Tag Archives: congress

My Open Letter To President Obama.

Dear Mr. President. I love you Dude, but I have to tuff love you here. Sorry! I know you have accomplishes a lot, but the average American does not know that, see that or think that. They wanted to see change that would rock the earth back in 2008. You have to start rocking the earth NOW. USE THE RAGE AND ANGER THAT IS OUT THERE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!!! Republicans do. Attack the Republicans; right now you look like an appeasing vacillator. NO MORE LINCOLN AND MORE TEDDY ROSEVELT thank you!!! If you do not rock the earth NOW, we will lose Congress and you will certainly lose the White House in 2012 as a lame duck. PLEASE MR. PRESIDENT, please do not leave us again at the mercies of the Conservatives. We will be so poor, and we will literally die with our children starving and freezing in the streets. America will lose its last bit of democracy as well, as we fall into complete corporate dictatorship. Get Joe Biden to lower the filibuster break to 51 votes and then ram forward Change We Can Believe IN, fast and furious before November. Let the Republicans walk out! Then call the Republicans what they are un-American, traders for BP, Big Oil and anyone that will fill their pockets with money, who want unemployed desperate workers who will work for pennies, who want to see American jobs go overseas, and want to fill the pockets of the wealthy from the pockets of the middle class and poor. They loved George Bush and they want Jeb next, so American can be poorer. SAY IT! SAY IT SIMPLE, so the average dullard will understand, BUT SAY IT WITH AL THE VOLCANIC ANGER THAT IS IN THE AMERICAN HEART RIGHT NOW. USE THAT ANGER, PLEASE!!! And while the pigs are away, pass everything we need. Then take the credit when it gets better!!! The south is not going to secede, why should they, they think they can beat you in November. Mr. President, millions of lives are in YOUR hands. The fate of the planet is in YOUR hands. This is your defining moment for your soul. Do not hear me, and it will be the end of all of us in America and the world. This is the leading pivotal moment in history, you decide if we survive as a species or not. added by: ezrierin

CBS Reports Bad Polls for Obama, But Left Out Drop in ObamaCare Numbers

In the last two days, CBS has reported on its latest poll, emphasizing that Americans are pessimistic about an improving economy, with a little emphasis on how their measure of Barack Obama’s approval rating (44 percent) is his lowest in their poll. But none of the CBS on-air stories have mentioned the poll’s findings on how the approval of ObamaCare has shrunk by seven points. Stephanie Condon reported for the CBS News Political Hotsheet : Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove than approve of President Obama’s sweeping health care reforms, a new CBS News poll shows. While approval of the law is slightly higher than it was when the reforms were signed into law in March, support for the measure has dropped seven points in the past two months. Forty-nine percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care reform measure, according to the poll, which was conducted July 9-12. Thirty-six percent support the law. Americans continue to see little personal benefit from the health care reform legislation. By more than two to one, Americans think it will hurt (33 percent) rather than help them (13 percent). Forty-eight percent expect the reform to have no effect on them personally. The Early Show reported poll results on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, but not about health care. On Tuesday’s Evening News, reporter Dean Reynolds found a grumpy public (and tried to explain away their disapproval):   KATIE COURIC: As this crisis in the Gulf enters a 13th week, a CBS News poll out tonight finds more than half of Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling it and his overall job approval rating is down three points, tying his all-time low of 44 percent. National correspondent Dean Reynolds is in Chicago tonight and, Dean, this seems to be the summer of our discontent. DEAN REYNOLDS: Boy, it seems that way, Katie. Pessimism just permeate this survey, along with a gathering sense that the man in charge is not doing enough to alleviate it…Indeed, in our new CBS News poll, the economy is seen as the biggest problem facing the country by far and specifically the lack of jobs. WALTER POWELL, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: A job period! A job, you know? Most people they can`t get jobs. REYNOLDS: 52 percent say the president has spent too little time addressing the issue and 63 percent say his economic programs have had no effect on them personally. That’s politically ominous for Obama and probably frustrating given that a number of independent economic research organizations say at least 2 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus . And yet 75 percent of the country believes the effects of the recession will last two more years or longer. On screen, the economic research organizations said to claim 2.3 million jobs saved or created are Moody’s economy.com and IHS Global Insight. But Reynolds is overstating those groups’ estimates, according to PolitiFact : Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here’s what those groups found: — CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created. — IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created. — Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created. — Moody’s economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created. In the report, Obama’s economic advisers argue that their estimates “are consistent with a broad consensus of numerous professional forecasters. The fact that such a range of public and private forecasters broadly agree with our assessment should increase confidence that the act is having a substantial stimulative effect.” But focusing on the 2 million figure, as Obama does, is a somewhat generous view of the data. CBS seems to share that “generosity” with the estimates. 

