Categories
Healthcare United States

Is The Individual Mandate Constitutional? Its Creator Says…

In a recent interview conducted by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, with one of the original authors of the individual mandate – the piece of language in the health care reform bill that requires Americans to purchase health insurance, but is attacked by Republicans as “unconstitutional,” – was asked if the constitutionality of the mandate was ever questioned back in 1991 when the term was first used.

Mr. Mark Pauly, who was the lead author of a Health Affairs paper, was given the job to come up with a way to persuade President George H.W. Bush to adopt a health care policy where all Americans will be covered, while keeping the private health care providers in charge of the industry. The individual mandate was seen as the only way to accomplish this feat.

The question was asked by Mr. Klein; “Was the constitutionality of the provision a question, either in your deliberations or after it was released?” Mr. Pauly answered;

“I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been surprised at that argument. But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost — Congress definitely has the power to do that — and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they’ll get a tax break of the same amount. So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something.”

Opponents of the law, which they have affectionately dubbed ‘ObamaCare,’ states that the law violates the Commerce Clause in the constitution, which, according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 states that Congress shall have the power to: “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This its opponents claim, does not give congress the power to mandate commerce, or to make anyone buy insurance, thus, its unconstitutionality.

Proponents claim that the power given to Congress through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is a grant of power, not an express limitation on the power of Congress to regulate the economy, thus, the law is giving Congress the power to improve the economy through the individual mandate and is therefore constitutional.

This ongoing debate prompted the next question from Mr. Klein, “…whether the individual mandate is a penalty for economic inactivity or whether it’s part of a broader system of regulations affecting a market for health care that we’re all participating in.” Mr. Pauly answered;

I see it in the latter way. We thought it was a good idea to do everything possible to encourage people to get insurance. Subsidies will probably pick up the great bulk of the population. But the point of the mandate was that there are a few Evil Knievals who won’t buy it and this would bring them into the system. In our version, the penalty was effectively equal to the premium of a policy. You paid the penalty and you got the insurance. That’s one of my puzzlements here: In the new law, the actual level of the penalty is quite small compared to the price of a policy. It’s only about 20 percent of the cost of a policy

In short, at the time this ‘individual mandate’ was implemented and presented to a Republican president, the common wisdom was that it would keep the government out of the healthcare sector. Requiring people to buy healthcare as the mandate did back in the early nineties, insured a larger portion of Americans and eliminated the need for a single payer government run option.

Because the private sector would benefit from the increased policies sales the individual mandate provided, Republicans signed on to the measure. Democrats on the other hand did not approve of the measure.

So why  now the debate on the constitutionality of the individual mandate coming from the right?  Simply put, there is now a Democratic President in the White House, and although he and other Democrats have now seen the need for the individual mandate as a way to allow the private sector to offer health care to all, Republicans now have a change of heart. So the debate, childish as it is, continues…

See the full interview here.

Categories
Politics United States Environmental Protection Agency

Republicans Are Now Attacking The Air You Breathe

New legislation is being introduced in the Senate by John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming that will take away the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, also called the EPA.

This has always been a goal of the Republican party, and now with the numbers they’ve gained in the House of Representatives and the Senate, they are determined to pursue their ill-advised goals.

So what will Mr. Barrasso’s  new legislation do?

  • It will overturn the EPA’s 2009 finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are harmful to public health and the environment.
  • It will stop any actions by the EPA to regulate or stop any greenhouse gas emission without approval from the Congress
  • It will stop any federal laws from discussing or referring to global warming. These laws includes the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The bill will also allow regulation on pollutants and other greenhouse gases to go forward if an immediate threat is posed to the general public, so if a company continues to expose the public to polluted air that may possibly pose a threat in the future, then according to this bill, no regulation will be allowed on the companies.

The bill will also allow a previously negotiated vehicle mileage and emission standard agreement to go forward, but it takes away the power to manage how the regulations are enforced from the EPA and shifts the responsibility to the Department of Transportation.

The global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Joe Mendelson, disagrees with the basis of Mr. Barrasso’s bill.  Mr. Mendelson, who was part of the legal team that won the Supreme Court case that led to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public welfare and the environment, said;

“It would create a parade of polluter loopholes allowing for unlimited carbon pollution. Americans don’t want Congress undermining The EPA’s work on new clean vehicle standards and cleaning up dirty smokestacks.”

