Why America Needs Nuclear Arms

Cloward-Piven

For the last half-century, doves in both major political parties have pursued disarmament without reciprocity. America survived this disarmament in spite of the existence of strategic adversaries like China and the former Soviet Union, but only because America still posed a credible threat to these nations.


America finessed its large arsenal of warheads into the ultimate strategic weapon. After all, no nation knew exactly how many deliverable warheads America possessed, and every nation was sure that given proper provocation, America would consider a nuclear strike. This "calculated ambiguity," as it was termed by defense insiders, enabled America to take the world into an age of unprecedented stability. President Obama, admittedly uncomfortable with the idea of America as a superpower, would like to end this tradition, taking the nuclear option off the table by means of drastic reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles below the practical point. The question is, why? The answer is bigger than Obama or any one man.


Those governing from the shadows desire that America be no better, no more powerful, and no more influential than any other country. For America to need the world, for interdependence and the designs of global government to come to fruition, American might must be dismantled. This ideology necessitates not only military rebalancing, but significant economic leveling.


New START would accomplish the goal of American decline, rendering America no more than a whining paper tiger.


Reductions make no sense. There are currently three thousand targets the U.S. must be ready to destroy. The list grew by 20 percent in the aftermath of START II. With new threats posed by rogue states and terrorist organizations, the potential for nuclear confrontation has increased exponentially. The U.S. should stop talking reductions and start talking modernization.


At present, deliverable U.S. warheads number slightly more than 5,000 -- sufficient to fulfill strategic obligations. But New START would reduce deliverable warheads to slightly more than 1,000, requiring the U.S. to step down from its position as global peacekeeper. The U.S. cannot be a superpower when its arsenal is insufficient to defend its territory and the territory of its allies from nuclear attack.


There is no better illustration of this backwards military methodology than the provisions addressing non-offensive U.S. missile defense technology. New START contains requirements that the U.S. cease attempts to defend its territory from intercontinental attack, a domain where the U.S. has been quite successful, because defensive technologies eliminate the effectiveness of the Russian arsenal. Translation: Russia wants the U.S. to abandon missile defense so that its missiles can kill Americans without difficulty.


America should not agree to this insane demand.


Rather than "mutually assured destruction," why not share in a mutually assured peace? American missile defense technology already has an 80-percent success rate, potentially rendering nuclear weapons obsolete.


Russia's absurd proposal demonstrates Russian weakness, yet Obama is capitulating to Russian demands as if Russia were in the driver's seat. But Russia is attempting a transparent bluff with New START, and sometimes calling a bluff requires a willingness to walk out. At Reykjavik, Ronald Reagan's unwillingness to compromise SDI was later acknowledged by Russian officials as the turning point in the Cold War that eventually led to Soviet collapse.[i] Why reverse course now?


It is within this paradigm that Americans should seek to understand the utility of nuclear weapons and their proper place in the strategic schema. Many Americans want to believe in the existence of universal values embodied in a universal phobia of nuclear weapons. But American values are not universal.


The Communist Chinese, for example, do not value human life in the same way Americans mourn one soldier fallen. If America ever ceased to be useful as a source of trade and investment, and instead became a burden -- the source of endless debt, perhaps -- then China would have no qualms about eliminating the American irritant.


No true American could support a policy that leaves America utterly defenseless against would-be aggressors. That President Obama would seek to reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles at a time of such demonstrated hostility is an indication of his real loyalties.


Russia, tainted by nearly a century of Communist godlessness, will have no logical reason to allow America to continue ordering the world along American lines without corresponding American nuclear stare-down capability. Why should nations that loathe America tolerate us if we are not strong? Good will? The Judeo-Christian ethic?


No, Ronald Reagan understood: the only real peace is peace through strength. In a world of constant conflict and tumult, the only real security comes from the ability to demolish potential adversaries -- an ability which must be known by all.


Although its general nuclear posture is in disarray, Russia is ahead of the United States in nuclear modernization. Russia builds more deadly weapons. China perfects its strategic advantage, building fleets of U.S.-inspired nuclear submarines fitted with functioning SLBMs. America may even have witnessed the test-firing of such a missile recently, as Obama twiddled his thumbs and decided on a "muted response."