Excerpt from:
CBS Reports Bad Polls for Obama, But Left Out Drop in ObamaCare Numbers

ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf Confused: Why Don’t Americans Support Awesome Dems?

The folks at ABC News are confused. Democrats are passing all this awesome legislation, they posit, so why are Americans acting so hostile and looking to hand Congress to the GOP? The key problems, ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf deduces , are that Democrats simply have not embraced liberalism enough and Americans have failed to perceive just how great the Democratic agenda has been. “The imminent passage of a tough new Wall Street Reform bill,” wrote Wolf, pictured right, on ABC’s website, “will cap off a wildly productive two years for Democrats in Washington – they will have passed two pieces of sweeping legislation and an enormous $800 billion stimulus bill to deal with the ailing economy.” Wolf goes on to wonder why those three pieces of legislation haven’t benefited Democrats’ electoral prospects. Let’s see: 6% of Americans believe the stimulus bill created jobs, a strong majority favors repealing the health care bill, and almost 80% of Americans polled have little or no confidence that the financial reform bill will achieve its stated objectives. Is Wolf still confused? He goes on to write that Democrats’ problems stem from the fact that they just have not embraced liberalism to a great enough degree. “Rather than energize the electoral base that helped put Democrats in control of Congress in 2006 — and President Obama in the White House in 2008,” Wolf writes, “the accomplishments have often frustrated activists, who see compromised ideals and watered-down bills instead of legislative victories.” If this is supposed to be an explanation for Democrats’ poor prospects in November, it falls well short. First of all, the districts where Dems are vulnerable are by and large ones they picked up in 2006 and 2008 from sitting Republicans that couldn’t shake the tarnished Republican name. Now that Bush is a memory, red state Dems need to court moderate Republicans, not cater to the far left. Furthermore, the number of Americans who identify themelves as “conservative” is at its highest point since 1994 , when Republicans walloped Dems in the midterm elections. Forty-nine percent of the nation believes that Democrats are too liberal, up 10 points from 2008. Only 10 percent believe they are too conservative. A shift to the left is not going to be a winning strategy. Wolf continues: While Republicans  have, since President Bush left office, instituted an almost myopic, party-wide focus on spending and debt, Democrats  have struggled to rally behind their versions of health reform and Wall Street  reform. They could barely find enough votes to pass the bills. And despite millions of jobs Democrats say were created by the $862 billon stimulus bill, the unemployment rate remains high, and is not expected to come down any time soon. “I think the public doesn’t quite perceive (the accomplishments) because they don’t see much change in their everyday lives. They’re still having trouble finding work,” said Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Got it? Obama and congressional Democrats have made fantastic accomplishments, but the American people are too dumb, distracted, or removed to perceive it. These three defenses of the Democratic Party in the face of intense public opposition — that they have been politically successful, that they have not embraced the far-left elements of the party, and that Americans are generally unable to perceive just how awesome they are — are tired leftist talking points. And with liberal pundits and politicos parroting them nonstop, is it any wonder Americans are ready for some house (and Senate) cleaning?

The rest is here:
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf Confused: Why Don’t Americans Support Awesome Dems?