In a statement, Mr. Barrasso explains the reasoning for his bill;

“It’s time for the administration to face the facts: Americans rejected cap and trade because they know it means higher energy prices and lost jobs. Washington agencies are now trying a backdoor approach to regulate our climate by abusing existing laws.”

I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn’t impose Cap and Trade policies in any form.”

This bill is of no surprise. Republicans have a proven track record of protecting companies over the lives of real living (polluted air) breathing Americans. The EPA’s goal is to make sure that these companies maintain some standards in the amount of gas emission they’re allowed to emit into the atmosphere, but according to the Republican way of thinking, doing so will impose unnecessary regulations, cause the company to loose some of their profits, and worst of all ultimately result in a healthier environment for the nation.

According to their ideology, a healthy nation is of less importantance than the right of  a company to dump infinite amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere for the sake of profit for said company.

Profits over human lives!

Categories
Ezra Klein Politics United States

Ezra Klein Is Wrong On This Issue

Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly ran an interesting piece, stating that judges who voted against the Affordable Care Act, or what the conservatives are calling ObamaCare, receive more press attention than those who voted for the bill.

He then broke it down by the numbers showing that on verdict 1, which supported the Democratic position of Health Care, received an average of 581 words from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press and Politico.

On verdict 2, which also went in favor of the Democrats and the Obama administration, received an average of 438 words per article from the same four news agencies.

However, when verdict 3 came out by Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, whose decision went against the Democrats, the same four news agencies wrote an average of 1648 words in articles. Then yesterday, January 31st, another Federal Judge in Florida issued verdict 4 against the Health Reform Bill, and receive an average of 1742 words from the four. Mr. Benen question was, “If there’s a sensible explanation for this, I’d love to hear it.”

Ezra Klein, who writes for the Washington Post responded to Mr. Benen’s article saying,

“I actually think there is a sensible explanation for this: The two judges who ruled for the bill upheld the status quo. And they went first. So their rulings changed nothing. No one could accuse me of harboring an anti-ACA agenda, but I didn’t give those rulings much coverage.

The two judges who ruled against the bill called for enormous changes to the status quo, and enormous changes to the status quo are almost the definition of what “news” is. These two rulings have genuinely called the bill’s future into question, and that’s a big story.”

Well, although I tend to agree with Ezra Klein on many issues, and besides the fact that we share the same first name, I’ll have to disagree with his position on this matter.

Benen is right! There is simply no sensible explanation for the one-sided coverage. And although some may claim the sensationalism of a Federal Judge voting against the status quo is the “definition of what news is,” I prefer to think of the sensationalism of a life changed, if the Health Care reform law remains in effect. Now that’s news!

Categories
Politics

Macho-Man Tim Pawlenty Calls President Obama a Chicken

In an effort to take the “chicken” label off himself, Tim Pawlenty,  often described as  “softee” and “mild mannered” tore up the civility memo and dived head-first into Republican macho-ness… He called the president a chicken!

Well, he did!

The Presidential hopeful appeared in friendly territory on “Fox & Friends” and spoke about President Obama’s State of The Union Address, and the president’s “failure” to mention entitlement programs for the disenfranchised. Pawlenty said;

“He swung and whiffed at one of the biggest challenges facing the country, he didn’t even address entitlement spending. He’s chicken to not address the real issues.”

A Fox host, surprised by Pawlenty’s reference to the President as a “chicken” asked if this was the new tougher Pawlenty, to which the Macho-man replied, she should not confuse being “Minnesota nice” with “being weak.”

Yeah, pick on the country’s downtrodden Mr. Tough Guy! My Grandmama could’ve taken you.

Categories
Democracy Egypt Egypt United States

Egypt Puts The Obama Administration Between A Rock And A Hard Place

In it’s strongest statements thus far, the Obama Administration is distancing itself from the embattled dictator in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC’s  Sunday morning news program and stated that real stability can only be achieved through a democratic process. She said;

Real stability only comes from the kind of democratic participation that gives people a chance to feel that they are being heard. And by that I mean real democracy, not a democracy for six months or a year and then evolving into essentially a military dictatorship or a so-called democracy that then leads to what we saw in Iran.

Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has been a strong ally of the United States, and the relationship between the two nations is important in maintaining peace in the area. Israel, another strong United States ally is also watching the events as they unfold, as the wrong outcome in Egypt immediately puts them at risk, thus, putting the United States in a position to defend its stronger ally.

