It's probably unlikely. Points systems are very contentious."
The most active advocates for immigration reform are Hispanic groups. These groups also strictly oppose a merit-based system.
Hispanics are disproportionately represented among illegal and blue collar immigrants. That means a merit-based path to citizenship would disproportionately disfavor Hispanics. About six in ten illegal immigrants are from Mexico. In total, more than three quarters of illegal immigrants come from Central and South America, Pew finds.
Of course, low-skilled immigrant workers remain crucial to the U.S. economy. No serious merit-based proposal blocks low-skill immigrants or refugees. It's a matter of emphasis.
And so it is also, at minimum, a matter of emphasis for the public as well. Americans' preference for skilled legal immigrants concerns both "skill" and "legal." But too many focus on the latter and ignore the former.
In the end, all sides agree that the immigration issue will prove exceedingly difficult to resolve in the years to come. But resolution is surely impossible if we don't properly understand what Americans view as the issue.
David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. He can be reached at david@realclearpolitics.com and his writing followed via RSS.

Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill

By MIRIAM JORDAN

Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.
It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.
The bill could still face a veto from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. A spokesman for Ms. Brewer said she has not publicly commented on the bill. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, has argued for stringent immigration laws.
Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.
Immigrants' rights groups roundly criticized the bill. "The objective is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they leave the state," said Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling."
The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, was in a committee session Tuesday and couldn't be reached, his offices said. Mr. Pearce, a Republican, represents the city of Mesa, in Maricopa County, whose sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has gained a national reputation for his tough stance on immigration enforcement. A spokesman for Mr. Arpaio didn't return a request for comment.

The bill is different from an earlier version, giving protections for church and community organizations from criminal prosecution for transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
In a statement, Tuesday Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) called the measure "a comprehensive immigration enforcement bill that addresses the concerns of our communities, constituents and colleagues."
"This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents."However, human rights groups are certain to challenge the measure in court, said Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"
The bill in some ways toughens up a situation that the Obama administration had tried to roll back. Under a program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects' immigration status.
Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa county sheriff, had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. However, the Obama administration in recent months has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio's office and others.
—Tamara Audi contributed to this article.

Obama Speech Aims at ‘Risky Decisions’ on Wall Street (Update1)

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Roger Runningen and Edwin Chen

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will say tomorrow that new financial-industry regulations are needed so the country’s economic system isn’t at the mercy of “risky decisions” on Wall Street, his spokesman said.
“Financial reform is something that is born out of an economic collapse that started on Wall Street and spread to Main Street America,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today in previewing the president’s address at New York’s Cooper Union.
Obama’s speech will “remind the American people what’s at stake,” Gibbs said. The president wants rules for financial markets “so that we don’t find ourselves at the mercy of a series of risky decisions as we have in the past.”
The president is giving the address as he and Democratic leaders push to get legislation through Congress by next month. The House passed its version last December. The Senate is poised to take up legislation sponsored by Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Banking Committee.
Obama is tentatively scheduled to speak just before noon.
Brian Gardner, senior vice president for Washington research at Keefe Bruyette & Woods Inc., said the speech is primarily a vehicle for Obama to campaign for passage of the legislation and isn’t likely to offer new policy directions.
“I don’t think Wall Street is expecting any kind of olive branch on the substance of the legislation, but I think folks on the street would like to see cooler rhetoric,” Gardner said. “I’m not sure that they’re going to get it.”
Wall Street Culture
Obama said in an interview with CNBC today that Wall Street’s culture hasn’t changed much. Financial firms will have to accept updated rules because it’s “unacceptable” to continue using taxpayer money to rescue banks, he said.
The “core” of the administration’s regulatory overhaul is assurance “that we don’t have to bail out firms if they acted recklessly, that we can unwind them in an orderly fashion that protects the economy as a whole, that taxpayers aren’t on the hook,” Obama said.
The other main elements are regulations governing the derivatives market to make it more transparent and an independent agency to protect consumers, he said.
The president is returning to the site where, during the 2008 campaign, he outlined his proposals for a new regulatory regime.
Obama blames a lack of effective regulation for failing to stem the worst financial crisis in two generations, which brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and prompted a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.
Negotiations on Bill
Senate Republicans have signaled a softening in their opposition after lobbying by the president and other administration officials and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s announcement last week that it was suing Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for fraud linked to derivatives.
All 41 Senate Republicans signed a letter last week vowing to oppose the legislation as it stood after passing Dodd’s committee. Negotiations on the measure are continuing, including whether to drop a $50 billion industry-supported fund the government would use to break apart failed, systemically important firms.
The fund has been a focal point of Republican objections, and administration officials have said it wasn’t part of Obama’s original proposal, suggesting they wouldn’t fight its elimination.
Republican Support
“I have an awful lot of Republicans who are willing” to vote for the regulatory bill, Dodd said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “The question is whether the leadership will allow them to do it.”
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the banking panel, said he and Dodd are close to an agreement on the legislation.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, who last week called the regulation legislation “fatally flawed,” told the Louisville Courier-Journal there has been a more conciliatory tone in talks as progress is made on a compromise.
“I’m optimistic,” he in an interview published today.
Dodd’s measure, which may come to the Senate floor as soon as next week, would create an independent regulator within the Federal Reserve that would guard consumers against abuse and deception in such instruments as mortgages, credit cards or loans. It would also create the mechanism to unwind systemically important financial firms when they fail.
The Senate Agriculture Committee today approved a separate measure that would require U.S. lenders such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. to spin off their swaps trading desks.
To contact the reporters on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.netEdwin Chen in Washington at Echen32@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 21, 2010 18:02 EDT

