Pages

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

President Obama hands out birth certificate. Trump takes credit


I tried very hard not to get involved with the birthers, but this is my statement.  They have brought our country to the lowest point on the equal rights pendulum, it is disgusting, racial, and not what my country is about.  How low can the Republicans and the Tea Party go.  The grio has an awesome op ed by Goldie Taylor.  And she states that in our 235 year history we have never asked another U.S. President for the 'papers' like we have bullied Obama to do.  Orly Tate original 'birther'  is a low life snake in the grass.  and she should be brought up on charges of Treason.  Because she spreads hate, racial bigotry, she and the birthers would love to see a totally white America, and send all non white citizens back to their origin.  Funny the only people that would be left in America would be the native American Indians.     

  -  

Posted on the White House blog.
This morning the White House press secretary passed out copies of President Obama's long-form birth certificate. We're expecting Mr. Obama to brief reporters within the hour. More news here when we get it.
From the White House blog:
The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country. Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting.
Republican presidential-maybe Donald Trump is telling Portsmouth, New Hampshire, how "amazing" it is that he got President Obama to release the birth certificate. He's also plugging his "very, very successful" TV show. "When the show is over, I will be free to announce," Mr. Trump just said. "I think you will be surprised at what my announcement is." Now he's going after President Obama's college transcripts. "Why doesn't he release his Occidental records?" Mr. Trump said. He said he wants to know how Mr. Obama later got into Ivy League schools.
UPDATE: 9:54 a.m.: President Obama spoke briefly to reporters, taking no questions afterward. Mr. Obama said that he knows that the release of his birth certificate won't satisfy everyone, but that he's doing this for the majority of the American people. He said that he has watched with "bemusement" as the birth certificate issue dragged on, and sounded frustrated that the questions about it had dominated the news cycle even during the recent budget fight. Americans face difficult challenges right now, and we can't fix them if we're divided, distracted, and just plain making stuff up. (That's a rough paraphrase, but not that rough.)
"We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers," Mr. Obama said. He added, "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."
The Political Theater of the Absurd and Surreal will now take a brief intermission. Please talk amongst yourselves.
P.S. The political haymaking begins for Republicans. From Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus: "Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority -- our economy."

Endeavour at sunset:

Owly Images


Rep_Giffords

Rep_Giffords

Surveys Show Seniors Prefer GOP Jobs Budget That Preserves & Protects Medicare


Posted by Don Seymour on April 27, 2011
While Republicans work to spur job growth and stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have, the White House and Congressional Democrats are out trying to demonize the Republican jobs budget (The Path to Prosperity). But all the liberal attacks and tall tales aren’t working, and new surveys show American seniors prefer the Republican plan which preserves and protects programs like Medicare:
  • A new national survey by Gallup says “[p]luralities of middle-aged Americans as well as those 65 and older prefer Ryan's plan to Obama’s,” with seniors preferring The Path to Prosperity by a 48-42 margin.
  • John Fund of the Wall Street Journal highlighted a CBS News/New York Times survey that found a plurality of Americans “approve of GOP Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms.”
Under the GOP Path to Prosperity, there would be no changes and no disruptions in benefits for Americans age 55 and over. And future retirees will have access to the same kinds of options as Members of Congress. It’s all part of a budget that will spur job creation, rein in out-of-control federal spending, and protect and preserve Medicare and Medicaid for current retirees and future generations of Americans.  Learn more here and here.

April 27, 2011

Americans Divided Over Ryan vs. Obama Deficit Plans

Favor congressional Republicans over Democrats on federal budget, generally

by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. adults are evenly split in their reactions to the major deficit-reduction plans being debated in Washington. Forty-four percent prefer the Democratic plan proposed by President Barack Obama, while 43% say Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's plan is better.
Preferred Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan, by Age, April 2011

Opinion Journal: Seniors Favor Medicare Changes 4/27/2011 1:29:43 PM

Senior Editorial Writer Joseph Rago breaks down the Obama and Ryan plans for the nation's largest entitlement.