The Obama administration has therefore found itself between a rock and a hard place – they must be on the right side of history and support the people of Egypt fighting for freedom, but they must also look out for the protection of our strongest supporter in the Middle East.

Categories
Featured Mitt Romney New York Newt Gingrich Republican Sarah Palin United States

Rent Is Too Damn High Guy To Sarah Palin – I Love You

The leader of the “Rent Is Too Damn High” party is professing his love for Sarah Palin. Jimmy McMillian made an impact on the national political scene when he ran an unsuccessful campaign to be New York’s next governor in 2010. He has since set his sights on the 2012 Presidency, and conducted an interview with AOL News to discuss his positions.

Asked who he would like to select to be his vice presidential running mate, Jimmy answered “Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.” He goes on to explain his reasons for picking Newt;

Newt Gingrich has been there before. He is a good liar. People look at him and laugh. That’s why they’re going to vote for him. People look at me now and laugh. But, still, they can laugh. The issues are serious and strong. So, I need someone to take that away from me. I thought about John Edwards. But …

Told that Newt was probably unavailable now, McMillian agreed, saying;

Yeah, he’s unavailable. Because he can’t defend his own rights. [He cheated] on his wife and all this stuff. We know everybody does that anyway. I thought about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I like them. I like what they bring to the table. Mitt Romney — good looking guy. It’ll keep the ladies from looking at me with Mitt Romney.

The question was then asked about his feelings for Sarah Palin and whether or not he would like to have her as his vice presidential candidate. He answered, “Love her.” He continued;

Constitution. American citizen. Exercising the right to privacy. Free speech. Haters — those who don’t like Sarah Palin. That’s what they are. Sarah Palin: I love you because America gives you the constitutional right to do whatever you want to do as a woman. And people don’t think you can do because you’re a woman. They try to make a mockery out of you. But you stand up for your rights and stand strong for your rights. And don’t let anyone try to cut you down. Not only are they talking about Sarah Palin. They’re talking about me.

This will be the real Dream Ticket – Mr. Rent Is Too Damn High and Mrs. WTF! How could they loose?

Categories
Politics United States

Professor Atlas: Words Don’t Kill, But Reckless Language Can

As congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords continues her miraculous recovery  from the gunshot wound she received about three weeks ago, speculations and  accusations have dominated the airwaves as to the possible reason why gunman Jarad Loughner emptied a 30 round magazine into a crowd, critically wounding her and  killing six people. These accusations have prompted Sarah Palin to go on the defense and issue a video message in which she tries to distance herself from the villanious political atmosphere she helped to create.

The speculations however continued, and social media helped spread theories on possible motives for the shooting. Some echoed the sentiments of President Obama, others blamed the political environment in which we live, and others called names, blaming both conservative and liberal political figures, pundits and bloggers for the incident.

But one interesting point of view on the shooting comes from Pierre Atlas, an associate professor of political science and director of the Richard G. Lugar Franciscan Center for Global Studies at Marian University in Indianapolis. Mr. Atlas, on January 14th wrote an article in the Indianapolis Star, where he said, “Words don’t kill. But reckless language can create an environment of hate, fear and hysteria that incites deadly acts of violence.”

Below is the article written by Pierre Atlas:

“I was in Israel in the summer of 1994 when the Oslo peace accords were just being implemented. It was a time of promise but also uncertainty and fear. Across the street from the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem, I photographed numerous right-wing banners denouncing the Israeli government and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for reaching a deal with the Palestinians. “The blood of the murdered screams out against the government,” one banner said in Hebrew. “He who makes a pact with a terrorist organization is responsible for murder,” said another. At a rally attended by tens of thousands of Israelis opposed to Oslo, I saw caricatures of Rabin wearing a Yasser Arafat-style headdress under the word “Liar!” Opposition leaders (and future prime ministers) Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu played to the crowd, accusing Rabin of endangering the nation’s existence.

Antigovernment hyperbole and vitriol continued for months on end, culminating in November 1995 with the assassination of Rabin by Yigal Amir, a young Israeli opposed to the peace process. Morphed images of Rabin as a terrorist and accusations that he had Jewish blood on his hands did not kill the prime minister. But mainstream Israeli opposition leaders egged on the antigovernment hysteria for their own political gain, rather than condemning the inflammatory rhetoric. It was from this dangerous atmosphere that a mentally unstable assassin emerged to take the prime minister’s life.

