http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

“Obama’s budget projects the government’s debt doubling to $26 trillion over the next decade. It offers few solutions for seriously closing the gap other than promising to appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a plan to address the problem.”

Are you scared yet?

—

House faces tough vote on $1.9 trillion more debt

Feb 4, 7:20 AM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR WASHINGTON (AP) – Facing a politically excruciating vote, House Democratic leaders are counting on new budget deficit curbs to help smooth the way for a bill allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper into debt over the next year – or about $6,000 more for every U.S. resident.

The debt measure set for a House vote Thursday would raise the cap on federal borrowing to $14.3 trillion. That’s enough to keep Congress from having to vote again before the November elections on an issue that is feeding a sense among voters that the government is spending too much and putting future generations under a mountain of debt to do it.

Already, the accumulated debt amounts to $40,000 per person. And the debt is increasingly held by foreign nations such as China.

Passage of the bill would send it to President Barack Obama, who will sign it to avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. Democrats barely passed it through the Senate last week over a unanimous “no” vote from GOP members present.

To ease its passage, Democrats attached tougher budget rules designed to curb a spiraling upward annual deficit – projected by Obama to hit a record $1.56 trillion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The new rules would require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with either cuts to other programs or equivalent tax increases.

If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and veterans’ pensions. Current rules lack such teeth and have commonly been waived over the past few years at a cost of almost $1 trillion.

Skeptics say lawmakers also will find ways around the new rules fairly easily. Congress, for example, can declare some spending an “emergency” – a likely scenario for votes later this month to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.

And, indeed, there already are exceptions to the new rules, such as for extending former President George W. Bush’s middle-class tax cuts past their expiration a year from now. That would add $1.4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade.

In agreement with Obama’s budget earlier this week, there is no exception for taxpayers in the two highest tax brackets whose marginal rates are due to rise by 3 percent or 4.6 percent to a pre-Bush maximum 39.6 percent next January.

But some new White House initiatives, such as doubling the child care tax credit for families earning less than $85,000, also would have to live within the rules, as would continuing subsidies for laid-off workers to buy health insurance – unless lawmakers make another exception.

The so-called pay-as-you-go rules have been a mantra with conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House, who insisted they wouldn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling without them.

“We don’t have a choice,” said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. “We are on an unsustainable march toward a fiscal Armageddon.”

Obama’s budget projects the government’s debt doubling to $26 trillion over the next decade. It offers few solutions for seriously closing the gap other than promising to appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a plan to address the problem.

by Doug Heye

US News and World Report

Forget Polls, Here’s Tangible Proof the Obama Honeymoon is Over

Is US bullying Toyota on recall?

By Mira Oberman (AFP) – 11 hours ago

CHICAGO — The US transportation chief’s public rebukes of Toyota’s handling of a massive safety recall have raised eyebrows, given the US government’s major stake in rivals General Motors and Chrysler.

“The optics are terrible because — and this is what happens when a government owns a company – the two companies that are going to gain the most out of this are General Motors and Chrysler,” said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s business school.

“But their behavior is consistent with the general policy of the US government, whether it’s dealing with coffeemakers or cars.”

Safety officials understand that product design mistakes are inevitable and will work to help companies correct the problem and alert consumers. But they will not tolerate a slow or weak response, Morici told AFP.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sat down with reporters Wednesday to lay out a timeline of how US officials had “pushed Toyota to take corrective actions” on its pedal problems since 2007.

The meeting came a day after he issued a statement accusing the Japanese automaker of dragging its feet on recalling vehicles in danger of sudden, unintended acceleration due to pedals which could get trapped under floor mats or become “sticky.”

He also caused a brief panic when he told a congressional panel that owners of 5.3 million Toyota vehicles affected by the recalls should “stop driving” them.

LaHood later sought to tone down his remarks, telling reporters: “What I meant to say and what I thought I said was if you own one of these cars or if you’re in doubt, take it to the dealer and they’re going to fix it.”

But he insisted that safety officials “will continue to hold Toyota’s feet to the fire to make sure that they are doing everything they have promised to make their vehicles safe.”

Legislators meanwhile signaled that they would expand their probe, demanding answers on why Toyota’s Tacoma trucks — which have a different pedal assembly than the 5.3 million vehicles recalled — were also experiencing problems with sudden, unintended acceleration.

Toyota’s top US official, Yoshimi Inaba, is set to testify at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

LaHood’s strong initial comments could cause some “hysteria, but to some extent, we are such a litigious society, he has no choice but to say that because of the lawsuits that are lined up,” said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Global Insight.

“If one more person is killed, they can say that the government didn’t act; Toyota did not act.”

Weston Konishi, an expert on Japan at the Mansfield Foundation think-tank, said he doubted either Washington or Tokyo wanted the Toyota flap to escalate.

“Toyota is now a real stakeholder in the US economy — think of its auto plants and jobs — so trying to score points against it would be somewhat self-defeating,” he added.

Konishi said he could only see Toyota becoming the governments’ business if the company cut off contracts with US manufacturers due to lack of confidence in quality control after the problems with the US-made pedals.

David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports magazine, said the reaction to the recall was overblown.

“When you look at the statistics we are putting an awful lot of effort on a very small risk,” he said.

“There has been something like 2,000 complaints of unintended acceleration in some 20 million Toyota vehicles — it’s almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

Champion lamented as “unfortunate” that it took the death of an off-duty California state trooper and three members of his family to prompt Toyota to issue a mass recall in September to address the problem.

But he said a congressional investigation was an “overreaction” and noted that the “sticky” pedal problem that caused Toyota to halt production and sales of eight models last month was not linked to any accidents or injuries.

“I’m sure it’s going to hurt Toyota in the short term over the next year or so,” Champion said.

“But if their products are as good as they have been in the past, we’re going to see that Toyota’s going to bounce back as Ford has from the Firestone (tire recall) fiasco.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5im7AzPBsRb2Q_qT0FXa8DxrjjLwA

Great work rebuilding the U.S.’s image abroad, Barry.  Guess I’m not surprised that Canada is covering the story, but not the U.S. media lapdogs.

—

Sarkozy and Merkel brush off Obama snub of next EU-US summit

 Thu Feb 4, 10:29 AM

By Deborah Seward, The Associated Press

PARIS, France – French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel brushed off President Barack Obama’s decision not to attend an annual summit with European leaders while stressing Thursday the importance of Russia as a European partner.

A U.S. State Department deputy briefing reporters made the announcement Monday that Obama would miss the EU-U.S. summit in May that will take place in Spain, which now holds the rotating EU presidency.

Since then, European media have been awash with commentary wondering what the White House’s snub means for Europe as it struggles to find a united voice in foreign affairs following the creation of the new posts of EU president and foreign minister.

“With the United States, I don’t understand the debate,” Sarkozy told a news conference with Merkel after a joint meeting of the entire French and German governments in Paris.

“Where is the drama? Is that our only problem in the world today?” he continued.

Obama already had miffed Merkel by skipping the ceremonies marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in November, and she was more taciturn. She said that along with Sarkozy and other EU leaders, she would discuss the issue at an informal summit in Brussels next week.

Sarkozy indicated that Obama might choose to meet with European leaders in the fall when the U.S. president would be expected to attend the annual NATO leaders summit which this year is in Portugal – a combined solution the French leader said was a “rather good idea.”

“If the summit is in November instead of May, it truly doesn’t matter. My feeling is that there are too many summits. There are too many trips. There is too much time lost,” Sarkozy said.

Sarkozy said he was not at all worried by Obama missing the May summit. He noted that Obama had met European leaders on numerous occasions in 2009.

The U.S. leader travelled to Europe half a dozen times last year and met European leaders at other international venues, including at the United Nations.

“I don’t think it demonstrates a lack of interest by President Obama for Europe,” Sarkozy said.

Sarkozy and Merkel stressed the importance of their relationship with Russia. Both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are scheduled to visit France in coming months.

The French leader said that he wanted France and Germany to be in total harmony regarding relations with Russia, while Merkel said Russia’s relationship with Europe was a “central question.”

“We have to end the Cold War,” she said.

Sarkozy and Merkel were meeting for the first time with their entire governments since the German leader’s re-election. They outlined a roadmap for bilateral relations until 2020, aiming to strengthen their joint leadership role in Europe.

Most of the proposals concerned economy, education, climate change, civil affairs and immigration. The two countries pledged greater co-operation on Afghanistan, fighting nuclear proliferation and transatlantic security.

Concerning the biggest issue of the day, however, the fate of the financing of the A400M military transport plane that is over budget and behind schedule, both leaders said only that a solution would be found.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100204/world/eu_france_germany

Liberals love easy answers.  They think they can make people stop doing bad things by asking them to stop. 

There are 200 million guns in the U.S.  Liberals think that banning new gun sales or asking law-abiding citizens to turn guns in will somehow stop gun violence. 

The audacity of arrogance–Hope and Change won’t make those 200 million guns disappear.  Case in Point:

—

Australian
Gun Law Update 
 Here’s a
thought to warm some of your hearts….. From: Ed
Chenel , A police officer in Australia

 Hi
Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from
Down Under. 
 It has
now been 12 months since gun owners in  Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to
be destroyed by our own
government — a program costing Australian taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. 
 The
first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2
percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6
percent; Australia-wide,
armed robberies are up 44
percent (yes, 44 percent)! 
 In the
state of  Victoria  alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note
that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still
possess their guns!) 
 While
figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed
robbery with firearms, this
has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the
criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed. 
 There
has also been a dramatic
increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the
resident is at home. 
 Australian
politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
’successfully ridding Australian society of guns.’  You won’t
see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or
members of the State Assembly disseminating this
information. 
 The
Australian experience speaks for itself.  Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws
affect only the law-abiding citizens. 
 Take
note Americans, before it’s too late!
Will you
be one of the sheeple to turn yours in? WHY?  You will need
it.

Video of Barack Obama Gaffes

In his lengthy State of the Union address, President Obama was brief on national security issues, which he squeezed in toward the end. International terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even America’s relief efforts in Haiti all flashed past in bullet-point mentions. On Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama emphasized neither victory nor determination, but merely the early withdrawal of U.S. forces from both. His once vaunted Middle East peace process didn’t make the cut. 

Nonetheless, during this windshield tour of the world, the president found time to opine more explicitly than ever before that reducing America’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems will temper the global threat of proliferation. Obama boasted that “the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades” and that he is trying to secure “all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.” 

Then came Obama’s critical linkage: “These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Obama described the increasing “isolation” of both North Korea and Iran, the two most conspicuous—but far from the only—nuclear proliferators. He also mentioned the increased sanctions imposed on Pyongyang after its second nuclear test in 2009 and the “growing consequences” he says Iran will face because of his policies.

In fact, reducing our nuclear -arsenal will not somehow persuade Iran and North Korea to alter their behavior or encourage others to apply more pressure on them to do so. Obama’s remarks reflect a complete misreading of strategic realities. 

We have no need for further arms control treaties with Russia, especially ones that reduce our nuclear and delivery capabilities to Moscow’s economically forced low levels. We have international obligations, moreover, that Russia does not, requiring our nuclear umbrella to afford protection to friends and allies worldwide. Obama’s policy artificially inflates Russian influence and, depending on the final agreement, will likely reduce our nuclear and strategic delivery capabilities dangerously and unnecessarily. (Securing “loose” nuclear materials internationally has long been a bipartisan goal, properly so. Obama said nothing new on that score.) Meanwhile, Obama is considering treaty restrictions on our missile defense capabilities more damaging than his own previous unilateral reductions. 

What warrants close attention is the jarring naïveté of arguing that reducing our capabilities will inhibit nuclear proliferators. That would certainly surprise Tehran and Pyongyang. Obama’s insistence that the evil-doers are “violating international agreements” is also startling, as if this were of equal importance with the proliferation itself. 

The premise underlying these assertions may well be found in Obama’s smug earlier comment that we should “put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.  .  .  .  Let’s leave behind the fear and division.” By reducing to the level of wayward boys the debates over whether his policies are making us more or less secure, Obama reveals a deep disdain for the decades of strategic thinking that kept America safe during the Cold War and afterwards. Even more pertinent, Obama’s indifference and scorn for real threats are chilling auguries of what the next three years may hold.

Obama has now explicitly rejected the idea that U.S. weakness is provocative, arguing instead that weakness will convince Tehran and Pyongyang to do the opposite of what they have been resolutely doing for decades—vigorously pursuing their nuclear and missile programs. Obama’s first year amply demonstrates that his approach will do nothing even to retard, let alone stop, Iran and North Korea. 

Neither Bush nor Obama administration efforts toward international sanctions have had any measurable impact. The first Security Council sanctions on North Korea after its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons tests in 2006 did not stop Pyongyang from conducting further missile launches and a second nuclear detonation in 2009. Nor have the measures imposed after that second test, about which Obama boasted, impaired the North’s nuclear program or even brought Pyongyang back to the risible Six-Party Talks. Three sets of Security Council restrictions against Iran have only glancingly affected Tehran’s nuclear program, and the Obama administration’s threats of “crippling sanctions” have disappeared along with last year’s series of “deadlines” that Iran purportedly faced. In response, Tehran’s authoritarianism and belligerence have only increased.

With his counterproliferation strategies, such as they were, in disarray, Obama now pins his hopes on moral suasion, which has never influenced Iran, North Korea, or any other determined proliferator. Perhaps it would have been better had the president’s speech not mentioned national security at all.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is the author of Surrender Is Not an Option.