'What would Gabby want?'

NASA's Kelly rejoins Endeavour crew (0:51) 

 Jonathan Allen – Wed Feb 9, 4:36 am ET

TUCSON, Ariz. — On Monday, when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s breakfast was delivered to her Houston hospital room, she asked for something else: toast.
It might not seem like much, but one month after a failed assassin fired a bullet into her brain, such seemingly small milestones in her long recovery have helped sustain Giffords’s inner circle — family, friends and aides — as they cope with last month’s Tucson massacre by sharing in her progress and continuing to serve her constituents. Giffords is now eating three meals a day — as her husband, Mark Kelly, announced Tuesday on Facebook — and as she did Monday, speaking is the latest sign of progress.
Over the past month, her aides have been forced into one of the worst crisis management tests ever faced by a congressional office.

It’s hard to imagine any small staff dealing with such a sprawling, massive and sustained ordeal — and the staffers have done it in the absence of their leader and three of their colleagues, one of whom was killed and two of whom have not returned to work since being shot. (See: Intern gets back to work in Arizona)

Even the outpouring of support can be a logistical nightmare: Giffords’s district office has logged nearly 20,000 contacts in the month since the rampage.
They deal with these challenges by answering the oft-repeated question: “What would Gabby want?”
At the center of the entire Giffords operation is her 30-year-old chief of staff, Pia Carusone, who has been running Giffords’s Tucson and Washington offices from spartan side rooms at Houston’s TIRR Memorial Hermann hospital with her BlackBerry, a Mac computer and a tiny, 3-by-5-inch reporter’s notebook containing four weeks’ worth of daily to-do lists. She cadged the notebook from an FBI agent in Arizona when she realized she needed to keep track of all her tasks. (See: Recovering, Giffords speaks)

AP – FILE - This March, 2010 file photo provided by her office shows Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz. The 