Polling Entitlement Reform

A CBS News/New York Times poll reports that a plurality of Americans approve of Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms



The CBS News/New York Times poll is thought to skew a little to the left due to its tendency to oversample Democrats. That's why Washington insiders sat up and took notice on Good Friday, when the poll reported that a plurality of Americans actually approve of GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare reforms.
A startling 47% approved of changing Medicare from a program in which the government "pays doctors and hospitals for treating seniors" to a program in which the government "helps seniors purchase private health insurance." Only 41% disagreed.
John Fund describes the emerging Senate plan to raise taxes and its Republican enablers.
Polling results can vary dramatically based on many factors, including question wording. A recent Washington Post/ABC News survey found 65% opposing the Ryan voucher plan. But the Post's wording makes it sound as if current retirees would have their Medicare benefits changed, even though Mr. Ryan's plan exempts anyone 55 years of age or older. That is a key difference that may account for the polling variation. Other surveys that more closely follow the Times' wording indicate a plurality of Americans back the Ryan approach.
The Times poll contains other data that should worry President Obama if he continues to demagogue the House-passed GOP budget. By 55% to 33%, Americans prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a bigger government with more services. That basic 3-to-2 ratio -- indicating this is a center-right nation -- has prevailed for a quarter-century.
Similarly, by 2-to-1 Americans would rather cut spending on programs that benefit them than see their taxes go up. Even when it comes to Medicare spending, respondents in the Times poll say they are "willing" to reduce Medicare spending, by a 48% to 45% plurality.
Mr. Obama thought that his attacks on the Ryan budget would rally his liberal base and help scare voters away from any meaningful entitlement reform. So far, the evidence that his strategy is working is scant, and Republicans appear to have a solid core of support to build on.
To read more stories like this one, please subscribe to Political Diary.

Whats driving the price of gas?


State Dept. wants to make it harder to get a passport


by Edward Hasbrouck on April 22, 2011
If you don’t want it to get even harder for a U.S. citizen to get a passport — now required for travel even to Canada or Mexico — you only have until Monday to let the State Department know.
The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new  Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information.  According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”
The State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes, which is obviously absurd given the amount of research that is likely to be required to even attempt to complete the form.
It seems likely that only some, not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new questionnaire, but no criteria have been made public for determining who will be subjected to these additional new written interrogatories.  So if the passport examiner wants to deny your application, all they will have to do is give you the impossible new form to complete.
It’s not clear from the supporting statement, statement of legal authorities, or regulatory assessmentsubmitted by the State Department to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) why declining to discuss one’s siblings or to provide the phone number of your first supervisor when you were a teenager working at McDonalds would be a legitimate basis for denial of a passport to a U.S. citizen.
There’s more information in the Federal Register notice (also available here as a PDF) and from the Identity Project.
You can submit comments to the State Dept. online at  Regulations.gov until midnight Eastern time on Monday, April 25, 2011.  Go here, then click the “Submit a Comment” button at the upper right of the page. If that link doesn’t work for you, it’s probably a problem with the javascript used on the Regulations.gov website. There are alternate instructions for submitting comments by email here.
(Note that the proposed form itself was not published in the Federal Register. The Identity Project was eventually provided with a copy after requesting it from the Department of State, and posted it here.)
Here’s a draft of the comments (PDF) being submitted by the Consumer Travel Alliance and other consumer, privacy, and civil liberties groups and individuals, if you would like to use it for ideas for comments of your own. (It’s also available  in OpenOffice format for easier editing.)
Extra points to the person who gives the best answer in the comments to the question on the proposed form, “Please describe the circumstances of your birth including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth.”