8 U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan Attacks

A bloody day and night for American forces in southern Afghanistan has left eight U.S. troops dead, as Taliban militants step up their attacks in the face of an ongoing American-led offensive to capture the militants' hometown. Three U.S. troops and five civilians were killed Tuesday night in an attack on police headquarters in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, according to officials with the international military coalition. An Afghan official said a police officer also died in the attack. A statement from the international force said a car bomb slammed into the entrance of the compound. Insurgents then opened fire with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. International forces and police kept the attackers from entering the compound and eventually fought them off, but three international troops died along with five civilian workers. An official with the International Assistance Force-Afghanistan (ISAF) confirmed to CBS News' Fazul Rahim that all three of the foreign troops killed in the attack were American. added by: TimALoftis

Obama care won’t fund abortions? "Obama Administration OKs First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law"

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill. The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March. It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania. The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide. “The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. Johnson told LifeNews.com: “This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion — but it will not be the last.” “President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention,” Johnson said. The abortion funding comes despite language in the bill that some pro-abortion Democrats and Obama himself claimed would prevent abortion funding and despite a controversial executive order Obama signed supposedly stopping abortion funding. More at the link: http://lifenews.com/nat6531.html **** I seem to recall a slew of liberals on Current attacking the pundits and commentators on Fox and their claim that the Obamacare policies WOULD fund abortion. Remember them being called liars? Remember the slander of Fox News entirely? And NOW we have yet one more example of how Fox had it right, the Liberals were either wrong (that's being too nice) or were lying (much more accurate), and we have yet another example of why Obama and the Democrats cannot be trusted. added by: curtisreed

Today Show Job Search Segment Turns Into Ad for Obama Agenda

A segment that was billed as a guide to help some of Today’s unemployed viewers find work, on Wednesday’s show, turned into a platform for the president of the liberal National Urban League to attack those who opposed the President’s plans, as he railed against those in Congress who have been filibustering extension of the unemployment benefits. Today co-anchor Matt Lauer, who hosted the segment, even prompted Morial to address how his organization was going to address the obstruction of the Democratic agenda in Congress, in the upcoming midterm elections, as he asked: “How much do you target candidates who have bad job policies…and support candidates who have good ones?” NBC’s Ann Curry, at the top of the 8:30am half hour of Today’s July 14 show, teased viewers that “Americans, on average, took about 17 weeks to find a job. Well today the number has actually doubled. It’s twice that. So the question is where should you be looking for work? We’ve got some answers this morning.” However when viewers tuned in for those answers they also got a not so veiled anti-Republican diatribe from the National Urban League’s Marc Morial as he chastised those who opposed Democratic measures. MATT LAUER: Marc, let me start with you. I mean 9.5 percent, that’s where the unemployment rate stands right now. It’s been stubborn, it’s not going down nearly fast enough and apparently this job crisis is not an equal opportunity unemployer. It’s striking minorities much harder, isn’t it? MARC MORIAL: African-Americans, the, the rate is more like 16 percent, for Latinos it’s 12 percent. There is no doubt that this recession has been tough for everyone but it’s been especially tough for communities of color. People are hurting. They’re hurting in a very significant fashion and many, many people who’ve worked their entire lives find themselves without work. The new unemployed, it’s a lavender recession. It’s white collar, blue collar, pink collar, it’s across the board, Matt, but especially tough for people of color. LAUER: When you talk about minority communities and you talk to the people in those communities, are you telling them you think the jobs are coming back or are they gone for good? MORIAL: We’re saying that steps have to be taken. And I think our message has been consistent throughout the year that it’s not gonna happen serendipitously. There’s gotta be public policy steps. There’s gotta be a concerted effort. In this nation we can’t tolerate the new normal of a nine percent unemployment rate. That’s not, that’s not acceptable. And right now Congress has been stalling, really the Senate through the use of the filibusters, been stalling an up or down vote on the extension of unemployment benefits, an expansion of the home purchase tax credit, summer jobs. LAUER: Right. MORIAL: These measures, while small, could help many, many people. Lauer then turned to Today’s financial editor Jean Chatzky who, finally, did offer the job seeking advice teased at the top of the half-hour, as she highlighted the best cities to look for new jobs. However Lauer then quickly returned to Morial who finished the segment with a pitch for the National Urban League and its efforts to help elect candidates in the midterms who will help advance the President’s agenda. LAUER: And you know Marc, let me ask you this. I mean we’re coming up to midterm elections here in a couple of months. How political does the National Urban League get with this? How much do you target candidates who have bad job policies, in your opinion, and support candidates who have good ones? MORIAL: I think we’ve got to highlight that there’s been a lot of stalling. The use of the filibuster in the Senate troubles me the most because what it’s done, it’s blocked legislation that would help the economic picture, while on the same time, the very same people who use the filibuster accuse the President and others of not doing enough. So we’ve got to highlight the fact that there’s sort of an inconsistency in that type of message. And jobs, jobs, jobs, are the most important issue we think this fall. LAUER: Marc Morial, Jean Chatzky. Folks thanks very much.