Feb 7 - Astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who was critically wounded in a shooting last month, has resumed training as commander of the upcoming shuttle Endeavour mission. Jon Decker reports.
It travels with her, as do a black-and-white lapel ribbon and three bracelets — a white one bearing the date of the shootings; a blue one with a heart symbol, a peace sign and the name “Gabby”; and a red one that keeps her curls under control when it’s not clinging to her wrist.
Carusone was at home in Washington on Jan. 8 when an aide called to tell her there had been a shooting. A second aide confirmed that Gabe Zimmerman, Giffords’s outreach director, had been killed and that the congresswoman had been shot in the head. Carusone called Kelly and packed a bag with all the wrong clothes — save for the black suit she would wear to three funerals.
“All I thought was, I might be going to a funeral,” she said in an interview with POLITICO in Houston on Monday. She’s been buying clothes as necessary ever since, having spent just five hours at home in Washington since the shootings.
She contacted the White House, a handful of congressional colleagues and the House sergeant-at-arms. Within minutes, her phone was flooded with so many calls that she couldn’t dial out. (See: Echoes of Tucson on the House floor)
Before she got to Tucson, she had to push back on erroneous reports that Giffords was dead. Carusone had just spoken with Giffords’s mother when the news broke. It wasn’t true.
“This is inaccurate. She is in surgery,” she wrote in an e-mail message that she copied, pasted and sent to members of the media.
After landing in Tucson, Carusone began coordinating with hospital officials, law enforcement officers, doctors flown in to consult with the surgical team, a grief counselor for the staff and incoming family and friends — and helped handle an endless string of media requests. A special e-mail address set up to handle press inquiries related to the shootings received more than 900 messages in one day. Carusone’s gotten calls from Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer and Oprah Winfrey’s “people,” to name a few.
Her colleagues say her background — she’s run campaigns, worked as a spokeswoman and managed Giffords’s staff — helped prepare her to step up when all hell broke loose.
“I can’t imagine doing it without her having that experience,” Giffords spokesman C.J. Karamargin said.
The logistical triage was so intense that volunteers from other government offices began helping Carusone and Karamargin.
“She’s dealing with this by pushing forward,” said C.R. Wooters, Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s chief of staff and a friend of Carusone’s. “Pia and the Giffords team represent what’s best about this business. They are smart, aggressive and fiercely loyal to their boss and the needs of her constituents.”
What’s most remarkable about Carusone’s uncommon resolve and dedication to service is how common those traits are in Giffords’s world.
Zimmerman, for example, shared Giffords's passion for public service, his colleagues say, setting the example for how to close cases for constituents who needed help navigating a bureaucracy.
"He was everything you could want in a supervisor, friend, and congressional staffer. Kind, smart, thoughtful, thorough and so many more wonderful attributes. A beautiful man," said Amanda Sapir, a case worker in Giffords’ office. "We all continue a deep commitment to helping people in his honor and to fulfill the Congresswoman’s charge to care for one another and help as many of her constituents as possible."
By the morning of Jan. 10, the district office in a small complex here was open for business.
“Of course,” office manager Joni Jones said in an interview in a district office conference room Tuesday, “Gabby would want us to open.”
At a time when they were mourning their own friend and worried about their boss, Giffords’s aides began receiving constituents and well-wishers. They set up a system to keep track of all the gifts they received from around the world — stacks of handmade blankets, paintings and other items are in a closet in the district office — and the folks who just sent their best regards.
“She attracts people who really care, and then, after that, you learn that in Gabrielle Giffords’s office, constituent service is No. 1,” said Jones, a “50-something” who volunteered for Giffords’s 2006 campaign after being “Gabbified” when she heard the candidate speak at an event.
"Gabby loves and treats her staff like family. She attracts those who believe they can make a difference in people’s lives,” Kelly said in a statement provided to POLITICO. “Her staff is a reflection of who Gabby is and her dedication to Southern Arizona and to the people she serves.”
One of her interns, college student Daniel Hernandez, became a national hero by cradling his boss, applying pressure to her head wound and working to keep her conscious until help arrived.
Last week, another intern was on the front end of a relay team that helped get a constituent out of Egypt as protesters and pro-government forces clashed in the streets.
After failing to get help from Arizona’s two senators, Alice Callison called Giffords’s office for help shortly after 4 p.m. on Jan. 31 because she was concerned that her daughter could be trapped in Cairo without food, water or a way to get to the airport.
Callison said she first thought that her call “might not be important enough” to break through, given everything else the Giffords office was dealing with. But she called anyway because Giffords is her congresswoman. “I live in her district,” she said in an interview.
Holly “came in and said it looks like we have an emergency,” Sapir said of the intern.
Sapir called Callison and collected information on 24-year-old Andrea Richardson, whose efforts to get out of Egypt were complicated by injuries she had sustained in an earlier bus accident. Then Sapir called the State Department’s special task force on Egypt to alert the administration to the situation, following up immediately with a written request for help. Before midnight, Sapir heard back from State. “They had called her and assured her they would do their best to make sure she was safe,” she told POLITICO. “She was out first thing in the morning. ... It was just an ideal collaboration of everyone doing their job at the highest level.”
Carusone is now shuttling between Tucson and Houston, where she and Kelly are staying in a guest house because it’s closer to the hospital than Kelly’s place.
She’s getting closer to eight hours of sleep a night now — double the amount she was sleeping. The demands are still overwhelming. In short order Monday, she fielded a call from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), did an interview with a local television station and hopped on a conference call for Giffords’s Solar Hot Team, a consortium of stakeholders in advancing solar energy efforts, standing in for her boss.
“If anyone can get through this, she will,” Carusone told the participants.
Giffords’s aides said they know the congresswoman would be proud of the work they’re doing on her behalf and that each bit of good news on her recovery is uplifting.
Kelly delivered some of it in his Facebook post Tuesday: “The doctors say she is recovering at lightning speed considering her injury, but they aren’t kidding when they say this is a marathon process. There are encouraging signs every day, though. Gabby’s appetite is back and — even though it’s hospital food — she’s enjoying three meals a day,” he wrote.
Carusone was eating lunch at a Mexican restaurant in Houston on Monday when her BlackBerry rang and “NASA” popped up on its screen.
“It’s Mark,” she said as she took the call.
Kelly was taking a moment out from his first day back at work as a space shuttle commander to get a midday update on his wife’s rehabilitation.
Carusone delivered the latest progress report: Gabby asked for toast. Small but significant.
She told POLITICO later that Giffords’s daily successes are an inspiration for everyone around her.
“This whole thing would be a lot harder to manage personally and emotionally if she weren’t progressing as fast as she is,” she said. 