Clinton Calls Advice He Got on Derivatives ‘Wrong’ (Update1)

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Joshua Zumbrun

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said his Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were wrong in the advice they gave him about regulating derivatives when he was in office.
“I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take” their advice, Clinton said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast yesterday.
Their argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection,” Clinton said. “The flaw in that argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”
“Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,” Clinton said.
Today, Douglas Band, a counselor to Clinton, clarified the former president’s comments in a statement.
“Reflecting on a derivatives debate that occurred 12 years ago, President Clinton inadvertently conflated an analysis he received on a specific derivatives proposal with Chairman Greenspan’s arguments against any regulation of derivatives,” the statement said.
Obama Package
Tighter regulation of derivatives trading is part of a package of financial reforms being pushed by the Obama administration against Republican opposition. The Senate is debating a bill introduced by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd that would also give the federal government the authority to unravel institutions whose failure threatens the financial system.
In the interview, Clinton also said the Bush administration contributed to the financial crisis with lax regulation.
“I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go,” Clinton said. If Clinton’s head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt, had remained in that job, “an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight or nine years would not have happened,” Clinton said.
‘Vigorous Oversight’
“I feel very strongly about it,” Clinton said. “I think it’s important to have vigorous oversight.”
Levitt is a director of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News. Levitt and Rubin declined to comment. Press aides for Summers didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, said in a Bloomberg Television interview last week that the Obama administration supports “the principles that derivatives need to be traded in the sunshine, that there needs to be centralized clearing.”
In April 8 testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Rubin said “derivatives should be subject to collateral and margin requirements, standardized derivatives should be exchange traded, and customized derivatives should have a clearinghouse or, at least, greater disclosure requirements.”
Clinton also said that Republicans who controlled Congress would have stopped him from trying to regulate derivatives. “I wish I had been caught trying,” Clinton said. “I mean, that was a mistake I made.”
Clinton said Republicans will fall short of retaking Congressional majorities in the 2010 election.
‘Less Dramatic’
“I think the outcome is likely to be far less dramatic than it was in ‘94,” Clinton said. In the 1994 election, after Clinton’s second year as president, the Republicans captured majorities in the House and Senate. “If history is any guide they should make a few gains, but I -- I don’t expect them to win in either house.”
Clinton said that Obama should appoint a progressive to the Supreme Court. “Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that,” Clinton said, referring to retiring Justice
Clinton, 63, said both he and his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 62, are too old to be a good choice for the court, and that the president should pick someone 10 or 15 years younger. He also suggested considering candidates who don’t have judicial backgrounds.
Best Judges
“Have we gone too far in this process that assuming only judges can be elected? That somehow you’re not qualified if you weren’t a judge.” Clinton said. “Some of the best justices in the Supreme Court in history have been nonjudges.”
Clinton also said that as he began preparing for the anniversary of the 1995 bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma City, he saw “a lot of parallels” between the early 1990s and today.
“Both the feeling of economic dislocation and the level of uncertainty people felt,” Clinton said. “The rise of kind of identity politics. The rise of the militia movements and the right-wing talk radio.”
“A lot of the things that have been said create a climate in which people who are vulnerable to violence -- because they are disoriented like Timothy McVeigh was -- are more likely to act,” Clinton said.
McVeigh, a former U.S. Army member, on April 19, 1995, detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. McVeigh was executed in 2001.
“We all have to be careful,” Clinton said. “We ought to remember after Oklahoma City.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Joshua Zumbrun in Washington at jzumbrun@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 19, 2010 19:05 EDT

