"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. Ronald Reagan Farewell Address 1989
The Obama Administration is having a hard time convincing the American people why the government should take over our health care system. Look no further than the Clunker Program.
The government runs out of money, the Senate approves an additional $2B, perfectly good used cars are destroyed, most of the dealers have not been paid, used car prices have risen, and now the showrooms are empty however the couple below have their feelings hurt.
Would someone please explain basic Economics and “Profit” to these liberal fools….
OC Register – Posted by Teri Sforza, September 21st, 2009
The sapphire blue 2001Nissan X-Terra was still in pretty fine shape – but, getting only 17 miles or so a gallon, it had “Cash for Clunkers“ written all over it.
So in August, Dan Hoang and girlfriend Tara Bui gathered up all the paperwork required by “Cash for Clunkers” – registration, title, proof of insurance - and went to Volkswagen of Garden Grove to ditch the gas guzzler and replace it with a more environmentally friendly VW Jetta.
They wanted the clean diesel Jetta – which would have qualified for the maximum $4,500 credit – but alas, the dealer didn’t have any. So they went with the regular model, got a $3,500 credit, and drove away content in the knowledge that the old Nissan would be destroyed, and that they had done their little part to make the planet a better place.
So imagine Hoang and Bui’s surprise when they breezed by the dealership days later, and saw its flashing sign advertising a pre-owned 2001 X-Terra for sale. Current price: $5,995.
Noooooooo. Could it be?
Hoang and Bui did some investigating, and yes, indeed, it was the very same sapphire blue 2001 Nissan X-Terra they had owned and thought was headed for the scrap heap.
“I had come to the dealership specifically because of the cash for clunkers program, but to see that the dealership trying to sell my old car strikes me as some sort of violation of an agreement,” Hoang wrote in a complaint last week to the U.S.Department of Transportation.
“I had brought in my car registration, the car title, and 1 year of auto insurance proof for the clunker, fulfilling my end of the cash for clunkers, the other was for the dealer to sell me a new car and to destroy my old one. One of the major reasons for me to bring the Xterra to the car dealer was due to the program’s requirement that all clunkers were to be destroyed…. If I had known that the dealership was using the car as a trade-in, then I would not have brought the car in, but simply kept the car for another year or two.”
We at The Watchdog contacted VW of Garden Grove to clear this up. There seems to have been a misunderstanding.
“They came in for the cash for clunkers, but we went out and looked at the car and decided it’s a pretty clean car, so we took the car on a trade-in,” said Ken O’Donnell of VW of Garden Grove. “We decided we’re going to give them the $3,500 they would have gotten from the clunker program as the trade-in. We’re not asking the government for any reimbursement.”
Indeed, the feds confirm that the dealership did not seek money for the Nissan under the cash-for-clunkers program. Hoang’s complaint was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Enforcement and Justice Services Division, which told him this by email:
“I certainly appreciate your feelings with respect to the transaction you had purchasing your new car. Because the deal was not submitted to the CARS program for a rebate, we have no jurisdiction. However, you have the option of referring the issue to Attorney General’s office in California, or local authorities for review.”
Hoang and Bui are contemplating doing just that, but don’t expect much to come of it. “I suspect many people are being deceived,” said Bui.
It’s unclear just how often this has happened – but we know of at least one other case of a Ford Explorer heading to a dealership as a clunker, and turning into a trade-in because of incomplete paperwork.
We’ve got calls in to a couple of consumer expert types about the ethics of all this, and will update this when we hear back.
Perhaps the people who wind up buying that X-Terra – and the Explorer – will be upgrading from their semis?
Hometown: Raynham, Mass.; graduated from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional High School, 1994.
Assignments: Before coming to Fort Drum, he served assignments at Fort Riley, Kan.; Camp Stanley, Korea (1st Battalion, 506th Infantry); Fort Bragg, N.C.; and Camp Casey, Korea.
Deployments: Kosovo and a previous tour in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004. Afghanistan, February 2006.
Today the President awarded Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in the East Room of the White House. Sergeant First Class Monti received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan, which the President recounted alongside his parents Paul and Janet Monti:
That’s when Jared Monti did what he was trained to do. With the enemy advancing — so close they could hear their voices — he got on his radio and started calling in artillery. When the enemy tried to flank them, he grabbed a gun and drove them back. And when they came back again, he tossed a grenade and drove them back again. And when these American soldiers saw one of their own — wounded, lying in the open, some 20 yards away, exposed to the approaching enemy — Jared Monti did something no amount of training can instill. His patrol leader said he’d go, but Jared said, “No, he is my soldier, I’m going to get him.”
It was written long ago that “the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet, notwithstanding, go out to meet it.” Jared Monti saw the danger before him. And he went out to meet it.
He handed off his radio. He tightened his chin strap. And with his men providing cover, Jared rose and started to run. Into all those incoming bullets. Into all those rockets. Upon seeing Jared, the enemy in the woods unleashed a firestorm. He moved low and fast, yard after yard, then dove behind a stone wall.
A moment later, he rose again. And again they fired everything they had at him, forcing him back. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire, Jared could have stayed where he was, behind that wall. But that was not the kind of soldier Jared Monti was. He embodied that creed all soldiers strive to meet: “I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” And so, for a third time, he rose. For a third time, he ran toward his fallen comrade. Said his patrol leader, it “was the bravest thing I had ever seen a soldier do.”
They say it was a rocket-propelled grenade; that Jared made it within a few yards of his wounded soldier. They say that his final words, there on that ridge far from home, were of his faith and his family: “I’ve made peace with God. Tell my family that I love them.”
And then, as the artillery that Jared had called in came down, the enemy fire slowed, then stopped. The patrol had defeated the attack. They had held on — but not without a price. By the end of the night, Jared and three others, including the soldier he died trying to save, had given their lives.
I’m told that Jared was a very humble guy; that he would have been uncomfortable with all this attention; that he’d say he was just doing his job; and that he’d want to share this moment with others who were there that day. And so, as Jared would have wanted, we also pay tribute to those who fell alongside him: Staff Sergeant Patrick Lybert. Private First Class Brian Bradbury. Staff Sergeant Heathe Craig.
And we honor all the soldiers he loved and who loved him back — among them noncommissioned officers who remind us why the Army has designated this “The Year of the NCO” in honor of all those sergeants who are the backbone of America’s Army. They are Jared’s friends and fellow soldiers watching this ceremony today in Afghanistan. They are the soldiers who this morning held their own ceremony on an Afghan mountain at the post that now bears his name — Combat Outpost Monti. And they are his “boys” — surviving members of Jared’s patrol, from the 10th Mountain Division — who are here with us today. And I would ask them all to please stand. (Applause.)
Like Jared, these soldiers know the meaning of duty, and of honor, of country. Like Jared, they remind us all that the price of freedom is great. And by their deeds they challenge every American to ask this question: What we can do to be better citizens? What can we do to be worthy of such service and such sacrifice?
Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti. In his proud hometown of Raynham, his name graces streets and scholarships. Across a grateful nation, it graces parks and military posts. From this day forward, it will grace the memorials to our Medal of Honor heroes. And this week, when Jared Monti would have celebrated his 34th birthday, we know that his name and legacy will live forever, and shine brightest, in the hearts of his family and friends who will love him always.
May God bless Jared Monti, and may He comfort the entire Monti family. And may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Jared C. Monti enlisted in the National Guard as a high school junior under the delayed entry program on March 11, 1993. He went to basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., between his junior and senior year of high school. After graduation, he switched over to active duty and completed his initial military training at Fort Sill, Okla. After graduating from his Advanced Individual Training, he was awarded the military operations specialty 13F, or Fire Support Specialist. A fire support specialist leads, supervises, and serves in an intelligence and target-processing role in Field Artillery units of all sizes across the Army.
After graduating from basic and AIT he was stationed at Fort Riley, Kan. Monti was then assigned to the Korean Peninsula as part of the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, in the demilitarized zone. After leaving Korea, he moved to Fort Bragg, N.C. From Fort Bragg he went back to Korea before eventually ending up at Fort Drum, N.Y.
His military education includes completing the Combat Life Savers course in 1995, Basic Airborne School in 1997, Primary Leadership Development Course in 1998, Basic Noncommissioned Officer course in 2001, Air Assault course in 2002 and the Joint Firepower/Control course in 2004.
His awards and decorations (prior to earning the Medal of Honor) include the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation Medal with four oak-leaf clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with three oak-leaf clusters, Good Conduct Medal 3rd Award, National Defense Service Medal (2), Korean Defense Service Medal (2), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2), Kosovo Campaign Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with numeral two, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral three, NATO Medal, Afghan Campaign Medal, Global War of Terrorism Service Medal, Combat Action Badge, Parachutist Badge and the Air Assault Badge.
Citation
Official Citation
Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti
United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:
Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a team leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006.
While Staff Sergeant Monti was leading a mission aimed at gathering intelligence and directing fire against the enemy, his 16-man patrol was attacked by as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Staff Sergeant Monti quickly directed his men to set up a defensive position behind a rock formation. He then called for indirect fire support, accurately targeting the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still directing fire, Staff Sergeant Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank his patrol. Staff Sergeant Monti then realized that one of his Soldiers was lying wounded in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol’s position.
With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his Soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow Soldier.
Staff Sergeant Monti’s selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Staff Sergeant Monti’s immeasurable courage and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the United States Army.
‘There was nothing that moved the needle,’ GOP chair says of today’s blitz.
Chicago Tribune – The Swamp by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama, acknowledging trouble in “breaking through” to the American public with his proposal for a health-care overhaul, made an unprecedented public push today with a series of nationally broadcast television interviews.
After months of pressing Congress for an overhaul of the nation’s health insurance, and making his case to a national audience in a televised address to a joint session of Congress, Obama today took his case to a network-sweeping round of Sunday talk show appearances.
In one interview aired this morning, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked the president if he had confronted any situation yet in which he said to himself, ”Wow, I’m going to have to step up my game.”
“There have been times where I have said, ‘I’ve got to step up my game in terms of talking to the American people about issues like health care,”’ Obama said. “During this whole health care debate… there have been times where I’ve… not so much lost control, but where I’ve said to myself, ‘Somehow I’m not breaking through…’
“This has been a sufficiently tough, complicated issue with so many moving parts that, you know, no matter how much I’ve… tried to keep it digestible, you know, it’s very hard for people to get their… whole arms round it,” Obama told Stephanopoulos. “And that’s been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder, because I — I really think it’s the right thing to do for the country.”
Obama, told that Senate Republicans believe they are “winning” the health-care debate, said with a smile during his interview on CNN’s State of the Union: “They said they were winning the election, too.”
“Right now, I’m pleased that basically we’ve got 80 percent agreement,” said Obama, suggesting that the newest, controversial Senate health-care bill “does meet some broad goals… We’ve got to work on that other 20 percent over the next few weeks.”
“The key is now just to narrow those differences,” Obama said on NBC News’ Meet the Press. “And if I don’t feel like it is a good deal for the American people, then I won’t sign a bill…. This is hard…. You know, one of the things I’ve always said is, if this had… been easy, it would have been taken care of by Teddy Roosevelt.”
“I think that the opposition has made a decision,” Obama said in an interview aired on Univision’s Al Punto Con Jorge Ramos. “They are just not going to support anything, for political reasons…. There’s some people who just cynically want to defeat me politically, but there’s nothing new about that.”
Republicans maintained today that the president should reconsider his plans and start the health-care debate anew.
“Winning is stopping, starting again and getting it right,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnelll, (R-Ky.) said today on CNN.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggested that the president’s round of network interviews today hadn’t amounted to much.
“I thought the president said a lot without saying anything,” Steele said on CBS’ Face the Nation. “There was nothing that moved the needle on this debate… This is not very helpful to the president right now…. It may have been nice to do the interviews, but I don’t think it advanced the debate on health care that much.”
“I don’t think I’ve promised too much at all,” Obama said on Face the Nation. “Everyone recognizes this is a problem. Everyone recognizes the current path we’re on is unsustainable…. We know that standing still is not an option.”
In the process, the president has promised no tax increases for Americans earning less than $250,000 a year.
“I can still keep that promise,” he said on CBS.
Asked if he has forfeited the idea of a “public option” for people who cannot find insurance privately, Obama told NBC: “No, that’s not true. What I’ve said is the public option, I think, should be a part of this but we shouldn’t think that, somehow, that’s the silver bullet that solves health care.”
“I absolutely do not believe that it’s dead,” Obama said of the public option on Univision. “I think that it’s something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort.”
On the Spanish-language Univision, Obama was asked about his promise to address immigration reform during his first year in office. “What I said is that this is going to be a tough fight and that we’re going to have to make sure that we are working as hard as we can to do it,” Obama said. “I am not backing off one minute from getting this done, but let’s face it, I’ve had a few things to do.”
The president confronted the tenor of the public debate over health-care – the “vitriol,” as he called it in one interview – in the network talks aired today.
“Unfortunately, we’ve got… a 24-hour news cycle where what gets you on the news is controversy,” he told NBC’s David Gregory. “What gets you on the news is the extreme statement. The easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news, or your 15 minutes of fame, is to be rude.”
Asked about the economy and when job losses might be stemmed, Obama said in the CNN interview: “What we’ve done in the first eight months is to stop the bleeding…. The financial markets are working again…. All the signs are that the economy is going to start growing again.
“The jobs picture is not going to improve considerably, and it could even get a little worse, this year,” he said.
Obama maintained in a round of network interviews, a first for a sitting president, on ABC News’ This Week, CBS News’ Face the Nation, NBC News’ Meet the Press, CNN’s State of the Union, and on Spanish-language Univision — that fear of “big changes” is behind much of the criticism that he faces now – not the racial prejudice which former President Jimmy Carter has cited as a motivating factor for the most extreme criticism of the president.
“What I’m proposing is a very modest attempt to make sure that hard-working families out there are going to have the security of health insurance that they can count on,” Obama said in an interview aired on ABC’s This Week. “This isn’t a radical plan. This isn’t grafting a single payer model onto the United States. It’s simply trying to deal with what everybody acknowledges is a big problem.
“I think that there are some opponents who have used — seized on this — and tried to use this as a proxy for saying that somehow we are vastly expanding government and taking over every sector of the economy,” he said. “That’s what a lot of this debate is about.”
Obama defended the Justice Department’s investigation into excesses in the interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration, in an interview that CBS News’ Face the Nation is airing.
The president said that the seven former CIA directors who asked him in a letter on Friday to stop the inquiry, warning that it could hamper the necessary work of CIA officers fighting terrorism, are trying “to look after an institution that they helped to build.” But, he said, he does not want to interfere with the investigation authorized by Atty Gen. Eric Holder.
“Nobody is above the law,” Obama said in his CNN interview. “I don’t want to start getting into the business of squelching investigations… It’s not a criminal investigation yet, to my understanding… I have no interest in witch hunts, but ultimately the law is the law, and we don’t go around picking and choosing how we enforce it.”
The president also insisted that his decision to abandon plans to build a defense missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was not meant to appease Russian leaders, who opposed the plan. In its place, the Defense Department plans a network of sensors and interceptors based at sea, on land and in the air in defense of possible attacks by Iran or others in the region.
“My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians,” Obama told CBS. “The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is.”
Obama was pressed in these interviews about his campaign promise to avert new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and he maintained that he can keep that promise with the health-care initiatives he is pressing – regardless of what critics and doubters say.
“The principles I’ve put forward very clearly, when I spoke to the joint session of Congress, is that we’re going to make sure that, No. 1, if you don’t have health insurance, you’re going to be able to get affordable health insurance,” Obama said on ABC. “No 2, if you have health insurance, we’re going to have insurance reforms that give you more security… No. 3, it’s going to be deficit neutral — it’s not going to add a dime to the deficit… No. 4, it’s going to start driving down our costs over the long-term.”
Obama called a roundly criticized bill advanced last week by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) “a strong effort to move an agenda forward.” That bill lacks the so-called “public option” for a government-run plan for people who cannot find coverage privately, which the president has maintained that he wants included and which House Democratic leaders call essential to any final legislation.
Stephanapoulos asked how a proposed requirement that all individuals have insurance, with fines for those who don’t, is not a tax increase.
Obama said he “absolutely” rejects the notion that the mandate is a tax increase.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said. “What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact thatright now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”
The ABC host said he had looked up ‘tax’ in Merriam Webster’s Dictionary – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on
persons or property for public purposes.”
“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” Obama replied. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”
But critics call Obama’s plans a tax increase, the host said.
“My critics say everything is a tax increase,” Obama said. “My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy.”
The president maintained that cuts in Medicare are possible – part of the framework for financing his plans – without cutting benefits for senior Americans who rely on the federal program for health care.
“The basic principle that is indisputable is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare that is not making people healthier,” Obama said. “What I have said is we’re not going to take a dollar out of the Medicare trust fund. We’re going to make sure that benefits are just as strong if not stronger.”
The president was asked in these interviews about Carter’s contention last week that the most extreme criticism for Obama is coming from people who cannot accept the fact that he is African American.
“Race is such a volatile issue in this society. Always has been,” Obama said on ABC. “It becomes hard for people to separate out race being… part of the backdrop of American society — versus race being a predominant factor .
“Are there some people who don’t like me because of my race? I’m sure there are,” he said. “Are there some people who vote for me only because of my race? There are probably some of those too. The overwhelming part of the American population I think is right now following the debate and trying to figure out is this (health-care plan) going to help me?”
“The one thing I hope is, is that we can have a civil argument about it and that we are able to acknowledge good motives on both sides,” Obama said on ABC. “Everybody is a patriot. Each of us are Americans that care deeply about this country.”
Obama said in the interviews airing today that some protesters are playing to the media, attempting to ride the “24-hour news cycle.”
“Sometimes I think that, frankly, the media encourages some of the outliers in behavior, because, let’s face it, the easiest way to get on television
right now is to be really rude. If you’re just being sensible and giving people the benefit of the doubt and you’re making your arguments, you don’t — you don’t get — you don’t get time on the nightly news.”
Stephanopoulos asked Obama about ACORN, the community organization that has been accused of fraud in voter registration and most recently has been targeted by undercover video reports of workers offering advice to a man and woman posing as a pimp and prostitute. The Senate has voted to cut off federal housing funding for the group, which assists the poor in finding housing. The House has voted to cut off all funding.
“Are there folks in the Democratic camp or on the left who haven’t … always operated ways that I’d appreciate? Absolutely,” Obama said. “I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money… What I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated (but) this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.”
On the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan, Obama told Stephanopoulos, “When we came in, basically, there had been drift in our Afghan strategy. Everybody acknowledges that. And I ordered a top to bottom review. ”
After authorizing an initial increase in U.S. forces there, Obama now is examining the next step – but maintained he has made no decision.
“I am now going to take all this information and we’re going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is if by sending young men and women into harm’s way, we are defeating al Qaeda and -that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me — somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops, then we will do what’s required to keep the American people safe.”
“We’ve got to figure out, what kind of partner do we have in Afghanistan,” Obama said on CNN. “The only thing I’ve said to my folks is, ‘A, I want an unvarnished assessment. But B, I don’t want to put the resource question before the strategy question…’ Right now, the first question is, are we doing the right thing, are we pursuing the right strategy? Once I have that clarity… then the question is, OK, how do we resource it?
“It’s not going to be driven by the politics of the moment,” he said.
“We’re not going to put the cart before horse,” Obama said on CBS, “and just think that, by sending more troops, we’re automatically going to keep Americans safe.”
On a Sunday show, the President offers a revealing definition.
President Obama didn’t make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows yesterday, with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good.
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the “individual mandate.” Under Max Baucus’s Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when “the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?”
“Well, hold on a second, George,” Mr. Obama replied. “Here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s . . .”
“That may be,” Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, “but it’s still a tax increase.” (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that’s another subject.)
Mr. Obama: “No. That’s not true, George. The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don’t call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: “But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—”
Mr. Obama: “No, but—but, George, you—you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
“I don’t think I’m making it up,” Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary’s definition of “tax”—”a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
Mr. Obama: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”
Mr. Stephanopoulos: ”I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.”
Mr. Obama: ”My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . .”
Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”
Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”
If you can follow this reasoning, then you probably also think that a new entitlement is the best way to reduce entitlement spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate’s individual mandate will result in new revenues of some $20 billion over 10 years because some people will choose to opt out of ObamaCare—or because they can’t afford to buy in, given that other taxes and regulation will make health care more expensive. If that $20 billion doesn’t count as tax revenue, then what is it?
And for that matter, what doesn’t count as a nontax under Mr. Obama’s definition? All taxes can be justified in the name of providing some type of service, however wasteful. Mr. Obama complains that “My critics say everything is a tax increase,” as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn’t want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 19, 2009
WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama highlighted the need for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to implement clearly enforced rules to help strengthen our financial markets and protect the interests of American consumers. The President also pointed to the aggressive and necessary action taken by his administration and other nations to stop our country’s economic freefall, and pledged to continue working with world leaders both at the upcoming G-20 summit and beyond to build on the progress already made.
The full audio of the address is HERE. The video can be viewed online at www.whitehouse.gov.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
September 19, 2009
Leaders of the world’s largest economies will gather next week in Pittsburgh for the second time this year. The first meeting of the G-20 nations in April came at the height of the global financial crisis – a crisis that required unprecedented international cooperation to jumpstart the world’s economies and help break the downward spiral that enveloped all our nations.
At next week’s summit, we’ll have, in effect, a five-month checkup to review the steps each nation has taken – separately and together – to break the back of this economic crisis. And the good news is that we’ve made real progress since last time we met – here at home and around the world.
In February, we enacted a Recovery Act, providing relief to Americans who need it, preventing layoffs, and putting Americans back to work. We’ve worked to unlock frozen credit markets, spurring lending to Americans looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses. And we’ve challenged other nations to join us not only to spur global demand, but to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep global recession in the first place.
Because of the steps taken by our nation and all nations, we can now say that we have stopped our economic freefall. But we also know that stopping the bleeding isn’t nearly enough. Our work is far from over. We know we still have a lot to do here at home to build an economy that is producing good jobs for all those who are looking for work today. And we know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation we found ourselves in just one year ago.
As I told leaders of our financial community in New York City earlier this week, a return to normalcy can’t breed complacency. To protect our economy and people from another market meltdown, our government needs to fundamentally reform the rules governing financial firms and markets to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot allow the thirst for reckless schemes that produce quick profits and fat executive bonuses to override the security of our entire financial system and leave taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up the mess. And as the world’s largest economy, we must lead, not just by word, but by example, understanding that in the 21st century, financial crises know no borders. All of us need to act more responsibly on behalf of a better economic future.
That is why, at next week’s G20 summit, we’ll discuss some of the steps that are required to safeguard our global financial system and close gaps in regulation around the world – gaps that permitted the kinds of reckless risk-taking and irresponsibility that led to the crisis. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to put in place a series of tough, common-sense rules of the road that will protect consumers from abuse, let markets function fairly and freely, and help prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.
Central to these reforms is a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on Wall Street, but also unsustainable mortgage loans made across the country. While many folks took on more than they knew they could afford, too often folks signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth. That’s why we need clear rules, clearly enforced. And that’s what this agency will do.
Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about loan contracts written to confuse, hidden fees attached to their mortgages, and financial penalties – whether through a credit card or debit card – that appear without a clear warning on their statements. And responsible lenders, including community banks, trying to do the right thing shouldn’t have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated and unscrupulous competitors.
Not surprisingly, lobbyists for big Wall Street banks are hard at work trying to stop reforms that would hold them accountable and they want to keep things just the way they are. But we cannot let politics as usual triumph so business as usual can reign. We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests of all of us. We cannot forget how close we came to the brink, and perpetuate the broken system and breakdown of responsibility that made it possible.
In the weeks and months ahead, we have an opportunity to build on the work we’ve already done. An opportunity to rebuild our global economy stronger that before. An opportunity not only to protect the American people and America’s economy, but to promote sustained and balanced growth and prosperity for our nation and all nations. And that’s an opportunity I am determined to seize.
So, thanks for listening and thanks for watching, and to our Jewish friends, who are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, have a happy and healthy New Year. Shanah Tovah.
WASHINGTON, DC – House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) says the country is in the midst of a “political rebellion” because his Democratic colleagues are “bankrupting America.”
The Ohio lawmaker told the Values Voter Summit in Washington Saturday that the Democratic agenda over the past several months has been “nothing short of breathtaking.” He noted that Democrats promised “jobs, jobs, jobs” with their 1,100-page stimulus, but instead America got “spending, spending, spending.”
Boehner said he is focused on taking the gavel away from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and during the debate over the” stimulus” package, some House Democrats accused him of being disrespectful for dropping the massive bill on the floor. The minority countered, saying “What’s disrespectful is wasting $800 billion and expecting our kids and grandkids to pay the bills.”
The congressman also railed against the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House, noting it would, among other things, impose a $1,750 energy tax on Americans and require “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to have ‘green mortgages.’” On healthcare, he pointed out that H.R. 3200 would create 51 new agencies, boards, commissions, and mandates.
Boehner also attempted to dispel claims that there is no taxpayer funding of abortion in the legislation, stating that “If you look at the bill in the House, it allows for taxpayer-funded abortions.”
The House minority leader concluded noting that, given their stimulus and energy tax bills and their promotion of a government-run healthcare bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and other Democratic leaders should not be surprised that so many Americans are showing up at TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties and town hall meetings.
In his Values Voter speech, former Education secretary and CNN commentator Bill Bennett echoed Boehner’s sentiment. “In January we [conservatives] were surrounded, now we’ve got them [liberals] on the run,” he contends.
According to Boehner, on Labor Day Weekend 18,000 people attended a TEA party one mile from his home in Westchester, Ohio, because they “want their country back.” He noted that grassroots activists realize liberals in Washington are “dimming the lights of opportunity for our kids and grandkids.”
Before ending his speech, Boehner called for the deployment of more American troops to Afghanistan, arguing that “if we walk away from the fight in Afghanistan, we will cede this territory to the Taliban and their cousins al-Qaeda….We cannot allow this to happen.”
The Crazy World Of Arthur Brown – Fire Video — DNC promises ‘rain of hellfire’ — Republicans steal Barack Obama’s internet campaigning tricks — Michelle Obama on ObamaCare: This is very much a women’s issue — Michelle Obama: US Health Care Is ‘Unacceptable’ Video — Hari Sevugan speaks — Nancy Pelosi Gets Weepy Video — Profile: Hari Sevugan
I am the god of hell fire, and I bring you
Fire, I’ll take you to burn
Fire, I’ll take you to learn
I’ll see you burn
You fought hard and you saved and earned
But all of it’s going to burn
And your mind, your tiny mind
You know you’ve really been so blind
Now ‘s your time, burn your mind
You’re falling far too far behind
Oh no, oh no, oh no, you’re gonna burn
Fire, to destroy all you’ve done
Fire, to end all you’ve become
I’ll feel you burn
You’ve been living like a little girl
In the middle of your little world
And your mind, your tiny mind
You know you’ve really been so blind
Now ‘s your time, burn your mind
You’re falling far too far behind
The increasingly aggressive Democratic National Committee on Friday launched a new “Call ’Em Out” website targeting prominent Republicans for statements they have made about President Barack Obama’s health reform plans.
“Help debunk the outrageous lies and misinformation about health reform,” the site says.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said: “The message to opponents of change who would lie or misrepresent the truth should be clear. We are going to respond forcefully and consistently with the facts, and you will no longer be able to peddle your lies with impunity. Through tools like ‘Call ‘Em Out,’ you will be met with a rain of hellfire from supporters armed with the facts and you will be held to account.”
The website is part of a larger, more aggressive approach taken by the White House through the DNC to push back against smears, distortions and misinformation. It’s taken various forms, including hitting back on Republican Medicare attacks with a TV ad that ran nationally and in 10 targeted members’ districts.
The DNC is focusing more on real-time response, with 18 e-mails on the night of the president’s speech to Congress and 10 real-time responses on White House czars on Wednesday.
“Every Republican that goes on TV or gets on a conference call or steps up to a mic is getting fact-checked,” a Democratic official said.
The new site’s opening target is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. A button urges visitors to “CALL PAWLENTY,” then gives his office number at the Minnesota Capitol.
One of the tools is a Twitter button that can automatically tweet: “Hey @timpawlenty, quit lying about health reform. … #CallEmOut.”
“Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recently claimed that health reform will lead to death panels — a claim so thoroughly debunked that [‘Morning Joe’ host] Joe Scarborough called him on his lies,” the site says. “And Pawlenty’s extreme behavior didn’t stop there. Watch the video, then take action to call him out.”
Alex Conant, a Pawlenty adviser, replied: “Seriously, why is the DNC’s attack squad so obsessed with T-Paw recently? The DNC’s attacks are a transparent attempt to avoid a serious discussion with Governor Pawlenty and other Republicans over how to fix health care. Rather than blindly trying to undermine Pawlenty, national Democrats could learn something from his record of balancing budgets and reforming health care without raising taxes.”
Since their election disaster, the right has used new media to gather strength, culminating in last weekend’s huge protest
guardian.co.uk, Ed Pilkington, 18 September 2009
Erik Telford remembers all too vividly the dark cloud hanging over him on 5 November 2008, the day after Barack Obama was elected president. For the internet strategist at the rightwing campaign group Americans for Prosperity, election night was a double disaster. Not only had Obama won the votes, he had outwitted his Republican opponents in his use of new media tricks such as email recruiting and social networking.
“The left was far ahead of us. The efforts that Obama put into internet campaigning and what he accomplished were extraordinary,” Telford says.
That cloud hung over the conservative movement for many weeks. A sense of crisis set in, he recalls, with bloggers, strategists and Republican politicians scrambling in different directions.
“There was a real lack of leadership, a lot of confusion.”
But then, almost imperceptibly, something started to happen. Telford noticed Google groups popping up, listserves on which people would send angry emails back and forth. The anger was stimulated by Obama’s $800bn stimulus package that was introduced five days into his presidency.
With very little leadership, the Google groups began to co-ordinate their response. People took on the onerous job of poring over the bill’s hundreds of pages of small print in search of wasteful spending, following the Wikipedia model of crowd-sourcing.
They began to uncover items that looked suspicious or ridiculous: electric golf carts, snow machines, a crime museum in Las Vegas. They passed the examples on to mainstream media outlets, notably the new face of the right, snake-tongued Glenn Beck of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News channel, who used it as ammunition to attack the young administration. The anger grew. When Americans for Prosperity put up its own petition against the bill on its website, it had 500,000 signatures within days.
“It was a huge wake-up call to all of us,” Telford says. “On the right, people had known new media was important but they were still hesitant about it. After the stimulus experience, no one was left in any doubt about its power.”
Less than eight months later, the seed planted in those anti-Obama Google groups has burst into flower on the streets of Washington. Tens – or even perhaps hundreds – of thousands of livid demonstrators filled the capital, brandishing banners saying “Don’t tread on me!” and “Obamunism” – a reference to the president’s perceived socialist or even communist tendencies. “Liar! Liar!”they shouted, echoing the outburst of a Republican congressman to Obama’s face last week.
The noise of that startling crowd could be heard rumbling on throughout this week. Democrats rushed to dismiss the display of rightwing force as the work of mavericks and extremists. Jimmy Carter upped the ante by suggesting the vitriol was racist: many people in America, he said, believed a black man should not be president.
For Telford, though, dismissing the eruption as extremist or racist was to miss the point. For him, the 9/12 rally marked the moment at which conservative America finally embraced the new world and recovered its confidence. He believes the movement is now close to catching up with the Democrats in terms of internet savviness; in some ways he contends it has even surpassed them, particularly on Twitter, where much of the heavy lifting behind the so-called “tea parties” against Obama’s tax and other policies is being done.
Matt Kibbe, who heads FreedomWorks, a national conservative group that led the push behind last Saturday’s rally, goes further. He says that the movement has stolen from Obama the techniques he used to such effect last year and is now redeploying them as a stick with which to beat the president.
When Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, FreedomWorks studied how he did it and then copied him. They set up a ning site, a Facebook-like platform that allows members to talk to each other without having to go through the parent body. The result was explosive…
…Just how far the movement can go to lift the Republican party out of its doldrums and re-energise it in Congress will become clear next year with the first major electoral test of the Obama presidency: the mid-term elections. According to Peter Brown, a pollster at Quinnipiac University, Republicans tend to turn out in higher numbers in off-year elections, which makes the tea parties highly relevant. “Enthusiasm matters: the more angry people are, the more likely they are to vote. All this activism and demonstrating is not necessarily the end for Obama, but it’s certainly not good news.”
The historical parallel on everybody’s mind is 1994, when Clinton’s young presidency was bloodied by Republicans taking over the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. It is perhaps no coincidence that the most popular conservative on Twitter, with almost a million followers, is Newt Gingrich, architect of that same revolution.
All of which makes Kibbe think that those Democrats who try to pigeonhole the tea parties as a crank phenomenon are playing into the anti-Obama movement’s hands. “The Democrats who want to marginalise this movement are making a big mistake. They are insulting the people who they should be courting, and every time they do that our numbers seem to double in size.”
Michelle Obama on ObamaCare: This is very much a women’s issue
Hot Air: by Allahpundit, September 18, 2009
“The status quo is unacceptable,” she says, ignoring the fact that a near-majority thinks the status quo is very much acceptable indeed when the alternative is ObamaCare. Ah well. This is, as predicted, the “soccer-mom sell,” aimed squarely at women who might otherwise balk at the plan’s pricetag and/or their suspicions that their families will do worse with universal health care than without it. And yes, before you ask, of course there was a heartwarming anecdote about children to cement the emotional appeal. Less heartwarming is her prior involvement in “patient dumping” when she advised a hospital in Chicago. America’s forgotten but the boss hasn’t:
While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an “Urban Health Initiative,” Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to “dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents.” The program guaranteed “free” shuttle rides to and from the outside clinics.
In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming “RAAAAAAAAACISM!” at the top of their lungs…
Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Mr. Axelrod’s grand plan. The group released a statement expressing “grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA)” – signed by President Reagan, by the way – “and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”
Americans of all stripes are asking legitimate questions about the Democrats’ move toward an unprecedented takeover of our health care system. Despite the peaceful expressions of resistance to the takeover occurring around the country, the Obama administration and its congressional supporters such as Nancy Pelosi have used their offices to stigmatize citizens exercising their right to petition their elected representatives.
Condemning these citizens as mobs, the Obama administration apparently seek to prepare the public for the cracking of heads we have seen by administration supporters at townhall events this week. While Obama supporters dispatched union thugs to act like brownshirts of yore, Obama’s minions at the DNC released a statement yesterday announcing its “REACTION [sic] to the [purported] use of Nazi symbolism from the right wing.” Among the alleged malefactors accused by the DNC of fomenting Nazism was House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, the House’s only Jewish Republican.
Thus speaks DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan: “It’s disgusting that rather than condemning this hate filled symbolism and mob activity, the highest echelons of the Republican party from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on down, are encouraging it — and that the likes of Michael Steele and Eric Cantor are fanning the flames of this is reprehensible.” Sevugan alleges that Rep. Cantor et al. are responsible for the “repeated use of Nazi symbolism at community meetings by the Republican incited mob…” What a crock, all the way around.
Sevugan’s expertise in Nazi symbolism, incidentally, does not extend to Hitler’s first name. He misspells it “Adolph.”
We sought a response to the DNC statement from Rep. Cantor, but it turns out he could not be reached for comment. He was touring the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem at the same moment that the DNC was defaming him at home. If there is anyone with a sense of decency among the powers that be among the Democrats, he should secure an apology from the DNC to Rep. Cantor.
UPDATE: One sign of Sevugan’s project in the press release is the treatment he accords Rush Limbaugh. Sevugan singles out Rush as the de facto leader of the Republican Party. I should have noted that Rush Limbaugh responded to the crock peddled by Sevugan and other Obama minions on his show yesterday. Jonah Goldberg apably dispatched Pelosi’s version of the party line yesterday as well, and Mark Steyn gets a piece of the action today.
Hari Sevugan
Current Position: National Press Secretary and head of rapid response at the Democratic National Committee (since March 2009)
Sevugan was born in Madras, India in 1974. Two years later, his parents moved to Glendale Heights, Ill., a western suburb of Chicago, where his father worked in marketing and his mother was a small-business owner. He went to the University of Illinois in Champaign, Ill., and studied political science. But when he graduated, Sevugan didn’t immediately enter politics. Instead, he worked as a middle-school teacher in New York.
Sevugan said he loved teaching middle school because the students were old enough to have developed personalities but young enough to be gullible and fun to joke around with. He once dyed his hair blond in front of the entire school after losing a bet with his students. “It was very rewarding,” Sevugan said. But after two years, he became frustrated with the bureaucracy outside of the classroom. “I thought a greater way to make a difference would be through a policy role,” Sevugan said.Whorunsgov.com interview with Hari Sevugan on March 26, 2009
He changed course and attended Northwestern University Law School. After graduation, he worked for a few years for the law firm of Neal, Gerber and Eisenberg in Chicago.. In 2004, Sevugan was recruited to work on his first political campaign: Illinois Comptroller Daniel Hynes’ unsuccessful run against Barack Obama in the 2004 Democratic primary during for Senate.
From there, Sevugan hit the road, heading from campaign to campaign. He was recruited to work as research and policy director for Kentucky Governor Daniel Mongiardo’s (D) 2004 run against Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Sevugan said that was a fun, intense campaign because they were on a shoestring budget in the Republican state. The Democratic challenger had no direct mail and aired just two television ads. The small staff allowed Sevugan to work on all facets of the campaign. Mongiardo lost, but closed the gap in the final few months of the campaign.
Sevugan had better luck when he joined Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) successful 2005 gubernatorial campaign
as policy director. It was the opposite of Mongiardo’s campaign: high-profile, national attention and well-funded. After Kaine’s victory, Sevugan went north to Maryland where he served as communications director for then-Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley (D) in his successful run for Maryland governor, scoring another high-profile race.
Dodd and Obama Presidential Campaigns
From there, Sevugan joined the presidential campaign of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), another relatively underfunded enterprise in which the senator was a distinct underdog. But Dodd got some attention for moving to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation caucuses, and ran a cyber-savvy effort that utilized Twitter, YouTube and blogs. But Dodd’s campaign never gained traction and the lawmaker pulled out of the race shortly after losing the Iowa caucuses.
When Dodd dropped out, Sevugan, who is a big Cubs fan and cites Bill Simmons as his favorite writer, returned to Chicago, where he joined Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Initially, he received the “Hillary Clinton Account,” and was in charge of rapid response against the former first lady. After the primary, he took aim at GOP nominee and vice presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Alaska Gov.Sarah Palin (R).
After Obama won, Sevugan continued to press the Democratic political agenda as national press secretary for the DNC. “You’re still trying to accomplish the same thing, which is get your message out and explain to people why it’s better to listen to us,” Sevugan said. “The way I always ran my policy shops was I felt policy was very much a tool for communicating your message.”
“In a news cycle that’s as fast-paced as the one we’re currently living in, getting your message out as quickly as possible is critical,” Sevugan said.Whorunsgov.com interview with Hari Sevugan on March 26, 2009 Sevugan works with a large DNC team dedicated to getting out the message of the day, or in many cases the message of the hour.
On Sevugan’s first day with the 2008 Obama presidentialcampaign, the Tennessee Republican Party released a video highlighting Michelle Obama’s comments that she was proud of America “for the first time in my adult life.” The video became a rallying cry for Republicans who accused the future first lady of being unpatriotic.
Almost immediately, Sevugan called the video “shameful,” saying the GOP’s “smear tactics” would fail and challenging the GOP to take on Obama, not his wife.Mooney, Alexander, “Michelle Obama takes heat from Tennessee GOP,” CNN.com, May 15, 2008 Nonetheless, the first lady seemed to tone down her rhetoric following the misstep and began to emphasize issues like outreach to veterans’ wives.
New Media
Rapid response often involves more than a creative quote or perfect jab. The press team at the DNC closely monitors the cable news channels and YouTube videos and is ready to blast clips to reporters and blogs, the go-to outlets for rapid response teams. Within an hour after Republicans released their proposed budget for 2009, for instance, Sevugan had released a statement hitting the budget for containing no numbers. He also sent out a video clip of a reporter questioning the budget for its lack of numerical heft.
Sevugan is familiar with new media in campaign settings (when Sevugan was his communications director, Dodd was using Twitter to promote his presidential campaign back in 2007) and has a good relationship with bloggers. In fact, in 2009, the DNC expanded its regional press offices to include new media and bloggers, which they consider an important part of the rapidly-changing media landscape.
A Bad Day for Freedom — Reversal on Missile Defense Shield in Europe Video — Russia positive on new US defense plans — Inhofe Decries Cancellation of Missile Defense Shield Video — Morning Bell: Surrender and Betrayal Do Not Make Us Safer — CBO Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe
This “is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence.”
Thus spake Mirek Topolanek, former prime minister of the Czech Republic, upon hearing news that the Obama Administration was scrapping plans to continue building long-range missile defenses in Europe. “It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat.”
This is a neat summary not only of the Czech Republic’s strategic position, but also that of all of America’s allies, be they in eastern or western Europe, the greater Middle East, South or East Asia. Ultimately, this is not about the utility of missile defenses, relations with Russia or Iran, but about the United States and its role as the guarantor of international security.
Nearly every day brings a new and chilling wind from the White House for our allies. Today it is felt in central Europe. Meanwhile, an agonized Obama cannot decide whether he’s really committed to winning “the Good War” in Afghanistan; the administration is eternally debating “first principles” rather than effective ways and means. Meanwhile, Pakistan is accelerating its nuclear program against the day when Washington turns its head. Meanwhile, Iraqi factions are jockeying for advantage after the Americans go; they already understand they’ve been forgotten. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration’s “strategic partnership” with India is on hold. Meanwhile, a new Japanese government contemplates life alone in the shadow of rising China and a defiant North Korea. Meanwhile, Australia begins to “hedge” against the ebbing of American power in the Pacific. Meanwhile, the Pentagon conducts a defense review asking not how much is enough, but how little can we get by on.
The Obama Administration is proving to be not a collection of foxy tacticians, but a collective hedgehog that knows one big thing: political capital spent exercising American power abroad is capital lost in reshaping American society at home. But the United States cannot preserve the liberal international order if it adopts an economy-of-force approach. Nor will that order – or the general peace, prosperity and growth of liberty that are its distinguishing features – long survive.
There is a pattern here. The individual data points add up. Each decision marks a seemingly small retreat. But the larger picture is increasingly clear, if not yet to us than to the rest of the world, friend and foe alike: America is tired, and turning inward.
Retreating in the face or Russian foot-stomping is especially telling. Consider, for a moment, how Chinese strategy treats Russia: the Chinese know Russia is a collapsing empire, a demographic nightmare, and soon to be a third-rate military power. The Chinese, confident of their “rise,” are patient. They’ve mostly stopped buying Russian weapons, beyond the occasional bargain-basement deal. They are most certainly not looking for the “reset” button. They look ahead, not backward.
To be sure, we have a larger and more immediate agenda with Moscow. But each item has become a measure of our weakness and weariness: the response to the invasion of Georgia, fear of further NATO expansion, access to Afghanistan, reneging on missile defenses and desperation to sign a new nuclear arms control treaty. As Russia declines, we’re trying to console it for its losses; China wonders how to feast on the remains.
This is not good news for free states, or for the larger cause of freedom and independence.
“Russia has noted the announcement President Barack Obama made today about adjustments in the US position on missile defense,” Medvedev said. “I discussed this subject with the US president during our meetings in both London and Moscow. We agreed and wrote in our joint statement that Russia and the US will do their best to asses risks related to missile proliferation in the world.”
Thursday’s announcement by Washington, the Russian leader said, demonstrates “that we now have favorable conditions for this work.”
He added that detailed consultations between experts from both states will be needed.
“And, of course, our country is ready for them,” he assured.
The president added that on September 23, during a meeting with Obama in New York, “we’ll have a good opportunity to exchange our views on all matters of strategic stability, including missile defense.”
He said he hopes that “we’ll be able to give instructions to the appropriate departments after [the meeting] on stepping up bilateral interaction that will embrace European and other interested states at later stages.”
“We will work together to develop effective measures regarding the risks of missile proliferation, measures which will take into account the interests and concerns of all parties and provide equal security for all countries in Europe,” Medvedev said.
He added that Russia appreciates Obama’s “approach to implementing our agreements and readiness to continue the dialogue.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said he hopes a meeting between Presidents Medvedev and Obama next week will shed more light on the new American missile shield plan.
He said that only after carefully investigating new threats against Russia and the US can Moscow “elaborate the military response.”
“We do understand that in this world we have a lot of threats,” Rogozin said. “Maybe some country wants to use missile technologies against its enemies.”
But in any case, he said, a first step should be not a military response, but an analysis and investigation of possible threats.
“We are waiting for new Obama’s concrete proposal on how Washington and Moscow can start this mutual understanding,” Rogozin said.
Last month we reported that news outlets in Poland were saying that the Obama administration had made the decision to abandon our anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Today Czech Premier Jan Fischer confirmed those reports telling reporters that President Obama phoned him overnight to say that “his government is pulling out of plans to build a missile defense radar on Czech territory.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is justifying its decision on their determination that Iran’s long-range missile program hasn’t progressed as rapidly as previously estimated. This despite the facts that:
On February 2nd, Iran successfully launched a satellite into orbit using a rocket with technology similar to that used in a long-range ballistic missile.
On May 20th, Iran test-fired a 1200-mile solid-fueled two-stage ballistic missile.
On July 15th, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, BND, announced that Iran will be able to produce and test a nuclear weapon within six months. BND also stated that it has “no doubt” that Iran’s missile program is aimed solely at the production of nuclear warheads.
On August 3rd, The Times of London reported that Western intelligence sources concluded that Iran has not only perfected the technology to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, could assemble a weapon in just six months, and could deliver the weapon on Iran’s Shebab-3 ballistic missile.
Just yesterday French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program.”
The only country other than Iran that is happy with President Obama’s decision is Russia. State Duma foreign affairs committee head Konstantin Kosachev told the Associated Press: “The U.S. president’s decision is a well-thought (out) and systematic one. Now we can talk about restoration of (the) strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.” But, in fact, the missile defense capitulation is just one in a long line of Obama surrenders to Russia. Heritage fellow Ariel Cohen explains from Moscow:
All these concessions the Russians pocketed, smiled, and moved on to new demands: European security reconfiguration; additional global reserve currency which would weaken the dollar; and a strong push-back on sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program. …. While the Russians clearly like the better atmospherics, and somewhat toned down the shrill anti-American rhetoric, the Iranians and the Venezuelans, who also received Obama’s “stretched hand” and, in case of Hugo Chavez, a pat on the back, are refusing to play ball. They, like their friends in Moscow, are also pocketing concessions while continuing the mischief.
The decision to abandon the “third site” deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic violates President Obama’s pledge to support missile defense that is “pragmatic and cost-effective.” Ground based missile defense is effective, affordable, and available now. According to the Congressional Budget Office, alternatives to the third site do not provide a comparable level of defense. The CBO concluded that the estimated $9-14 billion 20-year cost of the third site was half of the estimated costs of a sea-based alternative. Abandoning our best missile defense option in Europe only encourages Iran to speed up their ballistic missile program so that they can get their threat in place before a European missile defense system is available.
The Poles and the Czechs know what it means to live under the boot of Russian domination. The third-site issue is of huge symbolic importance to both nations, and if Moscow emerges the victor, with an effective veto over U.S. policy in Europe, it would represent a massive surrender of American strategic influence and a betrayal of two of its closest friends in the region.
Go to 33minutes.comfor more on missile defense, the threat posed to us and our allies by nuclear weapons, and the action plan necessary to revive a strategic missile defense system that only America can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world’s security.
Quick Hits:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) joined the anti-czar criticism of the Obama administration yesterday, sending a letter to the White House asking Obama to detail the roles and responsibilities of all of the czars in his administration and to explain why he believes the use of czars is consistent with the Senate’s constitutional power to offer advice and consent on top-level executive branch officials.
According to Gallup, 56% of Americans do not believe President Obama’s claims that he can fund his health care plan through cost savings in Medicare and other parts of the existing health care system.
As part of ongoing efforts to protect the United States and its allies from attack by ballistic missiles, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is working to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. As proposed, the system would be fielded by 2013 and would include interceptor missiles in silos to be built in Poland, a tracking radar in the Czech Republic, and another radar at an unspecified location near Iran. The goal of the system, according to MDA, is to “defend [U.S.] allies and deployed forces in Europe from limited Iranian longrange threats and expand protection of [the] U.S. homeland.”
MDA’s proposed system is controversial. Some critics argue that testing of the system to date has been insufficient to verify that it will function as intended. Other critics argue that even if the system performs according to expectations, it is unnecessary given the current status of Iranian missile development and the likelihood of an Iranian missile attack on Europe or the United States. The United States has signed agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to host the missile defense system, but those agreements have been the subject of debate in the host nations and have not yet been fully ratified by their parliaments.
The system as proposed would not be able to defend some areas—including parts of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Turkey—that are within striking distance of missiles that Iran has tested or claims to have developed. The Russian government has also sharply protested the deployment by the United States of missile defenses in eastern Europe.
In this study, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) compares the potential cost and performance of MDA’s proposed European system with the cost and performance of three other options for deploying missile defenses in Europe, as follows:
Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptors located on U.S. Navy Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) ships operating at three locations around Europe, supported by two transportable forward based radars (FBRs);
Ground-based SM-3 Block IIA interceptors operating from mobile launchers located at two existing U.S. bases (Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey), supported by two transportable forward-based radars; and
Ground-based Kinetic Energy Interceptors (KEIs, a new high-acceleration interceptor MDA is developing that could be based either in silos or on mobile transporters), operating from mobile launchers located at two existing U.S. bases in Europe (Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey), supported by two transportable forward based radars.
CBO developed the alternatives using components that are already being planned rather than entirely new systems. Like MDA’s proposal, the alternatives are all midcourse-phase defense systems, which would intercept an enemy missile after its rocket booster had burned out and the missile was “coasting” on a ballistic trajectory above the atmosphere. (For an introduction to ballistic missiles, see Appendix A.) CBO’s analysis assumes that all the components of the proposed defenses and alternatives to them will perform according to MDA’s current expectations. Many observers would argue that assumption is optimistic, however, because it has not been verified by testing.
Besides protecting parts of Europe, MDA’s proposed European system is intended to give the United States an extra layer of defense against potential Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) beyond that provided by U.S.-based interceptors. CBO’s analysis indicates that interceptors of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system already in place at two bases in the United States—supported by radars currently slated to be incorporated into the system by 2012—would provide defensive coverage to more than 99 percent of the U.S. population against ICBMs from Iran.
MDA’s proposed European system would extend defensive coverage to the other 1 percent of the U.S. population. It would also provide redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States. Such redundancy gives system operators more flexibility: Interceptors launched from Europe against a U.S.-bound ICBM would engage the missile early in its trajectory, allowing operators to determine whether the intercept was successful and still have enough time to launch a second interceptor from the United States, if necessary.
CBO compared the proposed deployment and the alternatives to it on the basis of the defense of Europe that they would provide, the additional defense of the United States they would provide relative to the defense provided by the existing Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, their costs, and when the alternatives could be available. Using those four criteria, CBO’s analysis suggests the following:
Defense of Europe. All of the alternatives CBO considered would provide defense of most of Europe roughly equivalent to the defense provided by MDA’s proposal against most types of ballistic missiles that Iran is thought to have developed or could develop in the future. Because the alternatives CBO considered would locate interceptors closer to Iran than MDA’s planned system, they would generally provide more extensive defense of southeastern Europe than would MDA’s proposal. Moreover, because they would be composed of mobile or transportable components, deploying the alternative systems would not require building permanent facilities—including missile silos—at European sites. However, none of the systems that CBO analyzed, including the system proposed by MDA, would be capable of defending all of Europe against all of the threat missiles that Iran has either already tested or might develop.
Extended Defense of the United States. MDA’s proposed system would complement the coverage already available from U.S.-based interceptors by providing redundant defense from a third interceptor site for all of the continental United States. None of the alternatives considered by CBO provide as much additional defense of the United States. Deploying Kinetic Energy Interceptors would add defense from a third redundant interceptor site for about 75 percent of the U.S. population in range of ICBMs from Iran. Deploying land-based or sea-based Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA interceptors would provide additional defense for about one-half or less of the U.S. population.
Costs. For roughly the same cost as MDA’s European system—a total of about $9 billion to $14 billion over 20 years—the United States could deploy either SM-3 interceptors or Kinetic Energy Interceptors at its existing bases in Germany and Turkey, supported by tracking radars in Azerbaijan and Qatar. At greater cost, the United States could deploy SM-3 interceptors on U.S. Navy ships and station them permanently at three locations in European waters. That system would cost almost twice as much as MDA’s proposal—a total of about $18 billion to $26 billion over 20 years—largely because CBO assumed that the Navy would need to buy additional ships to operate it.
Availability. The alternatives that CBO examined might not be available as early as MDA’s proposed European system. MDA’s plans call for that system to be fully fielded by 2013, although constraints that the Congress has placed on the availability of funds could delay its completion. Given the U.S. military’s development schedules for various interceptors, the two alternative systems using SM-3 Block IIA interceptors could be available around 2015, but the system using Kinetic Energy Interceptors probably would not be available until sometime after 2018. Deploying the alternatives considered by CBO would require surmounting technical challenges similar to those associated with deploying MDA’s proposed system.
MDA’s Plans for European Missile Defenses
Developing defenses against ballistic missiles has long been a goal of the Department of Defense (DoD) and was particularly emphasized by the Bush Administration.
Early U.S. efforts at missile defense (such as the 1960sera Nike-Zeus program) were aimed at countering the vast Soviet missile arsenal. Recent efforts are more modest in scope. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 states, “It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).”
DoD’s Missile Defense Agency has the mission of “develop[ing] and field[ing] an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight.”3 In its budget request for fiscal year 2009, MDA divided its efforts to fulfill that mission into a series of “blocks,” each based on a particular desired capability:
Block 1.0—Defend the United States from limited North Korean long-range threats;
Block 2.0—Defend allies and deployed forces from short- to medium-range threats in one region or theater;
Block 3.0—Expand defense of the United States to include limited Iranian long-range threats;
Block 4.0—Defend allies and deployed forces in Europe from limited Iranian long-range threats and expand protection of the U.S. homeland; and
Block 5.0—Expand defense of allies and deployed forces from short- to intermediate-range threats in two regions or theaters.
Block 1.0 is nearing completion, and most of the work on Blocks 2.0 and 3.0 is expected to occur over the next two years. The other blocks are mainly in the planning and development stages.
The Block 4.0 program centers on establishing a European Interceptor Site (EIS) in Poland, where silos would be constructed to hold 10 ground-based, midcoursephase interceptors. The EIS would be supported by the European Midcourse Radar (EMR), an X-band tracking radar that is slated to be moved from its current location in the Pacific to the Czech Republic. MDA’s plans also call for deploying a forward-based short-wavelength radar somewhere closer to Iran. That radar would provide tracking earlier in the trajectory of an enemy missile (usually referred to as a threat missile) and thus would extend the area defended by the interceptors. MDA has not specified a location for the forward-based radar in its public statements.
In the President’s 2009 budget, MDA requested total funding of $3.9 billion over the 2008–2013 period for the Block 4.0 system, including operations and support in those years.5 That budget request was based on a plan in which both the EIS and EMR become operational in 2012 and all of the interceptors are in place in Poland by 2013. However, limits on the availability of funding that the Congress included in the 2009 defense authorization bill could delay the fielding of the system. Those limits make funding contingent on final approval of missile defense agreements with the countries hosting facilities and on certification by the Secretary of Defense that the proposed interceptor has successfully completed “operationally realistic” flight testing.
Controversies About MDA’s Proposed System
MDA argues that establishing a missile defense capability in Europe is necessary to address a ballistic missile threat that is “real and growing.”6 According to the agency’s technical analysis, the proposed Block 4.0 system would provide additional defense of the United States against ICBMs launched from the Middle East and would defend most of Europe against medium- and intermediate-range missiles launched from the Middle East.7 However, a number of observers have argued that the testing conducted to date has been insufficient to verify that the Block 4.0 system will function according to MDA’s expectations.
Moreover, as proposed, the system would not defend some areas in southeastern Europe—including some member countries of NATO—against short- or medium range missiles launched from Iran. Extending defensive coverage to those areas would require the United States or NATO to provide additional defensive systems.
The Secretary General of NATO has emphasized the importance of complete coverage for NATO members, stating, “We have no A league or B league in NATO. Every NATO ally is entitled to the same kind of protection.”
In a statement following the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO “recognise[d] the substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European based United States missile defence assets” but also called for developing “options for a comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered by the United States system.”
Russia has objected to the U.S. proposal to deploy missile defenses in Europe, questioning the immediacy of an Iranian threat and arguing that the proposed system is actually intended to defend against Russian missiles. The United States and Russia have held several rounds of high-level talks about the proposal. Those discussions have reportedly included the possibility of Russia’s cooperation and the use of Russian radars in the system.
In April 2008, the two nations released a strategic framework declaration in which “the Russian side has made clear that it does not agree with the decision to establish” missile defense sites in Europe but that left open the door to negotiate about the issue and “to intensify our dialogue…on issues concerning [missile defense] cooperation both bilaterally and multilaterally.”
Although the U.S. Secretary of State signed an agreement with the Czech government in July 2008 to host the EMR and an agreement with the Polish government in August 2008 to host the EIS, neither of those agreements has been finalized. The parliaments of the Czech Republic and Poland need to ratify the agreements, and press reports indicate that a majority of the public in those countries opposes hosting the systems.
The agreement with the Polish government calls for basing a U.S. battery of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles in Poland; details about which existing PAC-3 battery will be moved to Poland have yet to be announced.
Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer gestures during the press conference in Prague on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009. Fischer announced that the United States withdrew from the plans to build missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland about which U.S. President Barack Obama informed him by phone. (AP Photo,CTK/Michal Kamaryt)
This is a non-commercial website for personal, research, and educational use only. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Due diligence has been undertaken on each posting providing content (with credit and link) from public domain sources as allowed in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as amended, United States Copyright Act, Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
Upon receipt of a notification of claimed infringement, LuckyBogey's Blog will respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity.
For additional DMCA information, please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/).