Obama signs nuclear treaty documents Wednesday

– Wed Feb 2, 1:11 pm ET

AP – President Barack Obama signs the New START Treaty in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama pushed a key foreign policy goal a step closer to completion Wednesday with the signing of documents for a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
The treaty is a cornerstone of Obama's efforts to "reset" U.S. relations with Russia.
The New START treaty, negotiated last year, limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. The pact also re-establishes a monitoring system that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of an earlier arms deal.
Although Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other administration officials had argued strongly and repeatedly that the treaty was a key foreign policy goal of the president's, he signed the documents in the Oval Office in the presence of news photographers only.
Obama also did not issue a statement afterward.
He was joined by Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the committee's top Republican, among others.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed similar documents last week after the treaty cleared Russia's parliament. The U.S. Senate approved the pact in late December after Obama and others lobbied hard for passage.
Ratification becomes final when the U.S. and Russia exchange the signed papers. Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, are set to make the swap this weekend when they meet on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

Abortion Fund Ban

February 8, 2011

House Committee Judiciary

Witnesses testified about proposed legislation that would permanently ban any federal funds or tax cuts from being used for abortions. Witnesses represented both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the issue.

Witnesses testified about proposed legislation that would permanently ban any federal funds or tax cuts from being used for abortions. Witnesses represented both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the issue.

1 hour, 32 minutes | 259 Views

Tea Party Town Hall

February 8, 2011

Tea Party Express

Lawmakers spoke to conservative activists and Tea Party Express supporters at a town hall meeting at the National Press Club. They spoke about the future of the tea party movement and its goals for reducing the size and scope of government. Audience members generally demonstrated support for the lawmakers, encouraged them, and frequently applauded their statements about Constitutionally-limited government, lower taxes and less spending.

1 hour, 35 minutes | 182 Views

First lady: President has quit smoking

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE

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

updated 2/8/2011 7:36:59 PM ET
Share Print Font:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has finally done what millions of fellow Americans are still struggling to achieve — he's given up smoking.
"Yes, he has," his wife, Michelle, said Tuesday at the White House when asked whether he had conquered a nicotine habit that began as a teenager.
"It's been almost a year," she said, offering no details on exactly when or how he quit.
But is the breakup with tobacco final?
First Read: Kicking the habit

One in five adults, or 46 million people, still smoke, and tens of millions more are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Although the smoking rate has dropped dramatically since 1964, when the first surgeon general's report declared tobacco deadly, progress has stalled in the past decade.
Obama, who has one of the world's most stressful jobs, has walked this tobacco road before. He announced in February 2008, during his presidential campaign, that he was quitting smoking — again.