Senate Panel Approves Plan to Make Banks Spin Off Swaps Desk

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Phil Mattingly

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Senate Agriculture Committee approved derivatives legislation that would require U.S. lenders such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. to spin off their swaps trading desks.
The panel voted 13-8 to back a bill drafted by Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, joined Democrats in approving the measure. The provision to make lenders separate swaps trading from commercial bank operations has been among the most contentious issues as lawmakers weigh new rules for Wall Street.
Grassley’s vote provided a rare bipartisan sign in the Senate debate over financial-industry regulations. Grassley said his vote today doesn’t mean he supports the broader legislation sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, is negotiating a bipartisan deal on the larger bill with Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the banking panel’s top Republican. Lincoln’s derivatives measure would be merged into the broader bill, she told reporters today.
“The derivatives piece is significant, but that larger bill has a number of flaws that need to be resolved before I’d support it,” Grassley said in a statement after the vote.
Lawmakers are weighing derivatives oversight after bets made by American International Group Inc. brought the New York- based insurer to the brink of failure in 2008, forcing the U.S. government to pledge more than $182 billion in assistance.
Lincoln’s bill would bar companies that deal in swaps, a form of derivative, from bank privileges such as accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount lending window, emergency liquidity functions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s deposit guarantee.
‘Small Fixes’
“This is no time for small fixes or tweaking around the edges,” she said in a statement before the vote. “This is the time for bold change and big decisions about the future of our country and the global financial system.”
Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about the spinoff proposal and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler has refused to support it, saying “the Federal Reserve and the Treasury has to think through these issues.”
“The Senate Agriculture Committee voted out a bipartisan bill that will bring derivatives trading out of the dark, provide strong oversight of market participants, and combat fraud, abuse and manipulation,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in a statement.
The spinoff provision of Lincoln’s bill would cut banks’ ability to lend and could drive derivatives markets overseas, said Kenneth E. Bentsen of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a Washington trade group.
Antithetical
“At a time when borrowers are already finding it difficult to obtain credit, limiting financial institutions’ ability to lend seems antithetical to the goals of comprehensive reform legislation,” Bentsen, Sifma’s executive vice president for public policy and advocacy, wrote in an April 20 letter to Lincoln and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the Agriculture Committee’s ranking Republican.
The bill would require mandatory clearing and exchange trading for standardized derivatives. Parties in over-the- counter trades would be required to put up increased capital.
Chambliss said Lincoln’s bill would put undue burden on institutions such as AgriBank FCB and CoBank ACB.
“All the sudden they are going to be treated like Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan,” Chambliss said.
Gensler, who has advocated requiring all derivative trades be cleared and traded on exchanges, said any additional exemptions would only open doors to more.
“Fundamentally the choice we’re dealing with is, every exemption from clearing makes it a little more likely that a taxpayer will have to stand behind a bailout,” Gensler said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Phil Mattingly in Washington at pmattingly@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 21, 2010 14:47 EDT

Obama readies for Wall Street tough talk

By Sam Youngman - 04/21/10 02:01 PM ET

President Barack Obama will likely hit Wall Street with another round of criticism in his speech Thursday.
The president has grown increasingly harsher in tone when he speaks of the financial industry.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs hinted Wednesday that Wall Street could be subject to more tough talk for its past abuses and excessive bonuses when the president speaks.
\
Obama was highly critical of bankers during his last trip to Wall Street. In his September speech Obama told bankers he was prepared to step in to stop their “reckless behavior” from doing more harm to the economy.

Thursday’s speech comes days after the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman Sachs for fraud, claiming the company defrauded investors.

Obama will speak at Cooper Union in New York City, where he will also make the case for financial reform.