Sixteen Questions for Dr. Bernanke’s Press Conference


Mmmm… I live near DC, but what does it take to get an invite to the Fed’s press conference?  One e-mail, four phone calls, four messages… and not even the courtesy of a reply?  What, does the Fed think they run this place?!  (Uh, maybe.)
I mean, it would be reasonable to receive a response that says, “Sorry, bloggers are NOT a part of the press, no matter how much reach you have.  We only deal with REP-utable media.  You are not an impartial reporter of information.”  But being ignored is just tacky.
I’m assuming that I will have no access to the press conference.  So, I’m writing out a list of questions that those in the press can use if they like.  Some questions are normal ones, some less so.  To those that follow me that may have contact with those who are invited to the press briefing, I ask that you pass the questions along to them.  Thanks.
1) Why has the NY Fed’s open market’s desk been buying predominantly intermediate nominal Treasuries, but with TIPS, predominantly the long end?  Is the Fed trying to purchase a long-dated inflation hedge?
2) Growth in developing world means more competition for food and energy supplies, and other commodities, which are forcing prices up in those areas.  Why does the Fed focus on so-called “core” measures of inflation, when food and energy prices (though volatile), always seem to go up more than the “core?”
3) If you are trying to smooth out fluctuations in inflation, wouldn’t it be better to use the median or a trimmed mean, rather than ignore data, particularly data that minimizes the effect of inflation for households for which food and energy are a large portion of their budgets?
4) In 1992-1993, the Fed held the Fed Funds rate down at levels that produced a very steep Treasury yield curve.  When the Fed began tightening policy, in 1994 the bond market had annus horribilis, with a self-reinforcing sell-off in the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities market.  As you begin removing policy accommodation, what assurances can you give that we won’t have a similar selloff?
5) How are you regulating banks differently now than you were in 2005?
6) Why did the Fed resist legitimate FOIA requests so vehemently?  In the insurance industry, every asset is public.  Why did the Fed and the banks resist disclosure of items that should have been regarded as trivial?
7) Why did state-regulated insurers come through the crisis better than federally-regulated depositary institutions?
8) Why does the Fed employ so many Ph.D. Economists when the economics profession proved incapable of forecasting the recent crisis, when all anyone had to do was look at overall debt levels relative to GDP to see that we had surpassed the levels of the Great Depression?  Why employ so many from a failed area, when it would be better to hire History Ph. Ds. who might note the problem?
9) Why is the Fed so big in terms of employment, when all you do is set monetary policy, and pretend to regulate financials?  Why can’t the Fed  be slimmed down to provide a greater payback to the US Treasury?
10) Are you concerned that the Fed’s balance sheet is a record 16-17% of US GDP?  If you begin to shrink your balance sheet, what will the effect be on the banks, lending and the general economy?
11) Some suggest that the removal of liquidity will prove difficult.  So far the Fed has minimized price inflation, but how will you manage the removal of accomodation from QE2, particularly if inflation begins to accelerate?
12) If you find the US in stagflation one year from now, how will your policy be different from that of the Fed in the late ’70s?
13) What evidence is there that quantitative easing works?  Japan is still a basket case, and they have done it the most.  Ignore theory, and give concrete examples.
14) Quantitative easing has forced investors to take more risk, particularly retirees who need income.  Is it fair to engage in an economic policy that is unfair to investors and seniors?  Why harm savers who deserve a good return on their savings?
15) Don’t you think that holding interest rates so low just builds another bubble?  Low interest rates relative to growth in GDP often fosters speculation that blows up once the economy overheats and the Fed adjusts policy.  Why engage in such policy?  Why not aim for something more sustainable, a la Knut Wicksell?
16) Why is the Fed sucking down 50% of the US Government’s issuance of debt?
-=-=–=-=-==–=-==-=–==-=–==-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Okay, so I am biased and not politically realistic.  Yet I am trying to be real with the economy as it is, and the distortions that the Fed has created through their horrendously loose monetary policy.  I firmly believe that the history books will condemn Greenspan, and to a slightly lesser extent Bernanke, for their mishandling of monetary policy and supervision of financial companies.
Posted 2011-04-26 10:31
by Karl Denninger 
in Federal Reserve
 
Since he's going to take them, here are a few in no particular order:

  • You testified in front of Congress, under oath that you would not monetize the Federal Debt.  Yet one of the Fed Presidents, Mr. Hoenig, has said that you are, under any reasonable interpretation of reality, now monetizing federal debt.  How was your previous statement, made under oath to Congress, not an act of perjury?
  • In the lead-up to the crisis of 2007 and 2008 you emphatically stated on multiple occasions that you saw no material risk of recession or of the housing downturn becoming a widespread phenomena.  Not only was the first economic call incorrect, the second was spectacularly wrong to the point of complete irrelevance, particularly given the recent Case-Schiller report.  Why should anyone believe that similar claims of ability to avoid serious inflationary or other disruptive impacts of your monetary policy decisions, given your past track record of inaccuracy?
  • How do you justify stealing essentially all of the income of Senior Citizens and others who are not in a position to take market risk?  To put this in perspective the average rate on 1-year CDs were around 5.25% prior to the collapse in 2007.  $1 million in such a CD would return $52,500 - enough money for a retired couple, along with Social Security, to have a reasonable lifestyle.  Accumulating $1 million, while not particularly easy, was entirely possible for most working couples during their lifetimes.  $50,000 is reasonably close to the median household income; as such a retired couple could thus live a decent middle-class lifestyle on this income without taking market risk.

    Today a 1 year CD yields, at best, about 1.25%.  That same household now has an income from their CDs of $12,500.   This is below the poverty line for a two-person household (currently $14,570.)  Your zero-interest rate policy has literally resulted in the descent of an average-income retired household into poverty.  Given that 13% of the population of the United States is over 65, how do you justify intentionally plunging those retirees into poverty?
  • You have repeatedly claimed that your "QE2" program was intended to "help the economy."  Yet it is clear that this bond-buying was, in fact, very close in size to the gross federal deficit during that time.  How do you defend the obvious financing of the Federal deficit and when do you intend to stop doing so, given that everyone, including you in Congressional testimony, have stated that this deficit spending is unsustainable?
Those will do for a start.

What Does it Mean to Be "Pro-Choice?"