"He's always wanted to stop," Mrs. Obama said Tuesday. She said he wants to be able to look daughters Malia, 12, and Sasha, 9, in the eye and deny that he smokes should they ask.
The issue of Obama's smoking last surfaced in December, when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about it and said he had "not seen or witnessed evidence of any smoking in probably nine months." That timeline would put Obama's final cigarette puffs in March of last year.
At the time, Gibbs stopped short of asserting that Obama had quit completely.
The White House offered no details Tuesday, in keeping with its practice of trying to keep Obama's habit out of the spotlight.
Obama last addressed the question in June 2009.
Before signing a tough anti-smoking law designed to keep millions of teens from getting hooked, Obama ruefully admitted that he had spent his adult life trying to give up cigarettes.
At a news conference the following day he copped to sneaking an occasional puff.
"I constantly struggle with it," the president said. "Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No."
Obama said he didn't smoke in front of his kids or other family and had declared himself "95 percent cured." But he also acknowledged times "where I mess up."
"Once you've gone down this path, then it's something you continually struggle with," he said.
Obama has said he used to light up about five times a day, although stress sometimes drove him to smoke more often. He promised his wife he'd quit if she agreed he should run for president.
"I hate it," Michelle Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" early in the campaign. "That's why he doesn't do it anymore, I'm proud to say. I outed him — I'm the one who outed him on the smoking."

She said one of her requirements for entering the race was that "he couldn't be a smoking president."
Based on her comments Tuesday, he is no longer that.
She said she was proud of him, but had not pressed him for details. "When somebody's doing the right thing I don't mess with them," Mrs. Obama said.
Obama has used nicotine gum in his quest to quit smoking. "I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously," he said in 2007. The White House physician urged him last year to stick with "smoking cessation efforts" — the use of nicotine gum.

During the presidential campaign, aides filled their pockets with the gum to help Obama control his urges. He occasionally bummed cigarettes from staff, while making sure to emphasize that he was trying to quit for good.
U.S. smoking rates have dropped dramatically since 1964 when the first surgeon general's report declared tobacco deadly, but progress has stalled in the past decade. The government had hoped to push the rate to 12 percent by last year, but the goal has been missed and pushed off till 2020.
Gibbs said Tuesday that a few White House aides, including trip director Marvin Nicholson, also had quit smoking. He suggested the president may have benefited from that too.
"When somebody decides to quit smoking, to try to overcome the physical addiction that they have, they do it not just because they want to but because others want them to, and because others around them give them the type of encouragement that they need to break what is, what is a tough habit to break," Gibbs said during his regular media briefing after being told of the first lady's comment.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Julie Pace and Erica Werner and Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard contributed to this report.

Preview of President’s Budget Leaves a Lot to Be Desired

Next week, President Obama will release his budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. Though the President’s budget carries no real legislative weight, it will showcase his financial priorities and the seriousness of his rhetorical commitment to rein in federal spending.

A recent New York Times article by Jacob Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, provides a snapshot of what Americans can expect from the President’s proposal. He describes the coming budget as “a comprehensive and responsible plan that will put us on a path toward financial sustainability in the next few years.” However, the glimpse he provides suggests that the President’s budget will not go far enough toward achieving needed reductions in runaway spending.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced the need to reduce the federal deficit, focusing largely on non-defense discretionary spending. According to Lew, the President’s budget would put a five-year freeze on this type of spending, resulting in $ 400 billion in savings over a decade.

This level of savings won’t go nearly far enough, especially when contrasted with the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) proposal to achieve cuts in discretionary spending that would save $ 2.5 trillion over the next decade. Though the details behind the RSC’s proposal need to be hammered out, this is the magnitude of savings that the President and Congress should be looking at as a first step to necessary reductions, especially since closing the budget gap will be impossible if lawmakers focus on discretionary spending alone. Moreover, mandatory spending—which largely consists of funding for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—must be structurally reformed.

Indeed, any serious discussion of fiscal restraint and budget control must include spending reductions within these programs, but unfortunately, it looks like the President will once again take a pass. Lew writes that the President would “reform and simplify our tax code” and “strengthen and protect Social Security” to address long-term budget shortfalls. It’s no secret that the United States seriously needs a tax code overhaul, but it should be within the context of maintaining revenue and promoting economic growth—not increasing revenue to reduce the deficit. And though Social Security is a great place to start in on entitlement reform, without the inclusion Medicare and Medicaid, it won’t be enough.