What does America do? America meekly resigns itself to even smaller arsenals and even fewer strategic options. America reverses modernization efforts like the MX-Peacekeeper missile, forcing its citizenry to depend on the aging and, for many years, untested Minuteman-III. Obama has openly proposed that the U.S. "de-MIRV" its missiles, despite the fact that multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles stand as America's main asset in targeting multiple locales simultaneously. Surrendering this capability would leave Russia as the sole nation with MIRVs. Russia could target multiple American cities, and America would be limited to a slap on the wrist in response.


In this single proposition is evidence of Obama's delusional mindset. Like many radical leftists in the eighties, Obama is of the mind that America can survive without a nuclear triad, that America can unilaterally disarm and nothing will come of it. Like the old Queen song "Hammer to Fall," the sentence "just surrender and it won't hurt at all" seems to be the core of Obama's nuclear philosophy.


But the world does not operate on postmodern American fantasies. The world operates on fear. The world operates on strength.


Will America remain strong?(source)

Cloward-Piven Strategy: Cripple The US First-Response Capability

Cloward-Piven

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved a new nuclear arms-reduction treaty with Russia, the broadest such pact between the former Cold War foes in nearly two decades.

The Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, by a vote of 71 to 26, easily clearing the threshold of two-thirds of senators present as required by the Constitution for treaty ratification.

The final vote came after Senate Democrats accepted two amendments designed to placate Republicans who had qualms about the treaty. The amendments, which passed on voice votes with bipartisan support, emphasized the administration's commitment to a limited missile-defense program and to continued funding to modernize the aging U.S. nuclear weapons complex.

The amendments were to the resolution of ratification accompanying the treaty, a nonbinding statement that codifies the Senate's understanding of the pact but does not directly affect its language. Republican efforts to alter the treaty language were defeated, with supporters of the pact arguing that such changes would have forced new negotiations with Moscow and effectively killed the treaty.

Thirteen Republicans joined all of the Senate's Democrats in voting for ratification, helping to exceed the 67 votes required. Three senators - all Republicans - were not present.

In a floor speech shortly before the ratification vote, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman who shepherded the treaty through the Senate, implored senators to put politics aside and take a broad view. "This is one of those rare times in the United States Senate . . . when we have it in our power to safeguard or endanger human life on this planet," he said. "More than any other, this issue should transcend politics. . . . More than at almost any other time, the people of the world are watching us because they rely on our leadership."

Kerry also chided Republicans who had argued against taking up New START ratification so close to Christmas, thus delaying their departures for the holidays. "The question is not whether we get out of here for a holiday; the question is whether we move the world a little more out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare," he said.

Kerry said after the vote: "The winners are not defined by party or ideology. The winners are the American people, who are safer with fewer Russian missiles aimed at them." He said the treaty's impact "will echo around the world," showing that the United States remains determined to work with Russia and other countries to reduce the global threat from nuclear weapons.

"With this treaty, we send a message to Iran and North Korea that the international community remains united to restrain the nuclear ambitions of countries that operate outside the law," Kerry said.

New START cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday, advancing to a final vote with a margin that appeared to guarantee ratification and a major foreign-policy victory for President Obama. Senators voted 67 to 28 to invoke "cloture" to limit further debate and move to the ratification vote, with 11 Republicans joining all 56 Democrats present in the chamber.

The stakes were high: Defeat of the pact would have severely damaged Obama's global standing, hampering his ability to negotiate other treaties, and would have dealt a major setback to the president's "reset" of relations with Russia.

"It's one of those things in life where failing to get it would be more important than actually what you get with it," said George Perkovich, a scholar on nuclear nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Perkovich noted that Washington's NATO allies had strongly supported the pact. "We would really lose credibility" if it failed, he said Tuesday.

The treaty, if also ratified by Russia as expected, would replace the pact that was credited with ensuring stability between the countries that maintain 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons. Since the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I ended last year, the atomic giants have had no inspections of their strategic nuclear arsenals, a gap that worries the U.S. military.

The pact does not represent a dramatic step forward in disarmament, but it will reduce deployed, long-range nuclear warheads by up to 30 percent on each side. Republicans voiced concern that the treaty could be interpreted to limit development of a U.S. missile shield and had worked to extract additional commitments from the administration to fund the modernization of the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Although the treaty easily reached the two-thirds threshold for Senate ratification, the vote marked the tightest margin to date for a nuclear arms-control pact with Russia. The top two Republican leaders in the Senate opposed passage of New START, demonstrating the difficulty for Obama to move further on his sweeping goal of a world without nuclear weapons. His embrace of that idea helped him win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Kerry had predicted Tuesday that the treaty would pick up at least three more votes on ratification, noting that three supporters were absent Tuesday - Democrats Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Republican Judd Gregg (N.H.).