More:
Today Show Job Search Segment Turns Into Ad for Obama Agenda

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Touts Negative Poll Numbers for GOP, Spins for Obama

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Tuesday spun a new ABC News/Washington Post poll , emphasizing problems for the Republican Party over dour news for Barack Obama. The co-host ignored a finding that likely voters want the GOP to take control of Congress by a margin of 56 to 41. He did, however, repeat the lower number of registered voters who prefer the Republicans, 51 percent. Stephanopoulos quizzed former McCain strategist Nicolle Wallace and Democrat James Carville on problems for the GOP: “[Voters] don’t necessarily want Republicans…On the economy, voters, 42 to 34 still trust Democrats over Republicans on the economy.” What did Stephanopoulos leave out? The same poll found that 40 percent of likely voters trust Republicans, compared to 39 percent for the Democrats. But, the former Democratic operative persisted, ” So, there’s still, Nicolle, no- not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party. ” Later, he prompted Wallace, “Is there anything else, right now, that Republicans can do, Nicolle, now, to address that number, that lack of confidence?” It seems likely that if this poll were about President Bush, Stephanopoulos would be much more likely to emphasize the negatives, such as the fact that 90 percent of Americans think the economy is in bad shape. The poll’s data can be found here . A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT on July 13, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now that ABC News/Washington Post poll. You know, the White House, for the first time over the weekend, admitted that Democrats could lose the control of Congress in November. And this poll shows why. Starting out with this frustration index, which we first showed you last month. That tries to capture how people feel about government, the economy, Congress and the President. Back in June, it was at 67 percent, a very high level. Right now in July, still stuck at 67 percent. We haven’t seen numbers that high since the past two big change elections of the last 25 years. 1992, when President Clinton took office, 2008, when President Obama took office. And it could have a direct impact on the congressional elections this fall. Another key number in the poll, we asked people who do you want to control Congress in November? Only 43 percent said they wanted to support Democrats to support [sic] President Obama’s policies.  51 percent said they wanted to give Congress to the Republicans, as a check on President Obama’s policies. And this is all rooted in concern over the economy. 90 percent of the country right now thinks the economy’s in bad shape. And President Obama’s approval ratings on the economy are dropping. Down to 43 percent. That’s down seven points in one month. 54 percent now disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing on the economy. Now, his overall approval ratings are holding up about 50 percent.  That’s a little bit down. But, they’re being held up because his numbers on commander in chief, are a little higher. But, most of this is bad news for the Democrats. Let me bring in our strategists, James Carville for the Democrats, Nicolle Wallace, for the Republicans. And, James, Robert Gibbs over the weekend, the White House press secretary, did say they’re looking at similar numbers. He said that Democrats could lose control of the Congress. All the intensity is on the Republican side. JAMES CARVILLE: You know, and Robert and I have had our problems in the past. And he went to Auburn, so, therefore, he’s is a little limited . But, saying that, this was brilliant. This is a time to say- STEPHANOPOULOS: To tell the truth? CARVILLE: Look- to say, you’re not casting- you’re not just casting a protest vote here. These guys will actually take charge. And if you want this drug companies putting the faulty drugs out, that’s fine. If you want BP, if you want Wall Street, these are the consequences of your vote. And I thought that was smart of Robert to do that. And I think