News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?

[russ_watters]

Backing up a step, Obama's $3 trillion debt increase reduction proposal: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/politics/obama-debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A couple of things immediately jump out at you:

1. It includes zero cuts in discretionary spending, but half of the total is tax increases, further distancing himself from the debt deal he made just a couple of months ago. After having made the Tea Party out as being unreasonably unwilling to compromise, he proves their position to be right by completely trashing the deal he made. Good luck getting them to compromise the next time you need something, Obama: next time, they should actually make you sign the cuts into law before agreeing to anything at all.

2. It uses the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as 1/3 of the "cuts". I suppose that's the upside of putting them onto the budget, but no one's going to buy the gimmick of claiming a multi-year, phased drawdown that started before he entered office (Iraq) is a cut he made. I do suppose he could call ending his Afghanistan surge a cut, though...

Caveat - I've looked for CBO budget estimates and it looks like the CBO baseline improperly assumes spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at last year's levels for the forseeable future. But an improper baseline doesn't make for a savings when you correct the calculation. Particularly when the Obama has already provided reduction projections in his own previous budget requests:

The main reason for the difference is that
the baseline incorporates the assumption that funding for
war-related activities will continue at $159 billion a year
(the amount provided so far for 2011, annualized) with
adjustments for inflation, whereas the President’s budget
includes a request for appropriations of $127 billion for
such activities for 2012 and a placeholder of $50 billion a
year thereafter.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-AnalysisPresidentsBudget.pdf

Doing the math on that, it total's $1013 billion in "savings" - I'm not sure where the discrepancy is vs the $1.1T he announced in his "plan", but perhaps he simply dropped the last two years of his placeholder or I got the number of years wrong...

 

[WhoWee]

Caveat - I've looked for CBO budget estimates and it looks like the CBO baseline improperly assumes spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at last year's levels for the forseeable future. But an improper baseline doesn't make for a savings when you correct the calculation. Particularly when the Obama has already provided reduction projections in his own previous budget requests:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12130/04-15-AnalysisPresidentsBudget.pdf

Doing the math on that, it total's $1013 billion in "savings" - I'm not sure where the discrepancy is vs the $1.1T he announced in his "plan", but perhaps he simply dropped the last two years of his placeholder or I got the number of years wrong...

Might some of the future spending in Iraq and Afghanistan be for contractors that will remain - including drone operations?

 

[russ_watters]

Might some of the future spending in Iraq and Afghanistan be for contractors that will remain - including drone operations?

Probably, but $50B will buy a lot of drones and rent a lot of contractors, no?

 

[mheslep]

Backing up a step, Obama's $3 trillion debt increase reduction proposal: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/politics/obama-debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A couple of things immediately jump out at you:

1. It includes zero cuts in discretionary spending, ...

I like the tax reform proposals in there (loopholes), closing subsidies (agriculture), and the nibble at Medicare, so hope the House will ignore the remaining silliness in the proposal attempt to make the rest real.

 

[WhoWee]

This ad uses President Obama's words then pushes the "patriot" button - sounded like Reagan at the end. I expect most of the Republican ads will feature sound clips of President Obama - he ran against George Bush last election and he'll be running against himself this election- IMO of course.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/Perry-ad-attack-Obama/2011/09/21/id/411786?s=al&promo_code=D188-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0&feature=player_embedded

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Phoenix Awards. Sounding like a professional community organizer - he urged the crowd to help him (turn out voters in 2012).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eak-to-frustrated-congressional-black-caucus/

""Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your maching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do.""

He's hoping to have better results in 2012 than he did in 2010.my bold

"Last year, Obama addressed the same dinner and implored blacks to get out the vote in the midterm elections because Republicans were preparing to "turn back the clock."
What followed was a Democratic rout that Obama acknowledged as a "shellacking."
Where blacks had turned out in droves to help elect him in 2008, there was a sharp drop-off two years later.
Some 65 percent of eligible blacks voted in 2008, compared with a 2010 level that polls estimate at between 37 percent and 40 percent. Final census figures for 2010 are not yet available, and it's worth noting off-year elections typically draw far fewer voters.
This year's caucus speech came as Obama began cranking up grass-roots efforts across the Democratic spectrum.
It also fell on the eve of a trip to the West Coast that will combine salesmanship for the jobs plan he sent to Congress this month and re-election fundraising."