Finally, Lew writes that the President’s budget will include $ 78 billion in cuts to defense spending over the next five years. The Department of Defense should identify areas of inefficiency and make cuts where waste exists, but any savings should be reinvested in national security. Like with tax reform, Congress should evaluate defense spending—the primary obligation of government—independent of the deficit conversation and based upon what is required to protect the nation, since neither insufficient tax revenue nor excess defense spending is responsible for growing future deficits.

It’s a positive sign that the White House is discussing deficit reduction through cuts in excessive federal spending. Whether these discussions will lead to meaningful action has yet to be determined.

Senator Rand Paul Delivers Maiden Speech in Senate

SenatorRandPaul | February 02, 2011 | 176 likes, 7 dislikes

Kentucky's newly elected Senator gives first floor speech.

02/08/11: Sen. Rand Paul on Morning Joe

SenatorRandPaul | February 08, 2011 | 60 likes, 0 dislikes

Sen. Paul joins Morning Joe to talk about his bold spending cuts proposal.

A new Dem threat to health care law

By: Manu Raju February 7, 2011 07:35 PM EST

A handful of moderate Senate Democrats are looking for ways to roll back the highly contentious individual mandate — the pillar of President Barack Obama’s health care law — a sign that red-state senators are prepared to assert their independence ahead of the 2012 elections. They haven’t decided whether to propose legislation, but any effort by moderate Democrats that takes aim at the individual mandate could embarrass Obama and embolden Republicanswho are still maneuvering to take down the health care law. And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules. The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana — all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008. The goal is to lay down a record of bipartisan compromises with Republicans, but it could also put Obama at odds with key centrists, right at the moment the president himself is looking to forge a more centrist path. And their efforts could put Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) at a potential disadvantage on key votes. The Senate leader has to protect 23 Democratic seats next year, giving moderates and swing-state Democrats plenty of leeway to prove their independence, but he also has to worry about keeping a unified front for the party ahead of the presidential election. With only 53 Democrats leading the thin Senate majority, if three or four break away on any key issue, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could in some cases claim a simple majority. The Democratic moderates said they’re not concerned about how their positioning will affect their party’s overarching political strategy. “I’m not worried about the politics of this; I’m worried about the substance of it,” McCaskill said. “My goal has always been pretty simple: affordable, accessible, private-market insurance for people in America who want insurance. The politics of this are hard; it’s just easier to stay focused on the substance because that’s what matters.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats face a “dilemma.” But there’s a political complication for Republican leaders as well. Some in GOP circles fear that by teaming up with Democratic moderates, they could give these Democrats bipartisan cover that would help them in 2012. Some Republicans are quietly warning colleagues not to work with vulnerable Democrats in the first place. This comes after Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) teamed up with McCaskill to back a proposal that would dramatically cut spending over the next decade and Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) worked with Manchin to repeal a small-business reporting provision in the health care law. “It would be one thing if they were collaborating with Democrats on issues [for] which they’ve long shared an alliance,” a senior GOP aide said. “But there needs to be a recognition that this is not about principle for these vulnerable Senate Democrats. It’s all about election cycle gamesmanship, and our side shouldn’t be handing them political cover.” The Democratic moderates strongly refuted suggestions that their positioning is being influenced by electoral politics. “I truly believe all bills need to be bipartisan,” said Manchin, a freshman who won the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat in a special election last year. The individual mandate and efforts to overhaul it would certainly gain the most attention, especially if moderate Democrats teamed up with Republicans, something that would be a clear rebuke of the core of Obama’s health care law. For now, it’s unclear whether they’ll even offer a bill, but moderates are certainly open to it. Democrats justify the provision by arguing that it’s meant to ensure that individuals don’t drain the health care system by waiting until they are sick to purchase coverage — particularly now that the new law prohibits insurers from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. The provision has become one of the most controversial of an already-controversial law, especially in red states, where Republicans have seized on recent court rulings to characterize it as an unconstitutional federal power grab. Nelson, who faces a tough road to win a third term next year, asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to outline alternatives to the mandate, potentially by bringing large numbers of people into insurance coverage through open and closed enrollment periods. He may offer legislation once the congressional scorekeepers report back to him. “This is about making it better,” Nelson said. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it.” Nelson fired back at GOP critics who said he’s trying to distance himself from the law. “What’s their plan? Is their plan, 'hope you don’t get sick'?” Last year in Missouri, voters approved a ballot measure to nullify the federal health care law — and McCaskill is well-aware of the unpopularity of the individual mandate in her state. In an interview, McCaskill said she’d “love to” modify the mandate and is “looking at different ways to try to” extend coverage without a mandate. “We’re running numbers to see how many new people we can get into the pool with something less than a mandate, something that would be more limited enrollment periods with severe financial penalties for not signing up.” McCaskill added that an alternative “may not be workable; it may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it. But I think we should explore it.” Tester said his Western rural state of Montana is “libertarian in nature,” which he said explains the unpopularity of the individual mandate. The first-term Democrat said he’d be “open” to overhauling that provision if there’s an alternative that makes access to health care more affordable. Unlike the other three senators, Manchin wasn’t in Congress to cast a vote on the legislation, though he voted last week with the rest of his Democratic colleagues against GOP efforts to repeal the entire law. But he’s looking to make other changes to the law, including paring back the state Medicaid expansion that covers insurance costs for lower-income families. Health care issues aren’t the only way some Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves. Manchin, for one, introduced a bill to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling against mountaintop mining, and he’s won over two other Democrats, fellow West Virginian Sen. John Rockefeller and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. With federal spending issues expected to dominate the early battles between the GOP House and the Democratic Senate, a number of senators up for reelection are staking out hawkish stances on the debt. In early December, Democrats wrote to Obama and congressional leaders and called for tougher steps to reduce the budget deficit, including several who are facing reelection next year, like McCaskill, Tester, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper. With bipartisan discussions led by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) now under way, endangered Democrats could very well jump on board whatever proposal eventually emerges to slash the debt. In the meantime, some Democrats — like Colorado Sen. Mark Udall — aren’t waiting for an upcoming election to get in front of the spending issue. In recent weeks, Udall has co-sponsored a GOP constitutional amendment to force Congress to balance its budget, has taken a hawkish stand against earmarks, signed onto Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain’s plan to give the president line-item veto authority and is pushing for an up-or-down vote on the presidential deficit commission’s proposals. And he was the driving force behind the push for Democrats and Republicans to sit next to one another at last month’s State of the Union address. Udall said his recent push has nothing to do with moderating his image ahead of his 2014 reelection effort. “What I heard from the voters is to focus on jobs, get the debt [under] control and work together,” Udall said. “And what I’ve been doing the last month reflects what the voters said.”

Voodoo Economics: Debt Central

There are numerous links that you can check out and see more graphs and information

The National Debt — Where Did it Come From?

In 1981, the country had just elected Reagan to cure the "all-time-high, Trillion-Dollar debt." But compared with the size of the American economy, the debt was at its lowest point in fifty years (see graph just below). Reagan was duped by the "supply siders" and his greatest "disappointment" was adding $1.6 trillion to the $1T debt he said was catastrophic.

     Now, here's the new slide show that explains what happened step by step. In case you have questions, it's documented here.  And if you agree that this story really needs telling, we hope you'll tell your friends.

The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see documented here. WWII caused the debt to shoot up, starting in 1942, and reach 30% higher relative to the country's wealth than it is today. The economic stimulus of that government spending pulled us out of the great depression and into high gear to win the war. (When to save / when to borrow.)