Wyden, who is recovering from prostate cancer surgery, showed up Wednesday and voted for ratification, as did Bayh and Gregg.

In a reference to the partisan wrangling that has erupted over the treaty, Kerry told reporters Tuesday: "I would say to you that in today's Washington, in today's Senate, 70 votes is yesterday's 95," the sort of support enjoyed by earlier arms-control efforts.

In a week of debate on New START, Republican critics expressed concern about several substantive issues. One was missile defense: Although the pact does not legally bar the U.S. government from proceeding with its plans for a missile shield, Republicans worried that a few brief mentions of missile defense in the pact could provide Russia with a political pretext to pressure Washington. The administration said it will not be constrained.

Some senators also said they were not happy with the verification procedures in the treaty.

But in the background was a power struggle: Republicans tried to push the vote into next year, when they will have six more senators and could extract more concessions from Obama.

In the weeks leading to the vote, Obama had committed to spend an extra $14 billion to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex over the next decade, the result of tough negotiations with Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate. Kyl voted Tuesday against ending debate and voted no again Wednesday on ratification.

"From a Republican point of view, it's not about aborting START. It's about getting the best deal possible, and I just don't understand why we can't wait five more weeks," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

But the White House clearly feared it could face continual delays if the treaty returned to committee.

Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to the Senate for Tuesday's vote, huddling outside the chamber with Democratic leaders to strategize and talking to other senators.

They, and Obama, had conducted an intensive lobbying effort in recent weeks after the treaty's passage became imperiled.

The 11 Republican senators who voted in favor of moving ahead with the treaty Tuesday were Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Scott Brown (Mass.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).

All also voted in favor of ratification Wednesday, as did Gregg. In addition, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) voted for the treaty, pushing the total yes votes to 71.

Three Republican senators were not present for Wednesday's vote: Sens. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Jim Bunning (Ky.). All were believed to oppose the treaty.

New START sets a cap of 1,550 deployed, long-range nuclear warheads for each side. It trims the number of deployed nuclear-capable submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to 700, with an additional 100 in reserve.

Pentagon officials said failure to ratify the pact would force the military to plan for worst-case scenarios, devoting more money and satellite coverage to Russia at a time when resources are stretched because of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama has portrayed the pact as enhancing U.S. leadership globally in pressing countries not to acquire the bomb. In particular, U.S. diplomats say, it will show that Washington is complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact that bars countries from developing nuclear weapons. In exchange, the original nuclear powers promised to gradually disarm.

Obama has made it a priority to strengthen the pact, which has been under strain.(source)

Cloward-Piven Strategy: Sink The US In Debt Further Than Ever To Ensure Collapse

Despite record deficits in Obama's first 2 years in office, analysis shows his spending proposals continue deficit spending throughout the rest of his presidency.

Cloward-Piven

Government liabilities rose $2 trillion in FY 2010: Treasury

The U.S. government fell deeper into the red in fiscal 2010 with net liabilities swelling more than $2 trillion as commitments on government debt and federal benefits rose, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Tuesday.

The Financial Report of the United States, which applies corporate-style accrual accounting methods to Washington, showed the government's liabilities exceeded assets by $13.473 trillion. That compared with a $11.456 trillion gap a year earlier.

Unlike the normal measurement of government intake of receipts against cash outlays, accrual accounting measures costs such as interest on the debt and federal benefits payable when they are incurred, not when funds are actually disbursed.

The report was instituted under former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, to illustrate the mounting liabilities of government entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The government's net operating cost, or deficit, in the report grew to $2.080 trillion for the year ended September 30 from $1.253 trillion the prior year as spending and liabilities increased for social programs. Actual and anticipated revenues were roughly unchanged.

The cash budget deficit narrowed in fiscal 2010 to $1.294 trillion from $1.417 trillion in 2009. But the $858 billion tax cut extension package enacted last week is expected to keep the deficit well above the $1 trillion mark for another year.

BUDGET CUT DEBATE

The latest Treasury report should fuel debate in Congress over spending cuts next year as a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives takes office.

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a compromise bill to fund the government until March 4, 2011. After that, Republicans will have the chance to push through dramatic budget cuts.