 

[DoggerDan]

Probably, but $50B will buy a lot of drones and rent a lot of contractors, no?

No doubt doing more with less is one of the reasons the Air Force pushed so hard for drones. If they had to provide the same surveillance coverage with manned aircraft, it'd cost ten times as much.

Contractors, not so much. I think that's a wash, except for the continuity. Someone who's been there a while usually knows the answer or is closer to the solution than someone who is replaced every 1 to 3 years for "career progression."

 

[WhoWee]

When David Axelrod said this - I wonder if he was comparing President Obama's career to the Titanic - big, bold and modern - then sunk into the cold depths of history?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-axelrod-20110927,0,1691370.story

"President Obama faces a “titanic struggle” to win re-election, his top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, said Tuesday, given high unemployment and the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington."

I'm confident Axelrod will find a lifeboat.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Titanic was certainly a bad choice of words.

The President has a number of problems. One problem is that he is not a very good persuader. His speeches are wonderful to hear (when he isn't in prickly and whiny mode), but they don't persuade. Nobody's mind is changed. Related to that problem is that the President doesn't seem to grasp that - his reaction to problems is to give a speech. The final piece of that problem is that he went into re-election campaign mode way too soon, and the way his is campaigning is telling a significant fraction of the population, "I'm not your President."

This is taking its toll on independent voters, many of whom have reason to be unhappy already: ObamaCare taking a higher priority than jobs, and arguably "stimulus" and "jobs" bills that seem to be more about passing out the pork than actually providing jobs. Additionally, the fact that the President is putting the US on a more European-like social and fiscal trajectory just as Europe is collapsing from the very weight of these policies is also something concerning independents.

Of course "independents" are not a monolithic entity, and indeed many self-identified independents are reliable voters for one party or another. (Some of them are here) But the fact remains that he is losing support among independents. In the last 6 months, he's lost 18 percentage points among them.

He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? One advantage of this strategy is that it can be applied late in the campaign season. We may have seen a hint of this with the jobs bill, which the senate majority leader from the president's own party won't allow to come for a vote. You get a piece of legislation that cannot possibly pass, and you make it a centerpiece of the campaign.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

 

[WhoWee]

Titanic was certainly a bad choice of words.

The President has a number of problems. One problem is that he is not a very good persuader. His speeches are wonderful to hear (when he isn't in prickly and whiny mode), but they don't persuade. Nobody's mind is changed. Related to that problem is that the President doesn't seem to grasp that - his reaction to problems is to give a speech. The final piece of that problem is that he went into re-election campaign mode way too soon, and the way his is campaigning is telling a significant fraction of the population, "I'm not your President."

This is taking its toll on independent voters, many of whom have reason to be unhappy already: ObamaCare taking a higher priority than jobs, and arguably "stimulus" and "jobs" bills that seem to be more about passing out the pork than actually providing jobs. Additionally, the fact that the President is putting the US on a more European-like social and fiscal trajectory just as Europe is collapsing from the very weight of these policies is also something concerning independents.

Of course "independents" are not a monolithic entity, and indeed many self-identified independents are reliable voters for one party or another. (Some of them are here) But the fact remains that he is losing support among independents. In the last 6 months, he's lost 18 percentage points among them.

He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? One advantage of this strategy is that it can be applied late in the campaign season. We may have seen a hint of this with the jobs bill, which the senate majority leader from the president's own party won't allow to come for a vote. You get a piece of legislation that cannot possibly pass, and you make it a centerpiece of the campaign.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

my bold
In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

To your point - unless Harry Reid maintains a majority and Nancy Pelosi regains control of the House - as evidenced by the recent defeat of his budget and the treatment of his jobs Bill proposal - it's unlikely President Obama persuade anyone to do anything - IMO.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

 

[BobG]

my bold
In 2012, voters need to evaluate whether a person with roughly 1.5 to 2 years of actual Senate service, with no experience other than as a "community organizer" or lecturer (it could be said all he's ever done is talk about doing things) is qualified, sufficient, competent, and adequate to successfully function as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on the planet?