... The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step with inflation and the economy—if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a president who said he'd do far better than those before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP. By the end of the Reagan-Bush 12-year "revolution," the extra debt they had piled on the country was costing the country an extra 2.6% of GDP in interest—$300 million a day. Without that interest working against him, Clinton would have paid down the debt a bit faster. That helps the green-line goes down in the Clinton years. That's what would have happened without the Reagan-Bush interest burden. Now if W. Bush had held the line as all non-supply side presidents had done, the national debt would have been only 21% of GDP, and the country would have been ready to pull itself out of the Great Recession with ease. In fact when W. Bush's last budget year ended we would have had $9 Trillion less in debt. So how did Reagan, the great debt-slasher, go so far wrong? Partly it was his belief in supply-side "economics." This "theory" claims that when the government cuts taxes, especially taxes on corporations and the rich, it makes them so happy to keep more of their money that they work much harder, get richer, and pay even more taxes than before the tax cut. So the lower the tax rate, the more money the government collects to pay down the debt! Believe that happy talk, and you can run up quite debt. Of course the rich loved this "theory" and fed the press many stories about the wonders of the new supply-side "economics" (cooked up by Laffer, as a graduate student). Money talks, and a lot of people listened. It's time to rethink what radical conservatives have done and are doing to our country. The Reagan-Bushes National Debt now totals $9.2 trillion. That's the lions share of our present debt.

US National Debt Graph:  What They Never Tell You

Debt Compared to National Income Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America. In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay. Is this just Republicans vs. Democrats? Not quite, see: voodoo economics. It's a terrible thing to scare America about its debt when we're doing great and then send the debt through the roof for no reason. So the supply siders invented another lie — Congress did. As this graph shows, Congress changed the presidents' budgets only a tiny bit and more down than up — by $16 billion over Reagan's eight years. And over those eight years Reagan increased the debt by $1,860 billion. Blaming that on the tiny budget reductionby Congress is just political nonsense.More+Documentation.

Explanation and Check It Yourself This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.) Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident. The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they've scared America again about the debt. It's easier now that they've run it through the roof.

See the Full Slide Show above The Present Danger The Great Depression lasted about 12 years with business conservatives scaring people about inflation (there was none) and about government borrowing (negligible until WWII). Now the supply siders are keeping us in the Great Recession the same way. So What Worked? World War II. Uncle Sam (the U.S. government) borrowed the equivalent of 10.5 Trillion (see top graph) and bought war goods from private industry. Supply siders say this creates no jobs. But industry hired Rosey the Riveter and millions more. Unemployment ended with over-employment. The U.S. had its greatest economic boom ever — by far. It doubled output in six years. Back then we had real Patriots. They loved Uncle Sam and they bought war bonds to help him borrow to hire people and win the war. Now people, who hate Uncle Sam almost as much as Al Qaeda, call themselves Patriots. They should call themselves Hateriots. But they have just been duped by the Wall Streeters who invented supply-side economics -- and who have been telling us lies for 30 years. America is about to vote the supply siders and hateriots into Congress. They will give tax cuts to the rich, which is what got us into debt. And though the rich will spend a bit more on gardeners, nannies, and yachts, the country will have nothing to show for this extra debt. It's simply immoral to give more tax cuts to today's rich so the next generation can pay for them. $12 trillion of this voodoo taxing of the future is enough. But the real patriots of WWII, who borrowed and spent and gave 400,000 lives for their country, showed us the way. Another lie: Spending now won't work because it's not for war. That's what the Wall Streeters tell us so we'll give them tax breaks instead. But does it help future generations more to build battle ships or to fix our bridges and dams? Does it help the economy more to put our men to work at home or send them to die in France? It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous claim than the one that spending for war is more productive than spending on infrastructure and education for our future. Supply-side "voodoo" economics is an immoral trick of thievery, designed for today's rich at the expense of the future. It hoodwinks many by offering the middle class some of the booty — the rich get the big tax cuts, but hey, the middle class can have some too, also at the expense of the future. The result of falling for this, is an out-of-control debt that scares us into staying in recession and will soon be used to kill social security and Medicare — which the rich don't need. It's time to put America back to work. Let's say thanks to our real patriots who showed us how.