Rhetoric on that topic has heated up in the Senate this week as both parties try to negotiate legislation.

Gibbs claimed Wednesday the White House has made progress in winning GOP support for financial regulatory reform.

He said the negotiations in the Senate have reached "a critical period of time," and Republicans have realized that opposing reform is a political loser.

"I think clearly some Republican opposition has become overcome," Gibbs said.

Republicans last week accused the White House of withdrawing its Democratic negotiators from the table, but in the days since, GOP Senate leadership has signaled a willingness to discuss reform.

Gibbs said he believes "that in the Republican caucus in the Senate there is a desire to get this done." But Gibbs said he wasn't sure if that desire "goes to the top" and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office.

On Tuesday, a Gallup poll found a majority of Americans support tighter government regulations when "Wall Street" firms are specified as the target.

In the poll, 50 percent of Americans backed more government regulations for "Wall Street" firms versus 46 percent who want stricter controls of "large banks and major financial institutions."

-- Vicki Needham contributed to this article.

Obama Unleashed

How a calm, reasonable president gets exercised about … financial regulation.

By John Dickerson
Posted Tuesday, April 20, 2010, at 11:58 PM ET

---

The weekly presidential radio address is a sleepy tradition. On Saturday, though, the president said something that may have caused people to wake up and take notice. Obama called the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell "cynical and deceptive" for asserting that financial regulatory reform legislation now under consideration in Congress would lead to future bailouts.
President Obama usually keeps it vague. His disagreements are with "some people" or those who want to "defend the status quo." It's usually clear whom he's talking about, but Obama, like all presidents, generally adds a little soft padding to stay presidential and above it all. That aloofness irritated some of his Democratic allies during the health care fight. They were glad he finally took the fight to Republicans in the end and appeared ready to keep the pressure there. They like that he's doing it again now with McConnell. This is an election year, after all. "If he'd done this a little earlier on health care, maybe it would have passed sooner," said one veteran Democrat involved in the fall campaigns.
The president benefits from being specific in this case because he has a story to tell about McConnell. His charge is not merely that the GOP leader is mischaracterizing the financial reform legislation. The president is charging that McConnell is in the pocket of Wall Street bankers. "It turns out Mitch McConnell thinks differently," Obama told Democratic donors after explaining why he supports the legislation. "I don't know exactly what happened, but he and the chairman of the Senate [electoral] committee went up to Wall Street, had a pow-wow with them, and came away—the next thing we knew they were all opposed to financial-regulatory reform. I don't know the nature of the conversation but I'm hoping that they will do the right thing."
Why respond so directly? No one else could do the job. If this were the debate over health care legislation, the president might be letting Democratic leaders fight it out. But in this case the White House does not want to risk losing the fight to define the legislation. The "Wall Street bailout" charge is perhaps the most toxic one in American politics right now. It inspires conservatives, irritates independents, and depresses liberals. In a political campaign where Democrats seek to position themselves as defenders of the common people against insurance companies and Wall Street banks, the characterization could not risk getting muddied.
On a policy level, the White House argues that the president used such strong language because McConnell was suggesting taxpayers would foot the bill for future bailouts when the legislation is designed to do the opposite—it would require banks to pay to liquidate failing institutions. Their case was rather thoroughly supported by Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. "This fund that's been set up is anything but a bailout," he said. "It's been set up to provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there's money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off."
The pressure seemed to be working. Sen. McConnell on Tuesday seemed to pull back from his previous opposition to the legislation, acknowledging that "both parties agree on this point: no bailouts." Senior Republican leadership aides said that McConnell spoke out against reform so strongly because he felt Democrats were not negotiating in good faith. Now that negotiations have restarted, they say, his goal has been achieved. Democrats characterize this position as a climb-down and recognition that the politics were against him.
Obama will add more fodder to this debate Thursday in a speech on Wall Street reform at Cooper Union. Will he be as tough on Wall Street as he has been on McConnell, whom he says is doing its bidding? White House aides say the speech will be to the American people, setting the stakes for the legislation they see with a clarity reminiscent of George W. Bush's position on Iraq. You're either with American families or with Wall Street.
If he plays true to type, Obama will take the balanced tone he has tried to apply throughout—decrying the excessive bonuses and risk-taking by banks while championing the need for vibrant financial markets. This has the added advantage of not overly offending the bankers who gave so generously to his campaign and the Democratic Party. But some of his allies say the moment calls for the same sharpness against Wall Street that he used with McConnell. That would help push the legislation and make a statement about what Democrats stand for. As the White House knows, polls show that talking about restraining Wall Street only makes this legislation more popular.
If he needs a model, Obama might refer to Woodrow Wilson, another president known for his cerebral approach. In 1910, just before running for governor of New Jersey, Wilson gave a lecture about self-sacrifice which Obama could actually lift word-for-word today:

Banking is founded on a moral basis and not a financial basis. The trouble today is that you bankers are too narrow-minded. You don't know the country or what is going on in it and the country doesn't trust you. You are not interested in the development of the country. … You take no interest in the small borrower and the small enterprise which affect the future of the country, but you give every attention to the big borrower and the rich enterprise. … You bankers see nothing beyond your own interests. … You should be broader minded and see what is best for the country in the long run.

Though Obama has said Wall Street bankers are trying to kill reforms that will protect the rest of the country, it's hard to imagine him offering this kind of peppery rhetoric. He also won't be able to match the setting. Wilson gave the speech to an audience of Wall Street bankers. J.P. Morgan was sitting right next to him.
Become a fan of Slate and John Dickerson on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter.

All the President's Goldman men

Emanuel: Goldman crowd gave almost $80,000 for his runs for Congress.

By MICHELLE MALKIN

Last Updated: 1:34 AM, April 21, 2010

Posted: 1:16 AM, April 21, 2010

While President Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them. The White House can no more disown Government Sachs than Obama can disown Chicago politics.
Obama is headed to Wall Street tomorrow to demand "financial regulatory reform" -- just as the US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed civil suit against Goldman Sachs for mortgage-related fraud.
Question the timing? Darn tootin'.
As the New York Post reported Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee immediately bought sponsored Internet ads on Google that direct Web surfers who type in "Goldman Sachs SEC" to Obama's fund-raising site.
"It's time to hold the big banks accountable," the DNC message bellows.
Democrats are silent on the $994,795 in Goldman Sachs campaign cash that Obama bagged in the 2008 presidential race. The class-warfare Dems are also mum on all the president's Goldman men sitting in the catbird's seat:
* Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama's Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. He was confirmed despite heated congressional grilling over his role, as Reuters described it, "as a high-level Treasury official in a 2000 law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight. The financial instruments have been blamed for amplifying global financial turmoil."
Gensler said he was sorry -- hey, it worked for tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner -- and was quickly installed to guard the henhouse.
* Goldman kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer while he worked as presidential candidate Bill Clinton's chief fund-raiser, as first reported by Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The financial titans threw in another $50,000 to become the Clinton primary campaign's top funder.
Emanuel received nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions from Goldman during his four terms in Congress -- investments that have reaped untold rewards, as Emanuel assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking bailout law.
* Former Goldman lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout -- $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs.
Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based think tank devoted to transparency in government, noted that, while Patterson agreed to recuse himself on any Goldman Sachs-related issues or related policy concerns, it "still creates a serious conflict for Geithner, as Treasury is being partly managed by a former Goldman lobbyist. Geithner is also placed in a tough position considering that his chief of staff is limited in the areas in which he can work (supposedly)."
* National Economic Council head Larry Summers reaped nearly $2.8 million in speaking fees from many of the major financial institutions and government bailout recipients he now polices, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Bros. and Goldman. A single speech to Goldman in April 2008 brought in $135,000.
Summers has prior experience negotiating government-sponsored bailouts that benefit private concerns. In 1995, he spearheaded a $40 billion Mexican peso bailout that bypassed Congress.
Summers personally leaned on the International Monetary Fund to provide nearly $18 billion for the package. Summers' boss, then Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was former co-chairman of Goldman -- the Mexican government's investment banking firm of choice.
Rubin continues to mentor another of his former employees with regular visits and chats -- Treasury Secretary Geithner, who was head of the New York Federal Reserve in 2008 when it ordered bailed-out AIG not to disclose its sweetheart payments to big banks including, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs.
As Obama harangues Wall Street to clean up its house, all the president's Goldman Sachs men have their feet on the coffee table at his.
malkinblog@gmail.com