"Today, we must balance our efforts to accelerate economic recovery and job growth in the near term with continued efforts to address the challenges posed by the long-term deficit outlook," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter accompanying the report. "The administration's top priority remains restoring good jobs to American workers and accelerating the pace of economic recovery."

Among key differences between the operating deficit and the cash deficit were sharp increases in costs accrued for veterans' compensation, government and military employee benefits and anticipated losses at mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The biggest increase in net liabilities in fiscal 2010 stemmed from a $1.477 trillion increase in federal debt repayment and interest obligations, largely to finance programs to stabilize the economy and pull it out of recession.

The federal balance sheet liabilities do not include long-term projections for social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but these showed a positive improvement.

The report said the present value of future net expenditures for those now eligible to participate in these programs over the next 75 years declined to $43.058 trillion from $52.145 trillion a year ago -- a change attributed to the enactment of health-care reform legislation aimed at boosting coverage and limiting long-term cost growth.

The overall projection, including for those under 15 years of age and not yet born, is much rosier, with the 75-year projected cost falling to $30.857 trillion from last year's projection of $43.878 trillion.

The report noted, however, that there was "uncertainty about whether the projected reductions in health care cost growth will be fully achieved." (source)

Barry As President: OOPS! After Early Administration Denials, Director of National Intelligence Admits He Hadn’t Been Briefed On Alleged Terrorists

After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview.

“Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement.

Clapper, she explained, had been “working throughout the day on important intelligence matters, including monitoring military and political developments on the Korean Peninsula, providing answers to questions concerning the ratification of the START nuclear treaty, and other classified issues. He wasn't immediately briefed on London because it didn't appear to have a homeland nexus and there was no immediate action by the DNI required. Nevertheless, he should have been briefed on the arrests, and steps have been taken to ensure that he is in the future. The intelligence community as a whole was fully aware of this development and tracking it closely.”

Asked about Clapper not having been briefed on the arrests, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said "Jim Clapper is, I think, the consummate DNI. He was working on developments in the Korean Peninsula, in terms of political/military developments. He was focused on trying to provide support to the Congress as far as the START treaty deliberations were concerned. He was engaged in a variety of classified matters."

Brennan continued: "Should he have been briefed by his staff on those arrests? Yes. And I know there was breathless attention by the media about these arrests, and it was constantly on the news networks. I'm glad that Jim Clapper is not sitting in front of the TV 24 hours a day and monitoring what's coming out of the media. What he is doing is focusing on those intelligence issues that the president expects him to focus on and to make sure that we don't have conflict in different parts of the world."

In Sawyer's interview with Clapper, Brennan, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Sawyer asked about arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London earlier that day.

The interview took place at 3:45 pm EST Monday; the arrests had taken place in the early morning in the US and had been covered on all the morning shows.

"First of all, London," Sawyer said. "How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here?"

Clapper hesitated, not seeming to know what she was talking about, though the arrests had occurred literally hours before, with much media coverage of them. He looked to Brennan, who tried to explain.

“You meant the arrests of the 12 individuals by the British early this morning,” Brennan said to Sawyer. “This is something that the British told us about early this morning when it was taking place.”

Later in the interview, Sawyer told Clapper, "I was a little surprised you didn't know about London.”

"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't," he said.

Brennan tried to help his colleague, telling Sawyer “you referenced London but you didn’t talk about the arrests.”

A DNI spokesperson later blamed Sawyer, saying her “question about this specific news development was ambiguous. The DNI's knowledge of the threat streams in Europe is profound and multi-dimensional, and any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate."

But that tune changed as of Wednesday morning. (source)

Barry As President: TODAY-"Pledges Economic Focus During Next 2 Years"

Cloward-Piven

President Barack Obama says the economy will be his "singular focus" over the next two years.

He says the nation is past the "crisis point" in the economy, and that he'll now be working to bring down the jobless rate and equip the nation to compete with the rest of the world.

Obama told reporters at a Wednesday news conference that the government needs to be a "good partner" with the private sector, in getting rid of regulations that stand in the way of innovation. But he says the government also needs to make sure consumers, workers and the environment are protected.

Obama says the American people will hold both parties accountable for the impact of their policies on the economy.(source)

Barry As President: ONE YEAR AGO-"Obama To Focus Hard On Economy After Democratic Loss"

President Obama already was planning to put a heavy focus on jobs and the economy in next week's State of the Union address, but his top aides are signaling that pivot is going to be even sharper in the wake of the Democrats' stunning election defeat in Massachusetts.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs noted the president has been dealing with the financial crisis long before Tuesday's Senate race, but he acknowledged the administration could have done a better job of conveying that message to the public and will now redouble its efforts. (source)

Barry As President: TWO YEARS AGO-"Putting renewed Focus On Jobs"

Even before Barack Obama took the oath of office, his economic advisers projected that without hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending, the U.S. economy could lose another 3 million to 4 million jobs on top of the 3.1 million lost in 2008.
It turns out they were optimistic. Even with the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed in February, more than 4 million jobs have been lost in 2009, the worst year for job losses since World War II. The jobless rate that advisers projected would peak at 8% has topped 10%.

So in the midst of major decisions on Afghanistan, health care and climate change, the president today turns his attention back to a problem he tried to solve already — and one that's sure to dominate next year's elections, when his Democratic majorities in Congress will be at stake.

Obama convenes a summit here on jobs, then flies Friday to Allentown, Pa., for the first in what will be periodic listening tours on the economy. The goal is to develop new spending and tax proposals to help many of the nation's nearly 16 million unemployed people find work in 2010.

"Though the job losses we were experiencing earlier this year have slowed dramatically, we're still not creating enough new jobs each month to make up for the ones we're losing," Obama said last week. "For families and communities across the country, this recession will not end until we completely turn that tide."

The new focus on jobs comes as the first stimulus plan's impact remains unclear. The Obama administration says more than 640,000 jobs have been saved or created by employers who received funds. The Congressional Budget Office this week put the figure at 600,000 to 1.6 million after considering other factors, such as the impact on consumer demand from tax cuts, unemployment insurance extensions and spending by the newly employed. It said unemployment would have been up to 0.9 percentage points higher without the stimulus.


NOV. UNEMPLOYMENT DROP: Unexpected dip brings rate down to 10%
UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS DROP: In latest week
JOBS FORECAST: Updates for 50 states, 384 metro areas
ECONOMY: Fed finds recovery gaining momentum

The White House says more than 3.5 million jobs will be saved or created through 2010 as a result of the stimulus. Republicans such as House GOP leader John Boehner dispute the figures.

Also in dispute: whether new spending or tax cuts should add to the record $1.4 trillion budget deficit and $12 trillion debt. Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi favor more spending now. Obama has voiced caution about the deficit.

"The American people recognize that we have two twin challenges," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer says. "They're concerned about deficits, and they're concerned about jobs."

The immediate concern is economic. About 5 million people have been out of work six months or longer, government data show. Unemployment worsened or stayed the same in most metro areas in October, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

"We need something done right away," says Philadelphia Unemployment Project director John Dodds. "That doesn't always get through to the Ph.D.s and CEOs who will probably be in the front row at the summit."

A secondary concern is political. When James Carville coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid" to define the 1992 presidential election won by Bill Clinton, times weren't as tough as they are now. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last week showed 55% of Americans don't like how Obama is handling the jobs issue, tied with Afghanistan for his poorest showing. Only 35% say things will improve during the next year.

"You can say whatever you want, but if it's 10.2% unemployment, people have an unwavering opinion of that," says Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, which backs Republican candidates. "That's what I think we're seeing at tea parties and town hall meetings."

'Doing nothing not an option'

It wasn't supposed to happen.

The nearly $800 billion in spending and tax cuts approved last February would reverse the economic tailspin, Obama and his Democratic allies said. The jobless rate would lag behind, as it always does — but not this much.

"It's getting increasingly unusual that we're not seeing a hiring kick set in," says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. Employers are holding back due to a lack of credit, of confidence in the economy and of certainty about government actions, he says.

To create more jobs, 18% of those surveyed in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last month said, steps should be taken to stop employers from sending jobs overseas. Other top choices: cutting taxes, helping small businesses and creating infrastructure jobs.

Among the ideas under consideration, according to National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers and others:

• Extending unemployment insurance benefits beyond this year. Earlier extensions already have made some people eligible for a record 99 weeks. Giving money to jobless Americans spurs consumer spending, which saves or creates jobs.

• Sending more aid to cash-strapped state and local governments. States are writing their 2010-11 budgets, and federal aid included in February's stimulus package runs out in 2010. Without another bailout, they might be forced to cut spending or raise taxes, hindering the recovery.

• Creating tax incentives, such as for small businesses or manufacturers. During last year's campaign, Obama proposed a tax credit for each new job created.