I disagree. That was the question in 2008. I think the question for 2012 is "Are you happy with his job performance, and do you think he would do better than his opposition?"

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When David Axelrod said this - I wonder if he was comparing President Obama's career to the Titanic - big, bold and modern - then sunk into the cold depths of history?

Obviously not and you just wanted to use the metaphor.

 

[daveb]

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Which is odd since democratic presidents are usually trusted more with economic policy than foreign policy, and the reverse goes for republican presidents.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Vanadium. Voters will need to evaluate whether a person with 4 years of Presidential experience is more qualified than a person with 0 years of Presidential experience.

And if they're not happy with his job performance, the answer to that may be "No".

But that answer would be based solely on the economy. People are mostly happy with his foreign policy and performance in other areas. Kind of tough to shift the conversation to the areas where the answer to that question would be "Yes", though.

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

 

[mheslep]

...
He has to make up those voters somehow. He has three choices:

• Try and get them back.
• Try and convince an equal number of voters in a different demographic to switch to him.
• Increase the base turnout to compensate.

Of these, from recent events, it looks like the campaign will concentrate on the latter.

Is that possible? ...

I agree with this analysis. I heard a pundit suggest that the administration probably also recognizes these alternatives, but may change options over time. That is, to fund raise and run a campaign Obama must court the base now, but later, say end of next summer with a well staffed fifty state campaign it then pivots right and attempts to bring back some independents. In the mean time class warfare continues to be the theme.

I expect to see a dramatic piece of legislation proposed very late in the campaign that is very popular to the left, but so late in the campaign it can't possibly be voted on before the election. A wealth tax is one possibility. Cap and trade is a third. Maybe he'll go all the way to a citizen's basic income.

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

 

[Char. Limit]

Normally, I would agree with regard to 4 years of Presidential experience - but it's not clear (to me) he's learned anything about the economy. The other problem is the cumulative effect of developing stories about Solyndra and Fast and Furious, along with the revelation the first time around the projects weren't "shovel ready".

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

 

[WhoWee]

That doesn't really matter. He still has experience in being a President. Would you say someone who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber for four years has no experience in being a plumber?

If I knew a plumber with 4 or 40 years of experience "who doesn't do the best of jobs as a plumber" - he would not be hired to do my work.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd definitely pick a plumber who might do it wrong over a plumber I had seen do it wrong every chance he got. Heck, I've actually made similar choices before!

 

[Char. Limit]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

 

[BobG]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

Maybe so, but if the "no experience" argument worked in 2008, then surely it will work again!

Wait... it didn't actually work all that well in 2008.

That argument is even worse than desparate!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here we disagree on timing. I think we have already seen the legislation popular with the left in the form of this jobs bill that will go nowhere. Later near the general election I expect a shift to the middle.

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

Furthermore, you can't re-invigorate a base with a bill a year before the election if you can't pass it. You can if you propose it right before the election.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security. It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs, and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

The left would eat it up, and the right won't vote for him anyway.

 

[BobG]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards. We haven't seen it yet, and when it is forced upon the president by circumstances, he holds a press conference complaining about it. Also, it is very difficult in politics to quickly regain a disenchanted middle quickly, while one can quickly re-energize a disenchanted base.

You can't just announce, "Peace is at hand"? (Henry Kissinger, Oct 26, 1972)

What a strange election that was. Nixon led McGovern 62% to 38%, yet resorted to things like Watergate and "Peace is at hand" pronouncements to ensure his victory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9457/election-polls-vote-groups-19681972.aspx

The other strange thing? Voters with college educations usually supported the Republican candidates back then, while now college education voters seem more likely to support the Democratic candidate. (I could understand that when Bush was the Republican candidate, except Bush actually did well among college educated voters.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111781/blacks-postgrads-young-adults-help-obama-prevail.aspx#2

 

[WhoWee]

Might we label this the "Solyndra Double Down"?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52653377-68/energy-loan-solar-department.html.csp

"Obama administration approves two solar loans worth $1 billion"

On the other hand , this will create jobs. my bold
"SolarReserve LLC, of Santa Monica, Calif., the parent company for Tonopah, is privately held. The Energy Department said its rules prevented it from discussing the company’s financial information. Sempra Energy of San Diego, which owns Mesquite, is publicly held.