I couldn’t help but think of this when I learned of Jared Loughner’s horrific shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., that killed a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and four others in his attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. By all accounts, Loughner, who was consumed by antigovernment paranoia, is even more mentally deranged than was Amir. But even insane people are influenced by their environment, and our current political environment is toxic.

American politics has been infected by an angry, take-no-prisoners polarization. Legitimate debate about controversial issues such as health care and immigration is being drowned out by an increasingly irrational hysteria. During the health-care debate, some members of Congress, including Giffords, were confronted by hate speech, vandalism and even death threats. Disingenuous talk by Republican politicians of “death panels” added fuel to the fire, as did the ludicrous suggestion that Obamacare poses an existential threat to the republic. In a democracy, be it Israel or the United States, responsible leaders should condemn extremist rhetoric and ideas rather than try to benefit from them politically.

Some on the left are suggesting that Tucson is a haven for right-wing nutcases; others are blaming the prevalence of guns in Arizona for Saturday’s violence. I reject both claims. I lived in Tucson for many years, where I held various jobs (including gun department manager of a sporting goods store) and obtained my master’s degree in political science from the University of Arizona. I lived in what is today Giffords’ congressional district.

My congressman was Jim Kolbe, a fiscally conservative, pro-gun Republican who also was pro-choice on abortion and openly gay. Back then at least, Tucson was a live-and-let-live sort of town, more libertarian than socially conservative.

Arizona seems to be much angrier today than when I lived there, but sadly that could be said about America in general. As for firearms, they are part of life in Arizona, a state that cherishes its frontier heritage. Many of my Tucson friends not only owned guns but often kept handguns in their vehicles. Guns are commonplace there, but shooting sprees and political assassinations are not.

Regardless of whether Loughner was influenced by politics, for the sake of our democracy we need to tone down the vitriol and stop viewing legitimate political opponents as enemies out to destroy America. And we need to remember that the government is not some alien force, but rather it is us — Americans from across the political spectrum who come to our state capitals and Washington, D.C. because, like Giffords and her murdered staffer Gabe Zimmerman, they believe in public service.”

Those who help foster this toxic political environment should once again take note and do some deep introspection. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing on policies and the best ways to implement measures to move this country forward, but willfully contributing to the degradation of this nation’s democracy for selfish political gains, might also be looked upon as contributing to the assassination attempts on our elected leaders.

Categories
Barack Obama Politics Sarah Palin Sarah Palin State of the Union address United States

For Sarah Palin, Winning The Future Is A “What The F_ck” Moment

In his State Of The Union Address, President Obama laid out specific steps to make America competitive again in a global economy. Some of these steps included investments in education, transportation, the internet and renewable energy.

Sarah Palin

These are all sensible investments any industrialized nation could make in order to maintain a role as a world leader. Sarah Palin, in her infinite wisdom, that has now graduated her to class-clown status, took to her Facebook page and referred to these proposed steps as What The F*ck, or as she put it, “WTF!”

The Republican 2008 vice presidential candidate and former Alaskan governor,  went on Fox News stating that another of the President’s themes,  ‘Winning The Future,’  was yet  “… another WTF moment.” Once again on her Facebook page she wrote, “he dubbed it a ‘Winning The Future’ speech, but the title’s acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content.”

In her ever present attack mode, Palin then dived into a tirade of criticism of President Obama for wanting America to maintain it’s competitive edge by investing in innovations for the future. She called this prospect “more government spending.” Even the president’s effort to portray America as an exceptional nation and its people as the most innovative and in the world,  was denounced by Palin. This too she said equalled  “big government”;

This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree. Where once he used words like “hope” and “change,” the President may now talk about “innovation” and “competition.”

Mrs. Palin – who quit her leadership role as governor of Alaska just two years into her first term to be a $100,000.00 per speech media queen – also had some leadership advise for the President. “Real leadership is more than just words,” she said, “it’s deeds.” I guess her deeds speak for themselves.

Palin’s rant also included the 9.4% unemployment rate, government spending and taxes, all of which she explained, exploded out of control practically on the day President Obama was sworn in. She even quotes a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that says the Federal budget deficit will reach $1.5 trillion dollars in 2011 because of the present administration’s big spending habits.