• Financing more infrastructure and energy efficiency projects. Obama favors an "infrastructure bank" with public and private money, which he promoted in last year's campaign and this year's budget.

"The premise of our policy is that while there is a public sector responsibility for employment, long-term economic recovery depends on private sector growth," Summers says.

Labor leaders such as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka want the government to create jobs. "Doing nothing is not an option," Trumka says. "If we don't put people back to work, the deficit will get higher."

Republicans are promoting their own agenda: slashing payroll taxes, limiting regulations and reducing the deficit through spending cuts. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor outlined that agenda in a speech Wednesday; Boehner meets with conservative economists today.

'Still in the hope stage'

When Billy Joel wrote his 1982 anthem about Allentown's steel factories closing down, times weren't nearly as bad nationally as they are today. About 2.1 million jobs were lost that year, according to government data — about half the number lost in the first 10 months of this year.

When Obama comes to the Lehigh Valley on Friday, he'll be entering a region of 600,000 people fraught with economic fear — and hope. State figures show unemployment is about 9.5%, slightly below the national average, but the rate has risen in 18 of 22 months since the recession started. Mack Trucks moved its world headquarters to Greensboro, N.C., this year.

The region also is the scene of economic innovation, ranging from regional health care networks to bank and insurance call centers. The Lehigh Valley Health Network is moving about 1,000 employees into the former Mack Trucks headquarters.

"It represents that classic Northeast city that's trying to make the transition," says Tony Iannelli, president of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce. How is it doing? "We're still in the hope stage," he says.

Joe Alfonso lost his information technology job at Merrill Lynch in January when Bank of America took it over. He applied for about 50 jobs but got no offers. Now he's taking classes at Northampton Community College in Bethlehem to upgrade his skills.

"I'm beginning to think this is a good time to even change careers," Alfonso says.

That's becoming more typical, says Maryann Haytmanek, whose job helping displaced homemakers return to the workforce has evolved to include people who have been laid off. More men are going into nursing these days, she says. More women are becoming solar panel installers.

"I'm not seeing a lot of people get jobs at this point," she says. "For every job, there's six people. Five people aren't getting a job."

'Congress is worried'

Advocates for the unemployed hope today's summit of corporate CEOs, small-business owners, labor leaders and others is a start toward reversing that trend. Some, such as Philadelphia's Dodds, planned to bus jobless people to Washington to walk picket lines outside.

The White House's decision to hold a summit and put the president on the road reflects the need to build public support for whatever plan Democrats push.

"Congress is worried. They're the ones who are up for election next November," says Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Lawmakers in Democratic strongholds may be particularly worried. Jobless rates are highest in states Obama won last year, including Michigan at 15.1%, Nevada, Rhode Island and California.

Democrats hold an 81-vote edge in the House and a 10-vote edge in the Senate. Since World War II, the party of a first-term president has lost an average of 16 House seats in midterm elections, says Charles Cook of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. In the Senate, Cook rates six Democratic seats and four Republican seats as tossups.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and top domestic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain in last year's presidential race, says Obama's tax, trade, health care and environmental policies are holding companies back from hiring workers.

Holding a summit "is what they know how to do," Holtz-Eakin says. "But there's no follow-through."

Still, polls show voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the economy — by a 50% to 39% margin in a Gallup Poll in early September. That, Pfeiffer says, will determine who does best in next November's elections. (source)

Sign Of Our Times: Using The Best Propogandists Money Can Buy To Re-Brand The Left

Midway through Philip Rucker and Paul Kane's story about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's transition to minority leader comes an interesting bit of news. The California Democrat, vilified by Republicans in the last election, has turned to director Steven Spielberg for help rebranding House Democrats.

Lawmakers say she is consulting marketing experts about building a stronger brand. The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius. Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a recommendation.

Spielberg has been a power player in Democratic politics for years, working on everything from President Bill Clinton's millennial celebrations to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last presidential race, but since then he's helped fundraise for President Obama.

But, the news that he is advising the leading Democrat in the House on building a strong party brand would seem to be a different -- and more expansive -- role than Spielberg has played in the past. (source)

After Years Of Proclaiming Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich As Evil, Barry Signs A Bill To Extend Them

U.S. President Barack Obama signs into law a bill at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, December 17, 2010. Obama on Friday signed into law a bill extending Bush-era tax cuts and other benefits based on a deal he brokered with Republicans that angered liberals.

President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a bill extending Bush-era tax cuts and said he hoped the bipartisan spirit that had made it possible would help restore Americans' faith in Washington.

"The final product proves when we can put aside the partisanship and the political games, when we can put aside what's good for some of us in favor of what's good for all of us, we can get a lot done," he said at a White House ceremony.

Obama brokered the tax deal with Republicans over the objections of many of his fellow Democrats who said it was too generous to the rich, and U.S. lawmakers passed the $858 billion package of renewed tax cuts and more unemployment benefits near midnight on Thursday.

"This is real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives," Obama said. "That's how we're going to spark demand, spur hiring, and strengthen our economy in the new year."

The bill was expected to provide at least a short-term boost to the U.S. economy and reduce unemployment, which remains near 10 percent. But it will also add to a $14 trillion national debt that some fear is nearing dangerous levels.

Most Democrats, including Obama, had opposed extending the lowered tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, but Obama agreed to a temporary extension to get a deal with Republicans.

Many Democrats also resisted a provision raising the exemption threshold for the estate tax to $5 million from $3.5 million in 2009 and cutting the estate tax rate to 35 percent from 45 percent.

Obama defended the bill as the right thing to do for the country despite its flaws, and signaled it could be a blueprint for future cooperation that would make ordinary Americans feel better about their government.

"If we can keep doing it, if we can keep that spirit, I'm hopeful that we won't just reinvigorate this economy ... I'm also hopeful that we might refresh the American people's faith in the capability of their leaders to govern," Obama told an audience that included Republican and Democratic leaders.

DEBT DEBATE

Obama's compromise reflects the new political reality that many see pushing him to lead more from the center as he gears up for the 2012 presidential election, after Republicans in November congressional elections won control of the House of Representatives and increased their weight in the Senate.

Among Obama's most pressing challenges when the next Congress begins in January is to fashion a bipartisan consensus on spending cuts and to overhaul the U.S. tax code to tackle the U.S. budget deficit and rising debt.

"We've got to make some difficult choices ahead when it comes to tackling the deficit," Obama said, noting that this could prove a tougher task than agreeing to extend tax cuts.

"But the fact is, I don't believe that either party has cornered the market on good ideas. And I want to draw on the best thinking from both sides," he said.

The president has in hand the recommendations of his bipartisan debt panel that he has said includes some good ideas on closing tax loopholes and lowering rates. But he has not actually endorsed the report's findings.(source)

Obama's Mystery Proposal To Regulate The Internet

If President Obama wants his executive branch to resemble the opaque, power-hungry political machinations in Chicago, he seems to be succeeding in the area of Internet regulation. Last April, a federal court told the Federal Communications Commission that it has no business regulating the Internet. Unfortunately, judicial rejection of the commission's first swing at the "net neutrality" ball -- the idea the FCC must regulate the Internet to insure everybody has equal access -- didn't deter Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, from taking another whack.

He's bringing a new set of proposed net neutrality regulations to the five-member panel Tuesday. Unfortunately, nobody knows any details of the new proposal because Genachowski has kept them secret until the last possible minute even as he rushed them forward for a vote. How ironic that the Internet, the great and empowering liberator of information that "wants to be free," is being chopped up behind closed doors by an unelected panel. Note, too, that this is being considered by the FCC on the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year.

In their net neutrality quest, Genachowski and two of his fellow Democratic appointees are working to expand government power into an area where the commission has no jurisdiction, under the guise of solving a problem that does not exist. Meredith Baker, a Republican FCC appointee, summarized the situation well: "We have two branches of government -- Congress and the courts -- expressing grave concerns with our agency becoming increasingly unmoored from our statutory authority. By seeking to regulate the Internet now, we exceed the authority Congress has given us and justify those concerns." Incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., has called on the FCC to "cease and desist."

This exercise in government opacity and overreach is already damaging the economy. As major telecommunications and Internet service companies prepare to roll out new fourth generation (4G) wireless service for millions of customers, these unelected bureaucratic commissars are recklessly creating doubt about the future value and profitability of those companies' investments. They are also discouraging future investments that need to be made for the Internet to continue its phenomenal growth.

Federal courts will almost certainly strike down anything the FCC adopts Tuesday, just as they did earlier this year. Congress will also have its chance to undo Genachowski's handiwork through the Congressional Review Act. But why should we have to go this far to rein in a government agency supposedly run by people who took an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution? Is Obama unable to make his own appointees obey the law? Either way, the new Congress should hold Obama accountable for what the FCC is now doing in his name. (source)