‘Christians and Muslims, We Are All Egyptians’

by Reza Aslan 02-07-2011

While much of the prognostication about Egypt’s future has focused on the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the threat that it could pose to Egypt’s Christian minority, one need only view the massive demonstrations that have roiled the streets of Cairo, Suez, and Alexandria to recognize that this is a multi-faith movement against a regime whose brutality and repression have been felt by Muslims and Christians alike. Indeed, when the dust of this crisis finally settles, the most iconic image of the protests against the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak may be that of the Christians who formed a human chain around Muslim protesters in Tahrir Square, so that they could safely perform their Friday prayers.

That image of Christians protecting Muslims at prayer calls to mind a similar event that took place last year, after the bombing of Saints Church in Alexandria by a (non-Egyptian) member of an al-Qaeda affiliated group from Gaza known as the Army of Islam. Lost in the media frenzy that followed that despicable act, which left 21 dead, was the fact that a few days later thousands of Egyptian Muslims gathered at Coptic Churches across the country, forming human chains of protection around their Christian countrymen as they observed Christmas Eve mass. In the words of one Egyptian Muslim at the gatherings: “This is not about us and them. We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.” According to the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, in the days following the attack, solidarity between Muslims and Christians in Egypt soared as millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent: the symbol of unified Egypt.

The same image of the cross within a crescent has been ubiquitous on the streets of Egypt these last two weeks, as thousands of Christians have joined their Muslim brethren to call for an end to Mubarak’s regime. “We came here to show that every Egyptian should be here and wants to be here,” said one Egyptian Christian taking part in the demonstrations. “There is no difference between Christians and Muslims [on this matter].” When some members of the Muslim Brotherhood began chanting their group’s slogan — “Islam is the Solution” — at a recent protest, they were drowned out by Egyptian youth chanting: “Christians and Muslims, we are all Egyptians.” And when Egypt’s notoriously corrupt police forces fled the streets of Cairo, Muslims and Christians joined together to form neighborhood committees to provide security to one another.

The protests against Mubarak, like the attack on Saints Church, seem to have brought the the Muslim and Christian communities closer together. As one young demonstrator explained to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm,“Mubarak is the one who created a ‘fitna’ [rift] between the Muslims and the Christians in Egypt over the past 30 years.” Of course, it remains to be seen whether this solidarity will last into the formation of a new government once Mubarak leaves. But what cannot be denied is that the aspiration for freedom and democracy, and the desire to be freed from the yoke of dictatorship, are sentiments shared by all Egyptians, no matter where they pray.

Dr. Reza Aslan, an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions, is a contributing editor at the Daily Beast. Aslan is President and CEO of Aslan Media Inc, whose holdings include BoomGen Studios, a mini-motion picture and media company focused entirely on entertainment about the Greater Middle East and its Diaspora communities. Born in Iran, he now lives in Los Angeles where he is Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day:

Coming Together to Fight HIV/AIDS

Posted by Jeffrey S. Crowley on February 07, 2011 at 05:05 PM EST

To commemorate National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, Senior Advisor to President Obama Valerie Jarrett shared her heart-felt thoughts on the importance of combating HIV/AIDS. Watch her video message:

National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness is not just a day to increase awareness, but a day to act on your own health.

• Do you know your status? If not, text your zipcode to 566948 (“KNOWIT”) to find and HIV testing site near you or go to HIVtest.org.
• You can also call 1-800-CDC-INFORMATION for more information and testing sites in your area.
• Visit www.aids.gov for Federal resources, events in your area and tools to commemorate National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.