Democrats- STEPHANOPOULOS: Not to sugar-coat. CARVILLE: Not to sugar-coat it. Every Democratic consultant is telling me they’re coming out of a focus group and saying, “Yeah, but they’re not going to do that if they go in there.” Yeah, focus group here in Kentucky or Nevada, you say, “Yeah, they’re crazy. But if they get to Washington, they won’t do all the other stuff. I want to vote against a Democrats to send a message.” At a point, you have to say, no. “You’re actually going to be voting for a policy here.” NICOLLE WALLACE: Well, the truth is, 51 percent of Americans, as you just pointed out, want Republicans in control because they want to put the brakes on this agenda. I think it confirms what people long suspected, which is that while some people still like Obama personally, I think that’s where the approval numbers come from, they want desperately now to put the brakes on his agenda. STEPHANOPOULOS: They don’t necessarily want Republicans . Another key number in the poll, we asked people who do you trust more, Democrats or Republicans on key issues? And let’s show that: On the economy, voters, 42 to 34 still trust Democrats over Republicans on the economy. On who is going to make the right decisions for the country’s future, same thing, 32, to 26. So, there’s still, Nicolle, no- not a lot of confidence in the Republican Party. WALLACE: Well, and that’s the needle in the haystack in this otherwise very grim assessment of voter sentiment. And, certainly, that is what, when they pull themselves away from the bars this morning , the Democrats will be waving that statistic around. But, I think, you know, they’re also going to point to the analogy of Reagan. But, what Reagan did when his numbers were down, was he crafted an agenda that appealed to independent voters who were running, not walking away, from Obama and his agenda. CARVILLE: I think that the key word that 51 percent is a protest vote. This is not a protest vote. This may be a vote for a policy and policy change. It’s much easier to say, I’m going to vote for somebody I don’t like because I want to protest someone else I don’t like. WALLACE: Well, how do you think Obama won? I mean, you know, Obama ran as a protest vote candidate for President. CARVILLE: I understand that people knew he was going to win. And they knew the policy he was running. My point is, right now, congressionally, people are saying “I just want to send the Democrats a message. And Republicans won’t be able to do anything of the things they say.” To some extent, you have to remind them there could be a policy involved in this. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is there anything else, right now, that Republicans can do, Nicolle, now, to address that number, that lack of confidence? WALLACE: Well, I think Republicans have to say laser-focused on what your poll shows is largest group of self-identified independents that most polls have seen. And I think that group is looking for common sense. They are looking for lower taxes. They’re very wary about an expanded role, size and cost of the federal government. And they’re worried about the deficit. I think that’s the jam Obama finds himself in. To grow the economy, most measures expand the deficit. STEPHANOPOULOS: You said Robert Gibbs was brilliant. What more should Democrats do to keep the House? CARVILLE: To keep the House? Well, we have a three-prong strategy to keep the House. It’s called the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. [Laughs] WALLACE: We tried that. STEPHANOPOULOS: You think that it’s impossible? CARVILLE: I think to keep the House- no. I think we can. Look, it’s possible to keep the House. But I think first, that to remind people that there’s consequences to this election. I think also, honestly, they need a few good months of decent job numbers and sort of make the case. And I felt the White House on this, they never say they have a strategy. There’s a plan in place. It may not be working as fast as you want. The Republicans are blocking a lot of it. But this is what we’re doing. And if they get a sense, they could do better than they are currently doing in this poll.