Everything  about her article was hugely exaggerated,  misleading or just plain out lies.

Yes, CBO did report the Federal deficit will reach $1.5 trillion dollars in 2011, but what Palin failed to mention in her rant was the real  cause — a $900 billion tax cut package for the rich that she herself campaigned for as the only way to bring jobs and reduce the unemployment rate.

And yes, the unemployment rate is at 9.4%, but what Sarah doesn’t again mention is the fact that when President Bush was in power, Americans were loosing jobs at the astonishing rate of 700,000 per month.  And yes, that amount continued under President Obama, but thanks to the Stimulus Package – the same one Sarah referred to as “Stimulus Package boondoggle,” — CBO states that 3.3 million jobs were created or saved in 2010 alone. That’s more jobs created in 1 year than all of President Bush’s 8 years! The CBO report also stated;

“The stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points during the quarter ending in June and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million. The higher figure would come close to making good on Obama’s pledge that the act would save or create as many as 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.”

And then there’s the tax adebate, where Palin continued her fear-mongering, telling her readers that President Obama is raising taxes to the point of “$1 trillion dollars over the next decade,” if he simplifies the tax code as he suggests. She claims that if you “cut away the rhetoric… you’ll also see that the White House’s real message on economic reform wasn’t one of substantial spending cuts, but of tax increases.”

Raised taxes are a genuine fear of the American people, and Sarah Palin knows exactly how to play into this fear. The reality however, is quite different. Under this administration, federal taxes are at their lowest point in over 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution. He said;

“The relation between what is said in the tax debate and what is true about tax policy is often quite tenuous. The rise of the Tea Party at a time when taxes are literally at their lowest in decades is really hard to understand.”

President Obama has a clear desire to invest in innovations that improve our roads, builds high speed rails, better education that improves America’s  academic excellence in math and science and cleaner energy that will gradually move us away from our dependence on fossil fuel like oil to wind and solar enrgy, clean coal, nuclear and natural gas. These common sense investment in the nation’s future are imperative. Other countries like China and India are making these investments in their future and they are beginning to reap the benefits.

But somehow in Sarah Palin’s America, a solemn pledge to invest in our future — to ‘Win The Future’ — is looked upon by her and others who lack the most basic of  understanding, as a WTF moment!

Categories
Barack Obama BLM Politics State of the union State of the Union address United States White House

Full Transcript of President Obama’s State Of The Union Speech

President Barack Obama

The White House has released the text of President Obama’s State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. And as we mark this occasion, we are also mindful of the empty chair in this Chamber, and pray for the health of our colleague — and our friend — Gabby Giffords.

It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation.

But there’s a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater — something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

I believe we can. I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

At stake right now is not who wins the next election — after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It’s whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It’s whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That’s the project the American people want us to work on. Together.

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.

But we have more work to do. The steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession — but to win the future, we’ll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion. Maybe you’d even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts of once busy Main Streets. I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear — proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

They’re right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there’s an internet connection.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.

So yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember — for all the hits we’ve taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea — the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?”

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

Now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.

None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do — what America does better than anyone — is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

Just think of all the good jobs — from manufacturing to retail — that have come from those breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology — an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future — if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas — then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us — as citizens, and as parents — are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It’s family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test. That’s why instead of just pouring money into a system that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, “If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.”

Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids.

You see, we know what’s possible for our children when reform isn’t just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.

Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school’s transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said “Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing … that we are smart and we can make it.”

Let’s also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child’s success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as “nation builders.” Here in America, it’s time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who’s contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child — become a teacher. Your country needs you.

Of course, the education race doesn’t end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That’s why we’ve ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students. And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit — worth $10,000 for four years of college.

Because people need to be able to train for new jobs and careers in today’s fast-changing economy, we are also revitalizing America’s community colleges. Last month, I saw the promise of these schools at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. Many of the students there used to work in the surrounding factories that have since left town. One mother of two, a woman named Kathy Proctor, had worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old. And she told me she’s earning her degree in biotechnology now, at 55 years old, not just because the furniture jobs are gone, but because she wants to inspire her children to pursue their dreams too. As Kathy said, “I hope it tells them to never give up.”

If we take these steps — if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they’re born until the last job they take — we will reach the goal I set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

One last point about education. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let’s agree to make that effort. And let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.