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the two projects had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies’ finances.

Chu said the Nevada project would produce enough electricity to power more than 43,000 homes, while the Arizona project would power nearly 31,000 homes. The two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs, Chu said.

"If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar," Chu said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state’s economy recover. Former Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project."

 

[mheslep]

I don't think the shift to the middle is in the cards.

As you successfully argued earlier, the president must do something to turn independent voters. Otherwise he might as well hunker down in the WH signing executive orders until Jan '13.

Suppose he proposed a Guaranteed Citizen's Income of 1.5x the poverty line. That would arguably end poverty, remove the concern about unemployment, and zero out spending for unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security.

That's effectively a guaranteed minimum wage of $16.50/hr for sitting at home which would likely triple unemployment, triple inflation, collapse exports ... so it would be a disaster for everyone. But to follow along on the math for fun...

It would cost $3T, of which $1.6T can come from the elimination of those other programs,

Yes in a fictitious static world that math works...

and $1.4T on unspecified taxes on "corporations and the wealthy".

but this does not. Again as you have frequently pointed out the money is simply not there. The only way to collect that much additional revenue annually given current GDP is to increase taxes on those earning less than $250K/year.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, I don't think the president has to regain the independent voters, provided he replaces each one that stays home with one from the base, and each one that votes for his opponent with two from the base. It certainly would be numerically easier to try and shift to the middle, but he could adopt the same strategy Speaker Pelosi did in passing ObamaCare - don't worry about losing the 34 democrats in the center so long as you don't lose any on the left.

The beauty of a proposal like Citizen's Guaranteed Income is that it doesn't have to be practical, or even passable. It just has to drum up votes from the base. The numbers don't work, but the degree to which they don't work is comparable to other plans where the numbers don't work. That will let the talking heads gush about it on TV.

 

[DoggerDan]

I don't think you guys saw the point. I wasn't saying "Vote Obama!" I was saying "Yes he does have experience".

Finally. He doesn't seemed to have learned much or gained much common sense during his time in office, though. He's still pursing ideals rather than making decisions based upon facts.

 

[WhoWee]

The beauty of a proposal like Citizen's Guaranteed Income is that it doesn't have to be practical, or even passable. It just has to drum up votes from the base. The numbers don't work, but the degree to which they don't work is comparable to other plans where the numbers don't work. That will let the talking heads gush about it on TV.

I think the President would lose all credibility with the center if he attempts such a proposal. Worse yet, he might lose the unions - when they calculate the tax increases required in the $40K+ income range to pay for such a plan. Do you recall the push-back about taxing the "Cadillac" health plans enjoyed by unions?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think the President would lose all credibility with the center if he attempts such a proposal.

That ship may have already sailed. Did you see the latest polls? Only 22% of people say they approve of the GOP leadership, and the president is still running neck and neck in the polls against "unnamed republican".

 

[WhoWee]

I like what Newt is doing - wider brush strokes for now - the specific details will be posted a month or 2 before the 2012 election.
http://www.latimes.com/health/healthcare/la-na-0930-gingrich-20110930,0,3829718.story

"Gingrich presents another 'Contract with America'
The Republican presidential hopeful unveils a set of policy proposals, much like he did in 1994. His plan addresses healthcare, taxes and the border, among other issues."

When asked for a few specifics - Newt said he would fire all of the "czars" and re-work healthcare reform through formal Congressional process and in the open - with all hearings televised this time.

 

[WhoWee]

I received 3 invitations to contribute to the re-election campaign today - Michelle, Barack, and Joe Biden emails. Apparently there is a deadline of some type this evening? At least Michelle and Barack are offering a dinner - Joe just wants me to send cash (same as the guy yesterday and the day before, and the day before that). I really do love America!

 

[WhoWee]

Is it possible to raise $1Billion in election funds and still be the underdog?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...erdog-2012-race-white-house/story?id=14656286

"Calling himself an "underdog," President Obama today said the faltering economy is a drag on his presidency and seriously impairing his chances of winning again in 2012.

"Absolutely," he said in response to a question from ABC News' George Stephanopoulos about whether the odds were against him come November 2012, given the economy. "I'm used to being the underdog. But at the end of the day people are going to ask -- who's got a vision?"

The American people, he conceded, are "not better off" than they were four years ago.

"The unemployment rate is way too high," he said of the 9 percent jobless rate, the highest in more than half a century.

Obama said his proposed American Jobs Act will put construction workers, teachers and veterans to work and give "more consumers more confidence.""

*******************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bout-the-money/2011/04/04/AFflkfcC_story.html

Apparently, the $1Billion isn't enough unless the base is motivated to hit the streets?

 

[WhoWee]

The time frame for investigating Attorney General Eric Holder of perjury charges (in front of Congress) could not be worse for President Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/eric-holder-investigation_n_994429.html

"House Republicans have asked the White House to appoint a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied during his testimony about a botched gun-trafficking operation, Fox News reports.

Documents obtained by CBS News show that Holder knew about the operation, dubbed "Operation Fast And Furious," as early as July 2010, which would contradict his testimony in May of this year, during which he said, "I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

A Justice Department official told The Huffington Post that the attorney general "has consistently said he became aware of the questionable tactics in early 2011 when ATF agents first raised them publicly, and then promptly asked the IG to investigate the matter.""


I find this very strange. Is it even possible that Holder didn't bother to open the file - to see what went across his desk (and when) - prior to testifying (on the subject) in front of Congress? Why would the Attorney General testify unprepared in front of Congress?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sure it could have come at a worse time. The election is 13 months away.

 

[WhoWee]

Sure it could have come at a worse time. The election is 13 months away.

An investigation of this type might require 13 months.

 

[Vanadium 50]

By that time, people will have forgotten all about it.

 

[WhoWee]

By that time, people will have forgotten all about it.

Not if it results in perjury charges against the Attorney General - an agent was killed with one of these weapons.

 

[WhoWee]

President Obama mentioned the other scandal in his news conference.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/white-house-donor-george-kaiser-lobby-solyndra/story?id=14676071

"President Obama said Thursday that his administration has loaned billions to start-up high tech firms like the now-bankrupt solar firm Solyndra based not on political influence, but "on the merits."

"I have confidence decisions were made based upon what's good for the American people," Obama said in a press conference Thursday in response to questions from ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper. "There were going to be some companies that did not work out. Solyndra was one of them."

The president addressed multiple questions Thursday about Solyndra, the first recipient of a government loan under a program to help finance start-up companies in the fledgling field of green energy. Solyndra declared bankruptcy last month, locking out 1,100 workers. The Energy Department loan is now the focus of investigations by Congress and by the Department of Justice.

"All I can say is the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgments," Obama said, defending the decision to make Solyndra the country's first loan guarantee recipient."

President Obama may regret the words "on the merits" and "decisions were made based upon what's good for the American people". Perhaps future loans exceeding a half billion dollars should be evaluated on the company's ability to repay - not on the "merits"?

 

[WhoWee]

I visited the Department of Labor website today - to gather the latest jobs report (unemployment 9.1%) - and found this.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/OPA20111474.htm

"Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on September employment numbers"

""In September, we saw 34,000 local government workers lose their jobs, including 24,000 teachers and other education professionals. The American Jobs Act will stop these losses and give municipalities the support they need to put our educators back in the classroom. Giving our youth a first-class education is critical to our long-term success in the global economy.
"Independent forecasters estimate that the American Jobs Act will create as many as 1.9 million jobs and increase economic growth by as much as two percentage points, if enacted. That's more than 150,000 additional jobs a month. It's crucial that this bill gets an up-or-down vote in both the House and Senate. If leaders in Congress refuse to put the bill to a vote, respected forecasters believe we will see lackluster GDP and job growth in 2012. Inaction is not a responsible option for any lawmaker who is serious about putting this country back to work.""

While it may be acceptable for her to comment on political issues - I think she should be held fully accountable (along with the President) for definitive statements.