Here is the original post:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Touts Negative Poll Numbers for GOP, Spins for Obama

Japanese Voters Reject Ruling Party and Doubling ‘VAT Tax’; AP Calls It a ‘Sales Tax,’ Ignores U.S. Implications

An outraged electorate has just handed Japan’s ruling party its hat in elections for half of the seats in the upper house of that country’s parliament in a direct reversal of election results from a year ago. Opposition parties made major gains. The results constitute a resounding rejection of a massive value-added tax increase proposed by a guy whose immediate predecessor of the same party sounded an awful lot like the U.S. President Barack Obama when he led his party to a historic victory a year ago. But, as will be shown later, you wouldn’t know that from reading the Associated Press’s coverage of Sunday’s returns. But first, a bit of background: The 2010 version of Naoto Kan (pictured at top right in an AP photo) is round two of an attempt by the country’s Democratic Party (no direct relation that I know of, but philosophically they’re nearly clones) to “remake” the island nation. If that sounds depressingly familiar, it should. The parallels of Kan’s same-party predecessor’s victory to Barack Obama’s 2008 electoral win are eerie, as this August 2009 election night report from Eric Talmadge the Associated Press will demonstrate (bolds are mine): Japan opposition wins landslide victory Vote seen as a barometer of frustrations over high unemployment, falling exports Japan’s opposition swept to a historic victory in elections Sunday, crushing the ruling conservative party that has run the country for most of the postwar era and assuming the daunting task of pulling the economy out of its worst slump since World War II. A grim-looking Prime Minister Taro Aso conceded defeat just a couple hours after polls had closed, suggesting he would quit as president of the Liberal Democratic Party, which has ruled Japan for all but 11 months since 1955. “The results are very severe,” Aso said. “There has been a deep dissatisfaction with our party.” Unemployment and deflation – and an aging, shrinking population – have left families fearful of what the future holds. Fed up with the LDP, voters turned overwhelmingly to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, which ran a populist-leaning platform with plans for cash handouts to families with children and expanding the social safety net. … The Democrats’ plan to give families 26,000 yen, or $275 (U.S.), a month per child through junior high is meant to ease parenting costs and encourage more women to have babies. Japan’s population of 127.6 million peaked in 2006, and is expected to fall below 100 million by the middle of the century. The Democrats are also proposing toll-free highways, free high schools, income support for farmers, monthly allowances for job seekers in training, a higher minimum wage and tax cuts. The estimated bill comes to 16.8 trillion yen ($179 billion) if fully implemented starting in fiscal year 2013 – and critics say that will only further bloat Japan’s already massive public debt. Adjusted for relative population size, the stated $179 billion amount would be the equivalent of about $435 billion in the U.S. That may not seem like much compared to the Obama and the Democrats’ $800 billion-plus “stimulus” of last year, but keep in mind that Japan spent the better part of the 1990s trying to make government stimulus work with little success. Also note that Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), as the author of the Lost Decade’s stimulus, has hardly been deserving of the “conservative” label the AP’s Talmadge applied to it. Of course, after Japan’s Democrats came to power, they had to deal with the annoying question of how to close the obvious budget deficits they were building. Their answer, as has all too often been the case with U.S. Democrats, was to raise taxes, despite the tax-cut pledge cited in Talmadge’s AP report. In a Monday, July 12 story , the AP’s Jay Alabaster gave readers many of the details on how that idea was received by voters, but left out a really, really important one: Japan braces for gridlock after ruling party loss Japan’s ruling party faced the prospect of political gridlock Monday after an election setback that could undermine its attempts to reduce a ballooning budget deficit and revive growth in the world’s second-largest economy. Half of the 242 seats in the upper house of parliament were up for grabs Sunday. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan won only 44 seats – far below its stated goal of 54 – while opposition parties made major gains. That leaves the Democrats and their tiny coalition partner with 110 seats, well below their majority of 122 before the vote. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party won 51 seats, bringing its total to 84. … the results are a dramatic contrast to the Democrats’ landslide victory just a year ago, when they seized control of parliament and ended the rival Liberal Democrats nearly unbroken 55-year rule. Losing the majority in the upper house will make it more difficult for the Democrats to move ahead on their agenda, which includes cutting wasteful spending, making government more open and creating a solid social security system for a rapidly aging and shrinking population. … I n office just a month, Kan has warned that Japan’s finances could face a Greece-like meltdown if it doesn’t cut back on soaring debt – twice the country’s GDP – and suggested raising the sales tax as a solution. But voters, already suffering from the economic downturn, rejected that idea. … Kan acknowledged defeat early Monday morning, saying he failed to fully explain his proposal to raise the sales tax from 5 percent to as much as 10 percent in coming years. … Kan, a former finance minister with roots in grass-roots activism, enjoyed support ratings of more than 60 percent when he took office in early June. “Sales tax”? What is this “sales tax”? It turns out that Alabaster was really referring to a de facto value-added tax, as shown here in this description of Japan’s tax structure: Japan Consumption Tax The tax is similar to value added tax and is, in fact, imposed on most sales and services provided in Japan and on imports. A taxpayer may offset the consumption tax paid on expenses against the tax he has to pay on his income. Consumption tax is 5%. Companies whose sales per year are less than 10 million yen are tax exempt. Imagine that. Yes Virginia, the “consumption tax” is effectively a VAT tax, as it is imposed on “consumption” by both individuals and companies. Every time “consumption” occurs, i.e., at every stage of production and distribution, the tax kicks in. The 10 million yen exemption is the U.S. equivalent of about $114,000, meaning that only the very small businesses are exempt. It seems that the AP and Mr. Alabaster didn’t want to give their U.S. audience the impression that voters elsewhere have rejected a steep increase in VAT taxes. Why, accurate and responsible reporting might have made American readers more resistant to allowing this dangerous idea to get started. Apparently, Alabaster and the AP want to see a VAT tax come to pass in the U.S. so badly that they are willing to blatantly misrepresent events overseas in the name of that cause. Beyond the self-evident deception just described, if what has just transpired in Japan’s elections had taken place at the expense of a conservative government trying to cut taxes while a conservative or Republican president occupying the Oval Office was trying to do the same thing, we would never have heard the end of it. As it is, you can virtually take it to the bank that the establishment press will fail to identify the obvious comparison between what Japanese voters have rejected to what the Obama administration both is doing (letting the Bush tax cuts expire, an action I like to refer to as “repealing the tax system that grew the economy for almost six years”), and wants to do more of, including the VAT tax. Raising taxes in a debt-drenched nation during a flat or allegedly recovering economy, in addition to being economically dumb, is an electoral loser. What part of “no” don’t these people understand? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Original post:
Japanese Voters Reject Ruling Party and Doubling ‘VAT Tax’; AP Calls It a ‘Sales Tax,’ Ignores U.S. Implications