Our infrastructure used to be the best — but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts.

We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn’t just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It’s about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It’s about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It’s about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments — in innovation, education, and infrastructure — will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.

Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years — without adding to our deficit.

To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 — because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans, and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible.

Before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs. That’s what we did with Korea, and that’s what I intend to do as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia, and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks.

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I’ve ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That’s what we’ve done in this country for more than a century. It’s why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It’s why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It’s why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it’s why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.

Now, I’ve heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I’m not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I’m not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents’ coverage. So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.

Now, the final step — a critical step — in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.

We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people’s pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I’ve proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.

I recognize that some in this Chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I’m willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let’s make sure that we’re not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. And let’s make sure what we’re cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.

Now, most of the cuts and savings I’ve proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12% of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won’t.

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.

It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success.

In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.

So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress — Democrats and Republicans — to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done. If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.

Let me take this one step further. We shouldn’t just give our people a government that’s more affordable. We should give them a government that’s more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past.

We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they’re in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked.

Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We’re selling acres of federal office space that hasn’t been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote — and we will push to get it passed.

In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people’s faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.

A 21st century government that’s open and competent. A government that lives within its means. An economy that’s driven by new skills and ideas. Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation. It will also require us to approach that world with a new level of engagement in our foreign affairs.

Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West; no one rival superpower is aligned against us.

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America’s commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.

Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we are disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.

We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan Security Forces. Our purpose is clear — by preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.

In Pakistan, al Qaeda’s leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START Treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.

This is just a part of how we are shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO, and increased our cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to missile defense. We have reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, and built new partnerships with nations like India. This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances for progress in the Americas. Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility — helping farmers grow more food; supporting doctors who care for the sick; and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.

Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power — it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan — with our assistance — the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: “This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free.”

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

We must never forget that the things we’ve struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country.

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they have served us — by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit — none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad — no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

That dream — that American Dream — is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It’s what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.

Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. One day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.

But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000 foot hole into the ground, working three or four days at a time with no sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. But because he didn’t want all of the attention, Brandon wasn’t there when the miners emerged. He had already gone home, back to work on his next project.

Later, one of his employees said of the rescue, “We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things.”

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That’s how we win the future.

We are a nation that says, “I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I’m not sure how we’ll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we’ll get there. I know we will.”

We do big things.

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Categories
Democratic Nancy Pelosi Politics Republican

Pelosi to Cantor – No Thank You, I Already Have A Date

The new Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor invited House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to sit with him tonight for the State Of The Union Address, but according to a tweet from Mrs. Pelosi, she turned him down. The tweet read;

“I thank @GOPLeader for his #SOTU offer, but I invited my friend Rep. [Roscoe] Bartlett from MD yesterday & am pleased he accepted.

And maybe it is fitting that Nancy chose another date for tonight’s ball. Reports from The Hill recalls Mr. Cantor as recently as Monday, criticizing Nancy Pelosi for not meeting with him regularly, or as often as he would like. The report quotes Cantor as saying;

“I would love to have the opportunity for her to engage in some type of working relationship so that we can actually deliver results. Thus far it seems she is continuing to drive the ideological agenda just the same as she did over the last four years.”

If asking Nancy to be his date tonight was Cantor’s way of making up, Pelosi wasn’t having it. Her spokesman Nadeam Elshami released a statement defending Mrs. Pelosi, saying;

“It’s important to set the record straight. The fact is, Leader Pelosi has met with Speaker Boehner on numerous occasions both as Speaker and since he became Speaker, and offered to hold regular meetings. Democrats remain committed to working with Republicans to create jobs, strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit.”

Next time, maybe Cantor should just send flowers!

Categories
CNN Michele Bachmann Slavery United States

No Bachmann, You Cannot Re-Write Our History!

Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is a trip! Really, she is!

Mrs. Bachmann spoke over the weekend at an Iowans For Tax Relief event, and either tried to remake history, or give her version of what she thought happened, in regards to how people were treated back in the founding days of this nation.

The Congresswoman, who has presidential ambitions for 2012, said that everyone who came to these shores, whether willfully or through slavery, “were all the same,” when they arrived.  She said;

“How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world. It didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter their language, it didn’t matter their economic status.

“Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable?”

Another claim by Mrs Bachmann was that the founding fathers did all they could to end slavery. She claimed, “”we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” Bachmann also claimed,

“I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly — men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”

Gone from her history book is the fact that many of the founding fathers owned slaves, and yes, history showed that John Quincy Adams became a vocal advocate to end slavery, but he wasn’t a founding father and he also died in 1848 before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863.

Anderson Cooper however, heard these false claims of Mrs. Bachmann – who probably thought the event wasn’t being recorded and no one would hear the lies she was telling. Mr. Cooper, host of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, featured Bachmann’s claims on a segment of his show called “Keeping Them Honest.”

And that he did. Anderson give the lying Bachmann a lesson in American History. He said Bachmann’s comments “are either a deliberate rewriting of our history, or signs that she has a shaky grasp on our history.”

See Anderson Cooper’s Keeping Them Honest segment below:

Categories
Barack Obama Chuck Schumer Democratic Mitch McConnell Politics Repeal Senate vote

Republican Minority Tries To Control Democratic Majority In Senate

Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell

Over the last two years of the Obama administration, Republicans went on a rampage, setting a record for the most filibusters – the process of debating an issue with the eventual outcome of slowing down or stopping the policy from being voted on – in one year since the practice began back in the mid 19th century. That record, set by the 111th congress is 132 filibusters. Now that the Republicans are the majority in the House of Representatives, they are demanding that the Democratic controlled Senate vote on all the bills the House votes on.

The particular bill that Republicans are demanding the Senate to vote on is their measure to repeal the Health Care Reform bill, the single most important piece of legislation instituted by Democrats. The House of Representatives voted last week to repeal the bill by a vote of 245 to 189, and now Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader is promising “No”, insisting that the Democratic Senate vote on the issue and do the same. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has stated he has no interest in bringing this repeal issue to the Senate.

In a television appearance on Fox News yesterday, Mr. McConnell assured the viewers that he will make sure the Senate votes to take away their health care. When asked how he intends to override Harry Reid’s decision not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, Mitch said;

“I’m not going to discuss how we’ll do it from a parliamentary point of view here. If that does not pass, and I don’t think anyone is optimistic that it will, we intend to go after this health care bill in every way that we can.”

As minority leader, Mitch McConnell cannot set the agenda for the Senate, but the belief among other congressional leaders is that the Republicans in the  could offer the repeal bill as an amendment to another bill, thus, forcing the Senate to have the vote. Democratic Senator from Illinois Dick Durbin discussed this possibility;

“If some Republican senator wants to offer it as an amendment at some point, it’s possible they will. It’s possible we’ll face that vote. But having spoken to my members in the Democratic caucus, with Sen. Reid, we feel there’s still strong support for health care reform.”

The lies and scare tactics used by Republicans in the Health Care debate of 2009 have caused a split among the American people. In early polls, taken when the bill was being debated in congress, as much as 60% of the public believed the Republican propaganda  against health care reform. But recent polls have shown a change in the public’s perception of the law. According to a recent Associated Press-GFK poll, only 1 out of 4 (25%) Americans are now asking for Republicans to repeal the bill. With poll numbers like these, Democrats are feeling optimistic that the bill will stand up against any amendment trick brought on by  the senate. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York appeared on CBS, and expressed his optimism;

“If the Republicans offer an amendment on the floor, then we will require them to vote on the individual protections in the bill that are very popular and that even some of the new Republicans House members have said they support. So in the end, their repeal bill is going to be so full of holes it looks like Swiss cheese.”

Individual parts of the bill that have shown strong support among the American people include: allowing young adults to remain on parent’s policy until the age of 26; ending pre-existing conditions for children that went into effect in 2010; ending pre-existing condition for adults that will go into effect in 2014; helping to close the “donut hole” for seniors needing prescription drugs; providing preventative care screenings among others.

The individual mandate in the bill, which requires everyone to obtain health care insurance, is the major contention with the American people. Democrats argue that this mandate is necessary to ensure the improved level of care required in the bill.

If Republicans succeed in getting Senate Democrats to vote on an amended bill with health care repeal as an attachment, the bill will need 60 votes to pass. Democrats control the Senate with 53 votes, with Republicans in the minority with 47. If 13 Democrats crossed party lines and voted with Republicans to achieve the needed 60, the repeal bill then goes to President Obama’s desk for a signature. The President, however, has promised to veto any repeal bill that makes its way to the White House.

Exit mobile version