 

[WhoWee]

I thought President Obama wanted to help US Green Energy firms compete in the global market? Shouldn't the companies receiving loan assistance - especially $1.2 Billion in loan assistance - be owned by US companies and citizens? my bold

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/10/12/dept-energys-sunpower-loan-guarantee-under-fire/

"Here’s why people should be upset at yet another Department of Energy guaranteed loan to a solar company:

The company, SunPower, got a conditional guarantee for a $1.2 billion loan from the Energy Dept. back in the spring, according to the DOE's website.But this company was getting financing in the capital markets. Why hit up taxpayers to get backstops on loans?
And soon after the project run by SunPower got this loan guarantee, SunPower sold a big stake in itself, an estimated $1.3 billion, to French energy giant Total, at a 46% premium to its shares at the time

Total also gave it a $1 billion credit line, according to the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Total deal, along with the loan guarantee, helped SunPower's stock rise.

A SunPower spokesman confirmed all this, but said the company is in a quiet period in advance of its next quarterly profit report, due out in early November. The Department of Energy did not return calls for comment, but its press statement on this loan guarantee says it conducted "months of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence" on this project so it met "the requirements of the program -- helping America win the clean energy race and create new industries for American workers." "

There's more

"This project will only create 15 new, permanent jobs, according to the DOE website. If it fails, that would come at a cost of more than $80 million in taxpayer money for each of those jobs. "

 

[DoggerDan]

Sounds like Total got a huge bargain, just around the time U.S. investment firms battened down the hatches on domestic investment.

 

[WhoWee]

Sounds like Total got a huge bargain, just around the time U.S. investment firms battened down the hatches on domestic investment.

I'll label this IMO - given the source.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46761

"According to the Department of Energy (DOE) website, the CVSR project will create 350 construction jobs during the two-year build and 15 permanent jobs—presumably those are the squeegee men for keeping the panels clean.

Capitol Hill powerbroker Rep. George Miller (D.-Calif.), center, hosted Interior Sec. Kenneth L. Salazar, left, on an Oct. 14, 2010 tour of SunPower's Richmond, Calif., plant. During the tour, Salazar said plants like SunPower's transform renewable energy ideas into reality. One month later, the company announced it had restated its 2008 and 2009 financial filings to correct for unsubstantiated accounting entries.



If $80 million per permanent job seems a little high, even for the current Obama administration, you are correct. In addition to the 350 construction jobs and the 15 squeegee men, there will an as-yet-undetermined number of jobs created building the panels for the CVSR—in Mexicali, Mexico.

The company is looking for a facility of up to 320,000 square feet, where it will build three different solar panel models and its solar roof tiles, according the company’s Aug. 5 statement.

Marty T. Neese, the company's chief operating officer, said, “Establishing our own manufacturing facility in Mexicali means we will be positioned to quickly deliver our high-efficiency, high-reliability solar products to a growing North American solar market.”

Mexicali Mayor Francisco Perez Tejada Padilla said he was thrilled. “Mexicali is rapidly becoming an industrial hub for high-tech companies, offering an educated workforce and a growing manufacturing area,” he said. “We welcome SunPower to our city and are pleased that they have chosen Mexicali to establish its solar panel manufacturing facility.”

The good news for Mexican jobs seekers did not affect the DOE's loan guarantee to SunPower. Hours before the DOE 1705 loan program expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2011 on Sept. 30, the $1.2 billion in loan guarantees was approved for the company."

 

[DoggerDan]

WhoWee, I think we're in agreement, but please, chill, dude, as I feel I'm in Katrina when I'm reading your stuff.

Perhaps that just how much counter-obamination stuff that's out there.

Don't know, though. I prefer to make up my own mind.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I think we're in agreement, but please, chill, dude, as I feel I'm in Katrina when I'm reading your stuff.

Perhaps that just how much counter-obamination stuff that's out there.

Don't know, though. I prefer to make up my own mind.

Please sit in a comfortable chair with a refreshing beverage and a snack - then read this slowly.

