Administration details framework for business tax reform

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released the president’s framework for reforming the U.S. business tax system, which would enhance American competitiveness by simplifying the tax code and eliminating dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, incentivizing job creation and investment here at home and lowering the business rate while broadening the tax base.

“In order to make us more competitive and create jobs here at home, we must reform our corporate tax code,” said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. “The President’s framework would boost growth and provide American companies with incentives to invest in the U.S. while simplifying and cutting taxes for our small businesses.” Continue reading “Administration details framework for business tax reform” »

Transcript: President’s remarks to UN

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen:  It is a great honor for me to be here today.  I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations – the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.

War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilizations.  But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale.  It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.

No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt.  He knew that a victory in war was not enough.  As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, “We have got to make, not merely peace, but a peace that will last.”

The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence of war.  A lasting peace – for nations and for individuals – depends on a sense of justice and opportunity, of dignity and freedom.  It depends on struggle and sacrifice, on compromise, and on a sense of common humanity.

One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations put it well:  “Many people,” she said, “have talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and we hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world.”

The fact is peace is hard.  But our people demand it.  Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty.  Even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that endanger us all.

I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place – Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization – remained at large.  Today, we’ve set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over.  We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq – for its government and for its security forces, for its people and for their aspirations.

As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country.  As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.

So let there be no doubt:  The tide of war is receding.  When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline.  This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.

Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength.  Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of this city.  Today, as a new tower is rising at Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before.  Its leadership has been degraded.  And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.

So, yes, this has been a difficult decade.  But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace.  To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution.  The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.”  And Article 1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.”  Those bedrock beliefs – in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women – must be our guide.

And in that effort, we have reason to hope.  This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation.  More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security.  And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.

Think about it:  One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt.  But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination.  And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.

One year ago, the people of Côte D’Ivoire approached a landmark election.  And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way.  U.N. peacekeepers were harassed, but they did not leave their posts.  The Security Council, led by the United States and Nigeria and France, came together to support the will of the people.  And Côte D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.

One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed.  But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist.  A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but he ignited a movement.  In a face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word, “freedom.”  The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled.  And now the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy that they deserve.

One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years.  But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life – men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian – demanded their universal rights.  We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa – and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world.

One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest-serving dictator.  But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery.  We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of the revolution and said, “Our words are free now.”  It’s a feeling you can’t explain.  Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom.  And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter.  The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre.  The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.

In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied.  Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months.  From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi – today, Libya is free.  Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli.

This is how the international community is supposed to work – nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights.  Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya – the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

So this has been a remarkable year.  The Qaddafi regime is over.  Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power.  Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him.  Something is happening in our world.  The way things have been is not the way that they will be.  The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open.  Dictators are on notice.  Technology is putting power into the hands of the people.  The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy.  The promise written down on paper – “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” – is closer at hand.

But let us remember:  Peace is hard.  Peace is hard.  Progress can be reversed.  Prosperity comes slowly.  Societies can split apart.  The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security.  And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations.  And we have more work to do.

In Iran, we’ve seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people.  As we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime.  Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan.  Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders.  The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice – protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for.  And the question for us is clear:  Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?

Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders.  We supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people.  And many of our allies have joined in this effort.  But for the sake of Syria – and the peace and security of the world – we must speak with one voice. There’s no excuse for inaction.  Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.

Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change.  In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system.  America supports those aspirations.  We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability.  We’re pleased with that, but more is required.  America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc – the Wifaq – to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people.  We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart.  It will be hard, but it is possible.

We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically.  But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly.  Those rights depend on elections that are free and fair; on governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; justice that is equal and fair.  That is what our people deserve.  Those are the elements of peace that can last.

Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy – with greater trade and investment – so that freedom is followed by opportunity.  We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with civil society – students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press.  We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country.  And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad.  And we will always serve as a voice for those who’ve been silenced.

Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine.  I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own.  But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.  One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences.  Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year.  That basis is clear.  It’s well known to all of us here.  Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security.  Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress.  I assure you, so am I.  But the question isn’t the goal that we seek – the question is how do we reach that goal.  And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades.  Peace is hard work.  Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations – if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.  Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side.  Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians – not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them:  on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied.  That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences.  That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state.  And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state – negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve.  There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long.  It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well:  America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.  Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring.  And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with ourselves:  Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses.  Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them.  Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map.  The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are.  Those are facts.  They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland.  Israel deserves recognition.  It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.  And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth – each side has legitimate aspirations – and that’s part of what makes peace so hard.  And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes.  That’s what we should be encouraging.  That’s what we should be promoting.

This body – founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person – must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis.  The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity.  And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears.  That is the project to which America is committed.  There are no shortcuts.  And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize – we must also remind ourselves – that peace is not just the absence of war.  True peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living.  And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity:  nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease.  These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace and together we’re called upon to confront them.

To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.  Over the last two years, we’ve begun to walk down that path.  Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers.  Next March, a summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them.  The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in half a century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper reductions.  America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make them.

And so we have begun to move in the right direction.  And the United States is committed to meeting our obligations.  But even as we meet our obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons.  And to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them.

The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful.  It has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power.    North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the South.  There’s a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations.  But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation.  That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity.  In this effort, let us not forget that we’ve made enormous progress over the last several decades.  Closed societies gave way to open markets.  Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we do.  Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty.  It’s an extraordinary achievement.  And yet, three years ago, we were confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades.  And that crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year – our fates are interconnected.  In a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

And today, we confront the challenges that have followed on the heels of that crisis.  Around the world recovery is still fragile.  Markets remain volatile.  Too many people are out of work.  Too many others are struggling just to get by.  We acted together to avert a depression in 2009.  We must take urgent and coordinated action once more.  Here in the United States, I’ve announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, at the same time as I’m committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.

We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenges.  For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economy towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation.  So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth.  That’s what our commitment to prosperity demands.

To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves.  And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act.  Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need.  And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children.  Our common humanity is at stake.  Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other.  That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demand.

To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health.  We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  We will focus on the health of mothers and of children.  And we must come together to prevent, and detect, and fight every kind of biological danger – whether it’s a pandemic like H1N1, or a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.

This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge.  And today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the HWO’s [sic] goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012.  That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demands.  We have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce.  And together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made.  Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers our economies, and support others as they move down that path.  That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs.  No country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer.  Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies.  That’s why we’ve partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on open government that helps ensure accountability and helps to empower citizens.  No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.

And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs.  This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s Participation.  Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down the economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls.  This is what our commitment to human progress demands.

I know there’s no straight line to that progress, no single path to success.  We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories.  But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations – to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families, and love and worship our God; to live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.

It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn these lessons over and over again.  Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this – to bind our fates together, to help us recognize ourselves in each other – because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war, and freedom is preferable to suppression, and prosperity is preferable to poverty.  That’s the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens, from our people.

And when the cornerstone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.”  The moral nature of man’s aspirations.  As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that’s a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible.  So, together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears.  Together, let us make peace, but a peace, most importantly, that will last.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

Peace group raises issue with Obama Afghanistan move

President Obama’s announcement of a limited troop withdrawal from Afghanistan — America’s longest war — is bound to disappoint members of Congress and an electorate tired of the conflict.

As has been reported, senior White House officials confirmed that the President plans to remove 10,000 troops by the end of this year and another 23,000 troops by September 2012.

“Removing a few brigades this year, then several more next year, still leaves more than double the U.S. troops in Afghanistan than when President Obama took office. There’s no military solution in Afghanistan. It’s time to bring all troops and contractors home and focus on the political solution, which is the only way this costly war will end,” observed Paul Kawika Martin, the political and policy director of Peace Action — a group founded in 1957 and the largest grassroots peace organization in the U.S.

The pace of troop drawdown is significantly smaller than asked for by some in Congress. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the Arms Services Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wanted 15,000, 30,000, and 50,000 out this year, respectfully. Today, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) the minority chair of the Sen. Foreign Relations committee said the withdrawal was inadequate.

The President’s numbers for this year represent a small percentage of the 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and over 100,000 additional contractors.

Both chambers of Congress on a bipartisan basis have pushed for a sizable number of troops to leave.

Last week, a bipartisan group of 27 U.S. Senators — led by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) — sent a letter to President Obama asking for a “sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011.” A half dozen more Senators made similar statements individually.

Last month, the House sent a clear signal to President for an accelerated withdrawal by narrowly failing to pass an amendment offered by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Walter Jones (D-NC) and others to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. 204 Representatives voted aye, including a record 26 Republicans.

Congress has been feeling voter pressure on the war. A pew poll released yesterday showed a strong majority of Americans support bringing troops home “as soon as possible.” Peace Action organized twenty-five national organizations, representing over 30 million voters, to sign onto a letter echoing this sentiment by asking for a “sizable and sustained” withdrawal.

With the high costs of $10 Billion a month for the war, lawmakers on Capitol Hill and locally are questioning whether the costs are making the U.S. safer. The U.S. Conference of Mayors just approved a resolution calling for a speedy end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redirection of scarce dollars for “urgent domestic needs.”

The war has become more deadly to U.S. troops, which has weighed heavy on lawmakers. Over 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in the nearly ten-year long war. This year has surpassed 2009 as the deadliest year of the conflict, killing 57 percent more American service members. Tens of thousands more have been wounded physically and mentally. An unknown number, but estimated to be in the tens of thousands, of Afghan civilians have perished, and the United Nations reported that so far, 2011 is the worst year for civilians deaths.

Republican Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are also calling for a quicker end to the war.

Peace Action calls for all troops and contractors out of Afghanistan within one year with resources focused on political reconciliation and Afghan-led aid and development.

“In November 2012, voters will want to see less than 67,000 troops and even more contractors still in Afghanistan. The President will need to speed up his plans and announce more troops coming home to please the electorate,” concluded Martin.

The President announced his first surge of 20,000 troops in spring 2009. Then started sending another 33,000 in December of that year nearly tripling the number of troops on the ground when he took office.

Susan Shaer: Money and values from Congress and the President – hard choices

Are you clued in to the current slashing and burning going on in Washington? The new Congress is trying to settle on a federal budget that should have been voted on last fall. President Obama unveiled his idea for the next budget on Monday. How do you think they are setting priorities? After all, our federal budget shows what we value, doesn’t it? What we care about as a country? So what does our president’s budget care about?

President Obama’s federal budget for our next fiscal year revealed that almost all of Secretary of Defense Gates’ recommended Pentagon “cuts” (really restructuring and a reduction in the rate of increase) will be consumed by increased war spending. The total Pentagon budget planned for 2012-2016 shows virtually no change between this year and last year’s projections.

This year, President Obama does face an incredibly steep challenge –growing deficits and debt. The fall election made it clear that fiscal conservatives, Tea Party candidates, and backers demand deep spending cuts to address this. Despite promises from President Obama that everything would be considered for cuts – this is not true for the Pentagon.

Worse, the new Republican-run Congress proposes that this year’s spending be cut back by $100 billion. To do this, they are proposing draconian cuts to everything except military spending.

Yes, we need a strong defense but also a reasonable one. Horrified hoards responded when they learned we sent troops to Iraq without proper body and vehicle protection. Ironically enough, we are currently spending about one hundred billion a year in Afghanistan – the same amount that Congress is proposing we find by cutting needed domestic programs. Critics still remind Congress that we are not protecting our ports or transportation systems here at home. These are not examples of a reasonable approach to defense.

Recent polls show that most Americans would juggle the budget deficit/debt problem differently than what President Obama proposes. Congress, however, does not ordinarily hear this message. They ignore their constituents. On the subject of the military industrial complex, members of Congress heartily agree with the military contractors instead of those individuals who vote for them. Recent analyses acknowledge that military contractors recognized immediately that when the Cold War was over their gravy train had ended. They needed a new strategy for survival and growth. So they developed one by making parts of weapons systems in every congressional district in the country.

There are prices to be paid at every level for this kind of thinking. Job training, science research, higher education, National Institutes of Health, heating aid for the poor, nutrition programs for children – the list goes on and on. These programs will help us to economic recovery. These programs are where we need to invest in order to have a hope of competing in the coming decades. The President’s plan would freeze many of these programs at last year’s spending levels, while the Pentagon is gobbling up way over half of the overall discretionary budget.

We need to stop mindless unchecked spending on bloated Pentagon programs that feed defense contractors while starving real economic and security needs. Let’s be winners with our American values. Do we choose weapons and war, or do we insist on real security, a growing economy and a healthy environment?

Susan Shaer is executive director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), a national activist organization working to redirect excessive military spending to unmet human and environmental needs.

Chris Graham: The forest for the trees

Mark Warner, once again, I’m right there with you, dude.

“This problem cannot be solved simply by focusing on cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, which is only 12 percent of the budget. Increased revenues and economic growth by themselves will not get us there, either. That’s why we must have a grown-up discussion about spending cuts, tax reform, and necessary changes to entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare,” Warner said in a statement that his office forwarded to me this week on the subject of President Obama’s proposed fiscal-year 2012 budget.

Lost in the back-and-forth chatter on how socialist or how ultraconservative the budget is in the eyes of the various beholders is, well, the grown-up discussion that Warner talks about, the forest for the trees, I’ll call it.

Political types can posture all they want on ending earmarks and making cuts in social programs – as even Obama is doing, to the dismay of his increasingly more vocal critics on the left. The simple fact of the matter is that as Warner points out our burgeoning federal budget is where it is because of spending that Congress and a line of presidents have decided they don’t want to control.

And there are political reasons for doing so. Curbing spending on Social Security and Medicare hits seniors, in particular, and guess who votes by far in the greatest numbers? Oh, yeah.

Defense spending, too, has become untouchable, despite the fact that the United States spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. But just try proposing a cut in defense spending. You’ll get run out of Washington faster than a second-term congressman posting a picture on Craigslist.

And so they work around the edges, which by definition isn’t going to work. So much time is spent debating miniscule cuts to one-eighth of the budget. And this passes as leadership in this day and age.

“Every day that we delay making these tough choices, we add an average of $4 billion to the national debt,” Warner said this week.

The only way this works is if Republicans and Democrats put down their spears and make it a bipartisan priority.

I wish I could be optimistic that this spirit will overtake Capitol Hill anytime soon.

“This is the only way we will put our nation back on a responsible fiscal path that allows us to be competitive as we move forward,” Warner said.

I hear you, Senator.

Column by Chris Graham. More columns by Chris at TheWorldAccordingToChrisGraham.com.

A move on moment from House Dems

“Just say no! Just say no!” Seriously? That’s the best House Democrats can do these days – is mirror House Republicans?

Any semblance of sanity on the Dem side is now officially history, which means, for all intents and purposes, there isn’t any semblance of sanity in D.C. anymore. Not that there was much even in semblance before House Democrats jumped the shark.

Their reaction to President Obama’s reachout to Republicans to offer support for a two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the superwealthy in exchange for GOP support for an extension in benefits for the long-term unemployed is beyond the pale. The message sent to the American people: As a matter of principle we’re going to raise your taxes and cut off the long-term unemployed, the meager job market be damned.

The principle they’re trying to advance doesn’t make much sense. OK, so Republicans have for the past two years been the “just say no” party on the Hill, got it. But they weren’t successful in the midterms just because they always say no. How about – they were successful because the voters gave Democrats the White House and big majorities in the House and the Senate, and Democrats couldn’t get anything done?

More columns by Chris Graham at TheWorldAccordingToChrisGraham.com.

I’m not even sure that i count health-care reform as something done, if only because what finally passed was so pedestrian, and pushed down the road key provisions from taking effect. Meanwhile, nothing gets done on climate change, nothing substantive is done to public education, nothing is done on the tax cuts until the lame-duck session, et cetera.

The president has been shouldering the blame for what hasn’t happened, but I think we’re starting to see what’s been gumming up the gears. It wasn’t so much Republicans as it was Democrats who worked themselves up to a point of giddiness over what they’d do once they got big majorities back in Congress and subsequently imploded in in-fighting that put the in-fighting that had crippled Republicans in the Bush years to shame. I say that because it took into the first two years of George W. Bush’s second term before we saw the ideological purging that led to the loss of Karl Rove’s permanent majority in 2006 and solidified itself with the election of Obama and the big wins by House and Senate Democrats in ’08.

Democrats, for their part, began bringing out the sharp knives and aiming them at each other even before they’d won that November. The so-called Blue Dogs, the fiscally moderate Democrats whose victories in a number of swing districts fueled the House majority, were never Democratic enough, and to them the liberal stalwarts might as well have been space aliens than members of their own party.

The internecine battles that ensued amplified the Republican “just say no” approach – in line with the old axiom about how when your opponent is going down in flames you should get out of the way and let him roast.

Me, I give President Obama credit, much like I gave credit to Bill Clinton in 1995 for pivoting after the GOP won the House and the Senate in the ’94 midterms. Clinton, unlike Obama, couldn’t even get a milquetoast health-care reform passed, so Obama has already done the Democratic legend one better in that respect. He still has a ways to go to match what Clinton was able to do in the wake of his midterm losses.

The reachout on taxes and unemployment benefits is a huge step in that direction. You ask me, the best thing House Democrats could have done for Obama heading into the 2012 election cycle is what they’ve been doing this week. By “just say(ing) no,” they’re giving the president the break from their failure to get anything of substance done that he will need to recast his image.

Column by Chris Graham. Chris can be reached at freepress2@ntelos.net.

Obama offshore drilling ban draws bipartisan criticism

A bipartisan group of Virginia leaders will work to get the Obama administration to reverse its move to block drilling off the coast of Virginia until at least 2017.

“As a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, we learned a number of lessons, most importantly that we need to proceed with caution and focus on creating a more stringent regulatory regime. As that regime continues to be developed and implemented, we have revised our initial March leasing strategy to focus and expend our critical resources on areas with leases that are currently active. Our revised strategy lays out a careful, responsible path for meeting our nation’s energy needs while protecting our oceans and coastal communities,” Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said Wednesday in a statement announcing the shift in administration policy.

The administration had said in March that it would move to open up areas in the Atlantic, including off the coast of Virginia, to oil and natural gas exploration. That announcement came less than a month before the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that pushed a re-examination of the earlier policy direction.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell and Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Warner both indicated today that they will push back.

“Advances in technology continue to make offshore energy production more cost effective and safe. Instead of using that technology to produce more energy in a responsible manner here at home, this administration apparently prefers that we continue to depend more and more on oil from other nations and foreign cartels with far-less stringent environmental regulations and policies,” McDonnell said in a statement today.

Warner spokesman Kevin Hall told The Washington Post that the senator “sees no reason to delay this process” even given what we have learned since the March announcement.

“Sen. Warner will continue to work with Governor McDonnell and other state and local officials, as well as the bipartisan Virginia delegation, to explore ways to re-examine this decision,” Hall told the Post.

The Obama admnistration did get one note of support from an elected Virginia leader. Eighth District Democratic Congressman Jim Moran offered praise for the move to delay future drilling in a statement today.

“It clearly reflects the lessons learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster and recognizes the inherent risks of drilling in environmentally restricted areas and where economic and national security interests are in conflict,” said Moran, who has long opposed offshore drilling not just off the coast of Virginia but also elsewhere given the potential long-term environmental hazards.

“We will never achieve energy independence by drilling for more oil on land or at sea – even if we open up every restricted area to drilling,” Moran said. “To pursue such a reckless policy only advances the day we exhaust our limited reserves and undermines our effort to transition to cleaner and more sustainable alternative sources of energy.”

Story by Chris Graham. Chris can be reached at freepress2@ntelos.net.

Who is DeFundIt.org?

A 21-year-old named Alex Cortes has inserted himself into the thick of the Fifth District congressional race, with his advocacy group DeFundIt.org targeting Democratic incumbent Tom Perriello for his vote in favor of the health-care reform.

A Google search of the name produces as the top item a link to a column about an op-ed written by an Alex Cortes in 2007 defending the author’s right to chant “not gay” during the recitation of the “Good Old Song” at University of Virginia football games.

That Alex Cortes and the Alex Cortes behind DeFundIt.org are one and the same.

“It was completely misguided. I apologized for it at the time, I’ll apologize for it today. It was ignorant, arrogant, and I wish it wouldn’t have happened,” Cortes told AugustaFreePress.com.

The issue with the ’07 Cortes column published in the UVa. student-run Cavalier Daily briefly became an issue in the Fifth District GOP primary. Cortes served as the campaign manager for primary candidate Laurence Verga when a brief flurry of media reports put an uncomfortable spotlight on what he had written two and a half years earlier.

“Some call it a drunken joke while others refer to its adherents as homophobes. Unfortunately, in doing so, this University has completely disregarded the religiously and politically-minded like myself who say the chant out of disgust for the gay lifestyle and support for our natural heterosexuality given to us by God,” Cortes wrote.

A contrite Cortes emphasized in our interview today that he has moved on from “past mistakes.”

“I’ve repudiated it ever since,” Cortes said. “This is still America, the place where you make mistakes, you learn from them, you apologize, you move on.”

Cortes in 2008 launched a 527 organization called BornAliveTruth.org to raise issue with votes cast by Barack Obama as an Illinois state senator on abortion issues, then worked on the 2009 gubernatorial campaign of Bob McDonnell. As a 501-c4 organization, DeFundIt.org, which calls on candidates to sign a pledge to defund the health-care reform passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama earlier this year, cannot endorse candidates in elections. Robert Hurt, the Republican nominee in the Fifth District, has signed the DeFundIt.org pledge, and while declining comment to AugustaFreePress.com last month when we first wrote about DeFundIt.org, the Hurt campaign has benefited from news coverage of the pledge and from recent moves by DeFundIt.org to make abortion rights a central issue in the health-care debate in the Fifth District race.

“It’s an interesting case with Tom because of his abortion pledge. We wanted to call him out on that. Last August, he told his constituents that he would not vote for the ObamaCare bill with federal funding for abortion, and he does just that,” Cortes said.
 
 

Story by Chris Graham. Chris can be reached at freepress2@ntelos.net.

Poll: Obama approval at 50 percent

Edited by Chris Graham
freepress2@ntelos.net
 

A new Public Policy Polling survey has Barack Obama’s job-approval ratings back at the 50 percent mark for the first time since October. Continue reading “Poll: Obama approval at 50 percent” »

AFPBusiness.com: Obama on clean-energy jobs

Edited by Chris Graham
AFPBusiness.com

  

Read a transcript of remarks by President Barack Obama on Friday, March 5, in Arlington on clean-energy jobs.
  

The transcript is available on AFPBusiness.com.

I Love The ’90s, Part Two

Are we about to reprise the pendulum swings of the Gingrich-Clinton era?
 

Report by Chris Graham
freepress2@ntelos.net

Might we see a repeat of 1994 in 2010? The short answer: yes. Next question: Might we then see a repeat of 1996 in 2012? Well, maybe.

“For all the trouble Barack Obama’s had lately voters still prefer him to any of the top Republican contenders for 2012,” said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling, which polled 743 registered voters in February and found the Democrat Obama leading all of the top potential 2012 Republican Party hopefuls at this very, very early stage more than two and a half years out from the November 2012 presidential election.

An Obama win might have to come after a November 2010 switch in majority-party status in at least the House of Representatives, which would mirror the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 that was followed by the re-election of Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996.

An analysis from the University of Virginia Center for Politics released last week suggests that Republicans could be poised to gain 37 seats in the ’10 midterms, which would put the GOP within hailing distance of taking majority control of the legislative chamber. A switch of 40 seats from the D column to the R column would give the Republicans the majority in the House. Continue reading “I Love The ’90s, Part Two” »

The Rant | An empty chair on health care

  
Video Essay by Chris Graham
freepress2@ntelos.net

The response to President Obama’s invitation for a public dialogue among congressional leaders has been as deafening as silence can be.

It’s hard to dialogue with an empty chair, editor Chris Graham points out in today’s Rant. Continue reading “The Rant | An empty chair on health care” »