By Jodi Jacobson, Editor-in-Chief, RH Reality Check

April 26, 2011 - 1:11pm


A version of this article appears in the forthcoming issue ofConscience magazine.
What does it mean to be "pro-choice?"
And what does it mean to be a pro-choice politician today?
These are two questions that are far from academic at a time when the main focus of the majority of state legislatures and governors, the U.S. House of Representatives and a substantial number of U.S. Senators is not on jobs, deficits, the economy, the environment, the health of educational systems in the United States or the health and well-being of the U.S. population writ large, but instead on incessant, invasive, prurient, and often pornographic efforts to monitor the vaginas and wombs of the country's female citizens, the loss of freedoms resulting from which indeed negativelyaffect the basic human rights, health and well-being, economic prospects and educational attainment of women as a class and a demographic group and hence of their children and families.
This article explores what I believe to be the most basic attributes of being "pro-choice" in a political sense and within a reproductive and sexual justice framework. It is the first in two articles examining the issues, the second of which will focus on President Obama's record on the most fundamental of women's rights.  I recognize that some may take issue with, or wish to expand upon, my own thinking on this issue and I welcome and indeed encourage debate about it here.
What Does It Mean to be "Pro-Choice?"
In its most narrow sense, the term "pro-choice" is short-hand for a group or individual who believes a woman should be able to choose an abortion if and when she desires to terminate a pregnancy that is either unintended and untenable, or simply untenable.  And certainly, the anti-choice community focuses solely on this aspect of the pro-choice agenda.
But in the fullest sense--and in the political sense--it means much, much more because in truth being "pro-choice" is a political worldview that sees women as equal actors and full participants in society and is based on the belief that every born child should be a wanted, loved, cared-for child. Being pro-choice means understanding that the condition of pregnancy is not an obligation to parenthood and that unless women have the means to achieve sexual and reproductive health, effectively manage their fertility and plan their families, neither of the above conditions can exist.
Being pro-choice means believing in the right of women to choose whether, when, and with whom to bear a child and to determine whether, when, andto whom make a lifelong commitment to becoming a mother for the first time, the third time, or the seventh time; whether to become a mother not now but later, or never to become a mother at all; whether or not to become a parent to an apparently healthy child or give birth knowingly to a profoundly disabled child; whether to become a mother in spite of health risks or to avoid or terminate a pregnancy because of health risks; whether to freely decide to carry to term a pregnancy resulting from such profound human rights abuses as marital or stranger rape or incest; whether to carry an unintended pregnancy to term and give a child up for adoption or to decide to carry to term and raise a child resulting from an unintended pregnancy. 
These are all choices women with agency and freedom make.
Being pro-choice means understanding abortion as a moral choice among numerous moral and morally defensible choices about pregnancy, childbearing, and parenting. It means understanding that some women--the majority of them already mothers--will make a moral choice to have an abortion when they do not feel ready or willing or able to carry a pregnancy to term, when a pregnancy is untenable for any number of reasons, when an additional pregnancy and a potential additional child threatens their own lives or the well-being, food security, educational attainment, or social development of living children and an established family. And, unequivocally yes, when the birth of a child or another child threatens the ability of any given woman to participate in society--whether by achieving an education, engaging in employment or otherwise deciding that "now is not the time" to bear a child or additional children.
It means recognizing that public and media hand-wringing about "injecting morality into the abortion debate" is profoundly dismissive of the reality that its already there, and that women are moral agents making moral choices about when and how to build their families and whether or not they are equipped to make the lifelong and all-encompassing commitment necessary to parenting a(nother) child.  Being pro-choice means recognizing that no one religious tradition has a lock on what is moral, and that others can not decide for any individual woman how best to balance lifelong responsibilities. Being pro-choice means recognizing and respecting any given woman's right to decide that she could never terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance and any other woman's right to decide to terminate a pregnancy under circumstances not "acceptable" to others.  Being pro-choice means recognizing that sensationalized examples of women who have abortions "we don't like" does not give us permission to regulate the bodies of all other women or deny them their rights.
Being pro-choice is profoundly "pro" life and is about being concerned as much or more about living and sentient women, and the safety and well-being of children actually born into and living in this world as it is about ova, sperm, fertilized eggs, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses.  Being pro-choice means understanding that healthy women and healthy pregnancies are both independent values in society, and that women who choose to be pregnant or to carry a pregnancy to term deserve quality pre- and post-natal care, choices in childbirth, and choices in childcare in accordance with their life decisions.  Being pro-choice means recognizing--and working to remedy--the inherent injustice in the fact that women of economic and social privilege by definition have far greater access to the most basic sexual and reproductive health care than do women who are economically or socially marginalized or suffer race and class discrimination.  Being pro-choice also means understanding that abortion is a fundamental component of health care and of the health services to which women need access whether or not they need or choose to terminate a pregnancy at any time in their lives.  Being pro-choice means understanding that efforts to separate, marginalize or otherwise undermine insurance coverage for abortion, contraception or other reproductive and sexual health services or treating these differently than other medical procedures is fundamentally discriminatory to women and undermines their health and well-being.
Being pro-choice in the fullest sense means understanding there is no justifiable "trade-off" or "common ground" in denying some women access to contraception, abortion, or any other form of reproductive health care as part of some "sensible" political compromise (sensible only because it serves a particular politician's political interests), just as there is no justifiable trade-off in allowing citizens of one economic class or state to exercise their rights to vote, to freedom of speech, or to bodily integrity, for example, while denying the same to citizens of other states or economic classes for reasons of political expediency.  There is, therefore, no justifiable reason for undermining the most fundamental rights of the women of the District of Columbia whose bodies were used as political pawns in the recent fight over the government shutdown. Being pro-choice it is never ok to use any faith tradition, ideology or personal belief to deny women as a class or individual women their rights.  Ever.
Being pro-choice means understanding that self-determination for women regarding sex, sexuality, reproduction and motherhood is a fundamental precursor to womens' ability to achieve their own educational, economic and familial aspirations, a fundamental precursor to the health and well-being of individuals and families, and a core condition of the long-term stability and health of society.  It therefore also means understanding the profound connections for women--supported by more than ample evidence--between economic and educational status and unfettered access to comprehensive sexual health education, contraception, family planning services, and abortion care.
Finally, it bears repeating again that being "pro-choice" is a political worldview that sees women as equal actors and full participants in society and is based on the belief that every born child should be a wanted, loved,cared-for child. This alone is a moral position, and unless and until these conditions are fulfilled, we can not achieve justice, no matter how many other deals we strike on other issues.