You can't make his stuff up - the last story involves $1.2 Billion in tax payer guarantees to create jobs and establish the US as the solar leader(?). Then we find out a French company acquired them - once the guarantees were in place. Now it's determined there will only be 15 permanent US jobs (squeegeeing panels) and the manufacturing jobs will be created in Mexico at a 320,000 sq ft facility.

 

[WhoWee]

Is the base going to like this move?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/

"Obama orders U.S. troops to help chase down African 'army' leader"

""I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield," Obama said in letter sent Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and Daniel Inouye, the president pro tempore of the Senate. Kony is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army.

U.S. military personnel advising regional forces working to target Kony and other senior leaders will not engage Kony's forces "unless necessary for self-defense," Obama said.
"I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.""



What sounds better - the "Warlord of Washington" or the "Washington Warlord"?

 

[DoggerDan]

What sounds better - the "Warlord of Washington" or the "Washington Warlord"?

What sounds better - 2,400 killed, 3,400 abducted, or 380,000 displaced?

"According to the State Department, "since 2008 alone, the LRA has killed more than 2,400 people and abducted more than 3,400. The United Nations estimates that over 380,000 people are displaced across the region because of LRA activity."

 

[WhoWee]

What sounds better - 2,400 killed, 3,400 abducted, or 380,000 displaced?

"According to the State Department, "since 2008 alone, the LRA has killed more than 2,400 people and abducted more than 3,400. The United Nations estimates that over 380,000 people are displaced across the region because of LRA activity."

Shouldn't the "UN" be doing more than studying the problem?

From the same link:

"It noted that U.S. Africa Command is "exploring ways to support the military of South Sudan."
In early October 2010, the U.S. military had more than 1,700 troops deployed in sub-Saharan Africa, the Pentagon said. The majority of them -- around 1,380 - were deployed in Djibouti. But U.S. troops had at least a small presence in 33 different nations in sub-Saharan Africa. At this time last year they had nine troops in Uganda."

Let's not forget we also have drone bases in Africa.

 

[WhoWee]

I found this article from December 2010.

http://cncnws.com/blog/2010/12/25/c...feat-central-africas-worst-guerrilla-warlord/

"Can Barack Obama really defeat Central Africa’s worst guerrilla warlord?"

It sounds like another complex situation.

 

[DoggerDan]

Shouldn't the "UN" be doing more than studying the problem?

I don't like the UN sticking their noses in other people's business. For that matter, I don't like the US sticking our noses in other people's business. What I like even less, however, is to stand idly by doing nothing while some power-hungry faction displaces, maims, and murders others, often simply to eliminate the competition.

From the same link:

"It noted that U.S. Africa Command is "exploring ways to support the military of South Sudan."
In early October 2010, the U.S. military had more than 1,700 troops deployed in sub-Saharan Africa, the Pentagon said. The majority of them -- around 1,380 - were deployed in Djibouti. But U.S. troops had at least a small presence in 33 different nations in sub-Saharan Africa. At this time last year they had nine troops in Uganda."

Let's not forget we also have drone bases in Africa.

Looks like we're poised to do something. I don't mind doing something, provided its needed, but only if we do it and leave. If we have to stick around, we didn't do what needed to be done.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't like the UN sticking their noses in other people's business. For that matter, I don't like the US sticking our noses in other people's business. What I like even less, however, is to stand idly by doing nothing while some power-hungry faction displaces, maims, and murders others, often simply to eliminate the competition.

Looks like we're poised to do something. I don't mind doing something, provided its needed, but only if we do it and leave. If we have to stick around, we didn't do what needed to be done.

I think you need to start with an exit strategy in a place like Africa.

Personally, I'd start by organizing agriculture and trying to train a workforce - to build shelters and basic manufacturing/assembly of some type. While some might consider it exploitation of the people - they need an economy of some type.

Anyone that tried to interfere would be given one opportunity to retire as a soldier. If the people see that the focus is different - that a better standard of living is possible (for everyone) - the mindset MIGHT change?

Label this last part IMO - I have a friend that served the Clinton Administration as an Ambassador to a really poor African nation (don't recall the name). Their primary export was artwork - made from things they collected such as butterfly wings. He helped organize exports and the local economy thrived - by their standards.