New Financial Regulations Create Diversity Czars for All Federal Financial Regulators

The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself. This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question. It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses. However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory. “[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.)     In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management.   “Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states.   These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.”   This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small.   The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women.   The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines.   “The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states.   This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis.   For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed.   The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt.   Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way.   The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness.   If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News

Go here to read the rest:
New Financial Regulations Create Diversity Czars for All Federal Financial Regulators

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer on Monday appeared baffled as to why more U.S. politicians weren’t ‘standing up’ to demand the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” touting it as “a civil rights issue.” In the span of two hours, the cable network featured a gay member of the military and a conservative to discuss the issue. It was hardly a case of hearing two sides, however. Both guests favored allowing gays to serve openly. Talking to Richard Grenell , a former spokesman for Ambassador John Bolton, Brewer editorialized, ” It is a civil rights issue…Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? ” Earlier, Brewer cited a survey sent out to service members asking them questions such as whether they’d be comfortable showering with an openly gay individual. The cable host dismissed, “Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay?…Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights?” At the end of the segment, Brewer read viewer e-mail on the issue. Two such messages favored repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These she recited without comment. When she read a letter disagreeing with gay rights, Brewer could hardly disguise her opinion: “Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.’ Well, you know what Jesus said: ‘Let he who is without sin.'” In the 11am hour, MSNBC featured openly gay veteran Daniel Choi to dismiss the survey. Grenell is also gay. So, the network hardly sought out a variety of voices on the subject. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 12:43pm EDT, follows: 12:20 tease CONTESSA BREWER: Another traditionally safe [makes quotes marks] constituency for Democrats also angry, this time over a survey about the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many say has incendiary and homophobic language. The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law and Pentagon is in the process of studying the issue. But, a new survey sent out to service members asks questions that many find offensive. So, here’s the problem: Critics say the survey assumes a position of homophobia. For instance, here’s one of the questions: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with open bay showers with a gay or lesbian service member, would you take no action or use a shower at a different time?” Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay? This is a pivotal civil rights issue. My big question today: Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights? You can share your thoughts on Twitter, Facebook. You can get me on e-mail. Contessa@MSNBC.com We’re going to have a lively discussion about this in the next half hour. 12:43 BREWER: A new Pentagon survey is stirring up the controversy because it asks very pointed questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some groups even suggest the survey uses homophobic language. 400,000 members of the armed forces got the question via e-mail asking questions about living with gays and using the same showers and same-sex couples in military housing.  The Pentagon is defending the questions. Rick Grenell is a conservative columnist, former spokesman to John Bolton and three other U.S. ambassadors and believes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. We knew that the survey would happen. Claire McCaskill, actually, Rick, brought up her concerns about how the questions would be framed. When public policy pollsters conduct surveys to gain credibility and validity they have to formulate truly open ended questions. Do you have a problem with these questions? RICHARD GRENELL: Well, I think the key to this is having questions at all for a civil rights issue. What’s most surprising is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi that they are actually trying to say that this isn’t a civil rights issue, because clearly by having a questionnaire, they’re not so sure themselves. And I think the troubling thing for me and for a lot of conservatives is that they campaigned on this issue, that it was a civil rights issue and they were elected, they would end this. You know, when Barack Obama was a senator, he spent a lot of time telling people that it should just be taken care of with an executive order. Now that he’s president, the executive order excuse goes away and he’s blaming Congress. So, I think it’s really a difficult issue for the Democrats and they campaigned like it was an easy issue. BREWER: So, to drive this point home and it’s the argument that I made further, that if you put in instead of same-sex or homosexual and used, say, black, here would be the way the sample question would read. “If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, birth or field tent with someone you believed to be- insert here black- service-member which are you most likely to do?” And goes on to how you take action. You’re right. That question to service members would never be considered. And, in fact, when they integrated the military, my understanding is there was no general survey taken to see how service members would feel about it. It was done because it was the right thing to do. That being said, after I asked my big question today, Rick, I got a bunch of E-mail responses in. And you have people, viewers here who are writing and arguing that it’s not a civil rights issue because being born black is not a choice but being born gay is. GRENELL: Well, look, what I would say there is I’m a conservative. I think it’s outrageous that we are spending so much money, $4.5 million alone on this survey to investigate someone’s personal life. Whether you believe this is a choice, whether you believe that someone is born gay, I think it goes to the question of why are we wasting so much money to go after someone’s personal life, to investigate? It’s a national security issue when you’re encouraging people to actually lie. I’ve held a top secret security clearance. They want to know everything about you. They want to know that you’re truthful. BREWER: Right. GRENELL: At the end of the day people have to remember that individuals in the military are already showering with gay military folk. BREWER: And, again, regardless of what you think about homosexuality as an issue, that is like arguing you get to choose what region you are as an adult and you still can’t discriminate on the basis of that. I agree with you fully. It is a civil rights issue. Let’s talk about the leadership here. Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? GRENELL: Well, I agree. I think, yes, the answer is a definitive yes. However, it’s outrageous to me that this has been dragged through the political sphere. The Democrats are raising money off this issue. They want it to be a political issue. They are making this a political issue. They are choosing to make this a non-civil rights issue. They want this issue to go into the fall. They want to raise money and they want to make sure that Americans are constantly talking about this issue. And I think that that’s outrageous. BREWER: Rick, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time. I appreciate you weighing in. A lot of folks have been weighing in online about why our nation’s leaders aren’t embracing gay rights as is civil rights issue. Clinton Hancock responds, “The politicians are too fearful of their constituents. Sometimes you have to teach your constituents, not just listen to them. Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.” Well, you know what Jesus said: Let he who is without sin. Paul Heimsath writes, “It’s 2010, people. This should not even be an issue.” You can reach out to me. Let me know your thoughts.

More here:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights