Remember last year, when Republicans hated Obamacare because of “exchanges, difficult end-of-life decisions, cuts to vulnerable seniors”? Well, Jon Stewart does, and last night he informed America: “Guess what? [Paul] Ryan’s plan is all that, plus a $750 billion cut to Medicaid. How do they characterize a plan like that?”…
Continue reading …
President’s 12-year plan to reduce budget deficit includes curbs on defence spending and Medicare reforms Barack Obama has set the stage for a new and bigger budget showdown with the Republicans, proposing a staggering $4 trillion (£2.4tn) in spending cuts over the next 12 years aimed at reducing America’s runaway deficit. Although the cut is enormous, it still falls well short of the $6.2tn the Republicans are demanding. The battle is set to dwarf last week’s 2012 budget row that came within an hour of seeing the federal government shut down. The size of the deficit, more than $14tn, is one of the biggest political issues in the US, especially with the country in hock to China, which has accumulated a horde of dollars. The deficit was one of the main reasons for the rise of the Tea Party movement and contributed to the Republican victory in last November’s congressional elections. Obama has proposed to tackle the deficit by curbing defence spending and ending tax breaks introduced by George W Bush for wealthy Americans – those earning more than $250,000 a year. In a move that will anger the Democratic base, Obama is also suggesting further cuts in the deficit would come from reforms to Medicaid, which provides basic health provision for the poor, and Medicare, which provides health care for those over 65. The president, who set out his proposals in a speech at George Washington University in DC, blamed Bush for the deficit. He said it has been known for decades that the baby boomers reaching retirement age would put a strain on health and social security at this time. Bill Clinton had left a balanced budget and the burgeoning deficit had been a consequence of the Bush era, Obama said. “We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug programme, but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts: tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500bn every year over the next decade,” Obama said. He added: “Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1tn.” The Republicans, after meeting Obama at the White House , said they are opposed to ending the Bush tax breaks. They also want deep cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. “It is time to act,” said the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “We don’t believe a lack of revenue is part of the problem, so we will not be discussing raising taxes.” The vice-president, Joe Biden, is to begin regular meetings with Republican and Democrat congressional leaders next month and Obama said the aim was to reach a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June. The focal point in the next few weeks is the raising of the country’s debt limit above $14.3tn. Normally this would be a technical move that would be voted through without much bother but it has become entangled in the battle over spending. If this is not agreed by the Republicans, the country would be temporarily bankrupt, whoch would be embarrasing for Obama and would have implications for economies round the world. The deadline is 16 May. Republican leaders said that if Obama did not agree to major debt cuts, they would not vote through the rise in in the debt ceiling from $14.3tn. The Republicans, who have a majority in the House of Representatives, are scheduled to pass a bill later this week to cut $6.2tn over the next decade without raising taxes. But it has no chance of getting through the Senate, where the Democrats have a majority. Even if it did, Obama could use his presidential veto to block it. The battle over the deficit has consequences not only for the US as it stumbles out of recession but other economies round the world. Democrats warn that the spending cuts being advocated by the Republicans would send the country back into recession. The fight last week was over the remaining six months of this year’s budget and involved only $38bn in cuts compared to the trillions at stake over the coming weeks and months. Obama’s problems are not confined to the Republicans. Many Democrats in Congress and outside, mainly the volunteers who helped get him elected in 2008, object even to the $4tn in spending cuts, and any cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Two left-wing groups that campaigned for him last time are threatening to withhold funds next year. Some economists and political scientists also raise what they see as the danger of Republican cuts slowing or even reversing America’s climb out off recession. Thomas Ferguson, professor of politics at the University of Massachusetts, said there was a danger of repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression by chopping spending. “The US would surely take a rather large plunge. They will get Ireland and Greece outcomes. You will crater the US economy if you were to enact the [Republican] bill,” Ferguson said. US domestic policy Obama administration US economy US taxation Democrats Republicans US healthcare US politics United States Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media It’s not very often that I get to know the person that Blue America PAC is endorsing for Congress years before they actually decide to run, but that’s the case here as I now welcome Norman Solomon to the Blue America and Progressive communities and wholeheartedly put my support behind his campaign. I’m really pleased that he’s coming here to help launch his fight to represent the true left when it comes to matters like the vast war machine and the many unnecessary nuclear energy power plants that our country’s elites has embraced. We meet in 2007 for coffee after he released his book entitled Made Love Got War, which is an autobiographical look at his life’s work and that’s when I found out that he’s a very serious and principled man who has a history of standing up to the military industrial complex along with the nuclear power juggernaut and who stands strong with all working class Americans. (Please donate to his campaign here. ) Unfortunately we are witnessing in real time the agonies that Japan is facing after suffering an 9.0 earthquake followed by a massive tsunami followed by severe aftershocks and power losses which has wreaked havoc to their Fukushima nuclear plant to the point where it’s now at least on par with the great disaster in Chernobyl. There’s an outcry from Japan now because many people feel that the government has been hiding the facts from them, while media elites in our country try to tell Americans that nuclear power is so nice and cozy and safe and we shouldn’t worry. Even as we speak, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Seeks 20-Year Extension in California. No shock there, right? He’s also been outspoken against needless and endless wars, supports a woman’s right to choose and equal rights’s for the LGBT community so what’s not to like?. Norman has all the qualities that make up a great progressive candidate from Marin/Sonoma county. The right kind of Progressive candidate. The candidate that will buck the party system and fight for real progressive values and will be an outspoken leader on these issues. He’s not just a cookie cutter politician that bows down to the party leadership. He’s independent minded in a good way, but will not compromise his values. Here’s some of his accomplishments from his About Norman Solomon page on his website: *Co-Chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for North Bay *Organized and went on three missions to Baghdad prior to the invasion of Iraq seeking alternatives to war. *Health-care Not Warfare National Co-Chair (with Congressman John Conyers and Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association *Recipient of numerous awards including the George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language, and the Annual Ruben Salazar Journalism Award *From 1997 to 2010, as founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, oversaw policy research and liaison with thousands of experts on global warming, foreign policy, labor rights, “welfare reform,” economic equity, lax enforcement of federal regulations, civil liberties and a wide range of other topics related to federal, state and local government policies nationwide *One of the lone voices on national television against invading Iraq before the start of the Iraq war in early 2003, appearing on CNN and other major TV networks more than a dozen times to argue for diplomacy instead of a U.S. attack *Co-chair of the state Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus foreign policy committee *Organized and went on fact-finding trip to Afghanistan in 2009 *The New York Times Magazine has called him “a leading progressive activist.” The Los Angeles Times has called him “a formidable thinker and activist.” That’s a tremendous record of achievements so please join us in welcoming to C&L and Blue America PAC, Norman Solomon. Please don’t forget donate to his campaign at our Blue America act blue page here . He’ll need your help to win this race.
Continue reading …
From Inhabitat: With world populations growing and land scarce, more and more architects are looking to build upwards instead of outwards. Want some visual proof? Check out this collection of incredible vertical farms, bio-fuel power plants and skyscraper cities showcasing some truly innovative ideas on how to rethink what urban landscapes should look like. It just might be a glimpse into our future!
Continue reading …
No longer dominated by Americans and Europeans, the members of the world’s billionaire club increasingly hail from around the globe, first and third world countries alike. And while some of the mega-rich might may spend more time on yachts than in their home countries, even billionaires have a place they call home. It’s just becoming increasingly difficult to predict where that home is. According to this year’s annual Wealth Report, published by Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank — Scorpio Partnership, a wealth management consultancy firm, also contributed — new billionaires are increasingly likely to come from emerging economies like India and Russia, the latter of which increased its billionaire count by 30 percent last year, according to Forbes. The world’s total number of millionaires has skyrocketed, too, increasing by 22 percent from one year prior, when the global economy witnessed a drastic drop in millionaires. No country’s elite, however, have benefited more from last year’s rebounding economy than China’s, with the country’s tremendous economic growth raising the billionaire count by 140 percent. At this rate, many economists expect China — ranked 35th in Forbes’ billionaires list as recently as 2005 — to soon claim the title of most billionaires in the world. “That growth [in China] may be strengthened,” Scorpio Partnership director Stephen Wall wrote in the rport, “by the range of wealth sources driving economic growth.” Of all their thriving industries, the Internet technology sector has perhaps treated China’s elites the best. And no one better represents that industry than China’s richest man and Baidu search engine founder Robin Li. Still, Chinese billionaires will continue to face stiff competition from the U.S. in the future, as Facebook alone represents six of America’s billionaires, including the youngest billionaire in the world: 26-year-old co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. See below for the list of countries with the most billionaires according to the 2011 Wealth Report:
Continue reading …
“[F]or America's sake, I hope that Al Jazeera penetrates the US media market. Unless Americans see the images and narratives that shape how others see us, the US will not be able to overcome its reputation as the world's half-blind bully.” So stated Naomi Wolf's ” I Want My Al Jazeera ” published at the Huffington Post Tuesday evening (image courtesy Mike Licht ): [T]o this day, Al Jazeera, which, together with BBC News, has become one of the premier global outlets for serious television news, is virtually impossible to find on televisions in the US. The country's major cable and satellite companies refuse to carry it — leaving it with US viewers only in Washington, DC and parts of Ohio and Vermont — despite huge public demand. By being denied the right to watch Al Jazeera, Americans are being kept in a bubble, sealed off from the images and narratives that inform the rest of the world. Consider the recent scandal surrounding atrocity photos taken by US soldiers in Afghanistan, which are now available on news outlets, including Al Jazeera, around the globe. In America, there have been brief summaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has run the story. But the images themselves — even redacted to shield the identities of the victims — have not penetrated the US media stream. And the images are so extraordinarily shocking that failing to show them — along with graphic images of the bombardment of children in Gaza, say, or exit interviews with survivors of Guantanamo — keeps Americans from understanding events that may be as traumatic to others as the trauma of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For example, the leading US media outlets, including the New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a US soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as though it were a hunting trophy. Not surprisingly, Wolf ignored the real reason why America's Obama-loving press chose not to show “Kill Team” images: it would make the current White House resident look bad. By contrast, the Bush-hating media had difficulties finding enough air and print space to report what was going on in Abu Ghraib during the Iraq war. But Wolf couldn't bring herself to make such an obvious conclusion and instead offered this truly preposterous one: Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans…[Al Jazeera reporter Ayman Mohyeldin's] analysis of the Egyptian revolution, and others in the region, is that the kind of globalized media to which Americans do not have full access created the conditions in which people could rise up to claim democracy. He points out that, “People are aware of their rights from the internet, from satellite TV — people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolution of awareness, based on access to fast-traveling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Square, were aware of their rights.” I guess in Wolf's view, though she wrote her piece for a web-based American news organization, she thinks Americans don't have internet or satellite TV and don't watch movies or read blogs. But there's a far more delicious irony she badly missed as have most of the media in this country as they've marveled about the impact of the internet and social websites on uprisings in the Middle East: the same thing's happening right here in the United States. It's called the Tea Party, and its roots are equally tied to non-conventional sources of information broadly defined as new media. From there, regular Americans across the fruited plain became aware of their rights, and that an entire political Party was engaged in a systematic process to strip such rights and liberties from them. Despite the efforts by the Left and its old media minions to demonize and kill this uprising, it remade the Republican Party scoring an historic victory at the polls last November, and to this day is reshaping legislatures around the country particularly in Washington, D.C. Unlike Wolf, these folks don't want their Al Jazeera. They believe their country is filled with enough news organizations spreading anti-American propaganda. If that's what Wolf wants, she knows where to find it.
Continue reading …
There’s a new trend to give autobiographies silly titles. But can you match the titles in our quiz to the celebrity? The publishing brainboxes who dreamed up the title of the Apple founder’s authorised biography were presumably delighted that iSteve: The Book of Jobs works on so many levels. But seldom has a title been so excruciating on every one of them. Still, at least the name of Steve Jobs’s book gives some clue about the contents therein. The compulsion to ape various comics’ tossed-off tomes with a punning title is increasingly leading to otherwise serious autobiographies being given a title with a double meaning that has no meaning (step forward Christopher Hitchens and Hitch-22) or just an achingly dull joke. Then again, there is something lovable about a spectacularly awful pun. So in tribute to iSteve, can you match the following silly titles with the authors pictured above? 1 Dear Fatty 2 Look Back in Hunger 3 Cider with Roadies 4 Me and My Mouth 5 Trowel and Error 6 My Shit Life So Far ANSWERS 1D Dawn French; 2E Jo Brand; 3B Stuart Maconie; 4F Austin Healey; 5A Alan Titchmarsh; 6C Frankie Boyle Biography Celebrity Patrick Barkham guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The former foreign secretary proposes handing over responsibility for building a political solution to the UN The former foreign secretary David Miliband is to make a strong critique of the US-led strategy in Afghanistan, proposing instead handing over substantial responsibility for building a political solution to the UN, headed by a Muslim mediator capable of negotiating with the Taliban as well as partners throughout the region. In an opinion piece for the New York Times, Miliband urges a “whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort” in bringing about a political endgame away from a focus on ending military engagement, and including the possibility of appointing a safe third country for all Afghan parties to negotiate from. He writes: “It’s high time we stopped behaving as if there was a military solution and developed a political one. For that, politicians need to give a lead. That is the way forward in Afghanistan – working to mend it, not just rushing to end it.” The intervention comes as senior military figures predict a rough summer of fighting ahead. Miliband’s assessment of the situation chimes with the opinion of senior Pakistani officials who feel the imminent end of the international military campaign in Afghanistan looks likely to be replaced by little political process, with few indications as to who Pakistani officials should engage with. It also echoes the feeling inside Whitehall that US policy in Afghanistan is overly dominated by the military under General David Petraeus and that despite much talk about talks, American efforts to engage the Taliban diplomatically have made little progress so far. Miliband’s criticism of the US-led campaign marks a change from the supportive UK-US relationship he maintained as foreign secretary when relationships with US secretary of state Hilary Clinton were famously strong. Miliband acknowledges there are signs of significant shifts in American policy but nevertheless he goes on to write: “Deviations from the otherwise relentless focus on military operations, allied and Afghan, need to be taken to a whole new level of urgency, coherence and effort. Otherwise, our troops will be stuck in the front line of a strategy that has an end date but no clear end game. The 2014 end date set by Nato will prove illusory unless there is an endgame. “And that endgame must be negotiations, involving western powers led by the US, with all factions in the Afghan struggle, and their backers in the region.” Miliband warns that two international conferences on the horizon – in Kabul in the summer and Bonn in December – currently have “scant agenda”, but their outcome should be the agreement of the kind of political approach he outlines. “Our leverage will decline, not improve, as 2014 approaches. The insurgency can spread, outstripping the ability of international and Afghan forces to check its growth. The warlords can strengthen their grip. Inter-ethnic strife can come to look more and more like civil war.” Miliband proposes: • The UN security council appoints and empowers a UN mediator to faciliate talks “with a clear UN security council mandate setting out principles of the endgame and an open invitation to all to participate”. • The mediator should come from the Muslim world. “His job would be to canvass the views of all parties, and create confidence for and commitment to a process for serious talks about the future of Afghanistan”. • The mediator should “develop the idea of a safe place in a third country – an Arabian gulf state, Turkey or Japan – for all sides to talk. • Localised ceasefires must be proposed alongside security for development projects. • The new UN envoy should be responsible for regional engagement as well as internal talks, creating a council of regional stability that oversees compact between the neighbours and Afghanistan. This new structure should report to the US military and General Petraeus. He writes: “The job description would be to be President Karzai’s principal interlocutor, working closely with him on the end game strategy, liasing strongly with the commander of ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] to ensure that military strategy comes behind it, and creating a framework within which the political strength of the UN, and the development strengths of contributing nations, can bear full fruit.” Acknowledging movement from America, Miliband writes: “There are signs of a significant turn in policy. Secretary Clinton spoke in February of a “political surge”. Nato’s senior civilian representative, Mark Sedwill, said last month: “The time is now right to take the risk and pursue the political agenda with the same energy we have brought to the military and civilian surges.” The New Yorker reported that secret direct talks between the US and senior Taliban leaders had actually started. David Miliband Foreign policy Afghanistan US foreign policy United States New York Times Allegra Stratton Simon Tisdall guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rep. Flake: We Need Enforcable Spending Caps What if the debt limit isn’t increased Andrea Tantaros on Fox News America’s Newsroom 04-11-11 Cantor: U.S. Will Hit Its Debt Ceiling | TPMDC House Majority Leader Eric Cantor suggested Tuesday that Congress will allow the country to hit its debt ceiling , and continue to hold out for dramatic spending cuts while the nation approaches a genuine default. Obama Open To Deal On Debt Ceiling White House officials have opened the door to a deal with Republicans that would allow the U.S. to increase its ability to borrow, potentially easing worries in financial markets that the country might default on its debt. Daily Kos: WSJ rewrites Plouffe comment about raising debt ceiling I’m a little surprised at the extent to which folks are overreacting to the Wall Street Journal article on the White House and the debt ceiling . The article is incredibly thin, cites no sources at all, and comes from a Murdoch-owned … RealClearPolitics – Apocalypse Not: Debt Ceiling Will Be Raised Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, warned Friday on CNN, “The debt ceiling is going to be Armageddon.” White House spokesman Jay Carney chose similar eschatological terms on Monday. “The consequences,” Carney said, “of failure to … Debt Ceiling | Senator to filibuster raising debt ceiling unless … Anonymous senate staffer tells Mark Levin to expect filibuster on ‘any attempt to raise the debt ceiling ‘ without conditions met. ThinkCenter1968 says: Why should we be afraid of a debt ceiling when we created it to control ourselves? As long as we keep making payments & don't default!
Continue reading …
Josh Hamilton TTM send out pc, and future ttm send out Native American Clay Sculpture “Smoker” created by Josh Hamilton Rangers Josh Hamilton strikes out against The O’s! 4/9/11 Josh Hamilton injury update – Lone Star Ball Per T.R. Sullivan, Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton , who was pulled in today’s game after injuring his shoulder on a slide into home, has a “dull pain” in the shoulder, although there’s no fracture and the team doesn’t think … Josh Hamilton Injured | Blog Archive | Getting Blanked | Blogs … 2010 American League MVP Josh Hamilton of the Texas Rangers left this afternoon’s game against the Detroit Tigers in the first inning with an injury to his right shoulder after taking two head first slides, the first earning him a … Josh Hamilton out 6-8 weeks, Chris Davis being recalled – Lone … Texas Ranger outfielder Josh Hamilton is going to be out 6-8 weeks with a “small fracture” in his humerus bone, and Chris Davis is being recalled to take his place on the 25 man roster. I’m a little surprised by Davis getting the … Report: Josh Hamilton Out For 6-8 Weeks – Baseball Time in Arlington According to multiple reports on Twitter, Josh Hamilton incurred a “small, non-displaced fracture of the humerus bone” during his ill-fated headfirst slide during the first inning of today’s game, and will reportedly be out for 6-8 … Josh Hamilton | Aquarian Advertising Network After injuring his shoulder Josh Hamilton took out his frustration on Texas Rangers third base coach Dave Anderson for trying to score on a stupid play that was too aggressive. Im a little surprised by Davis getting the. … fantasysportbiz says: Hamilton out 6-8 weeks with arm fracture (AP) Texas slugger Josh Hamilton is expected to miss six to eight weeks after f http://tiny.ly/vhzU
Continue reading …