Showing posts with label U.S. Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Congress. Show all posts
Friday, June 17, 2016
Trumped by Trump, Republicans stumped for words
WASHINGTON -- The awkward efforts of Republicans to embrace their party’s standard-bearer Donald Trump looked particularly painful in Congress this week as lawmakers ducked into elevators, dashed away from reporters, ignored questions or, worse, tried to answer them.
Only days after a furor over his criticism of a Mexican-American judge, the presumptive presidential nominee sent Republicans reeling again by renewing his call for a ban on Muslim immigration after a gunman who pledged allegiance to Islamic militants killed of 49 people at a Florida nightclub.
Then former reality TV star Trump waded into two sensitive topics for social conservatives by embracing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and suggesting the country may need certain new gun control measures.
For lawmakers accustomed to well-crafted talking points and predictable lines of questioning, the week marked a chaotic flurry of contorted responses or terse, tight-lipped replies.
Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming walked away when asked about Trump's embrace of the LGBT community, saying: "I don’t know what the latest is. I haven’t read anything. I haven’t been watching."
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a former Trump adversary in the presidential primaries, had to bat away two Trump questions before he could announce that he is considering running for re-election -- a decision that could determine whether Republicans retain control of the Senate in the November 8 election.
Senator Ted Cruz, another rival in the primaries, refused to respond directly to the speech in which Trump hardened his line on Muslims while Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr called it “an OK speech” before stepping into an elevator and refusing to respond to any more questions.
The Trump challenge is obvious even for seasoned Republicans.
"I'm spending my days commenting on everything that Donald Trump says," lamented John McCain, chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee.
Orrin Hatch, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, ricocheted from rejection of Trump’s comments on Muslims to doubts about the legality of his proposed immigration ban to bafflement over the billionaire’s response to the Orlando shootings.
'You can't make this up'
Trump controversies have also overshadowed House Speaker Paul Ryan’s rollout of a policy agenda, a campaign document that was supposed to help bring Trump’s position more into line with mainline party doctrine.
Asked on Thursday whether he was bothered by having to contend with Trump's remarks, Ryan called Trump "a different kind of candidate ... (in) a different kind of year."
Asked how many more times he would be called on to do so, Ryan said: "I don't know the answer to that question either."
In an ironic message to his critics among the Republican leadership this week, Trump had this to say: "Be quiet, just please be quiet. Don't talk. Please be quiet. Just be quiet.”
Ryan's response? "... You can't make this up sometimes," he said.
A political neophyte who has never held elected office, Trump has also said he may not need much from his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill anyway.
"We have to have our Republicans either stick together or let me just do it by myself. I’ll do very well,” he said in a CNN interview. “A lot of people thought I should do that anyway, but I'll just do it very nicely by myself."
source: interaksyon.com
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Text of Obama's final State of the Union address
This is the text, as prepared for delivery, of US President Barack Obama's last State of the Union address as posted by the White House early.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:
Tonight marks the eighth year I’ve come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I’m going to try to make it shorter. I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa.
I also understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we’ll achieve this year are low. Still, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform, and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse. We just might surprise the cynics again.
But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I’ll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing. Fixing a broken immigration system. Protecting our kids from gun violence. Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage. All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done.
But for my final address to this chamber, I don’t want to talk just about the next year. I want to focus on the next five years, ten years, and beyond.
I want to focus on our future.
We live in a time of extraordinary change — change that’s reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet and our place in the world. It’s change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It’s change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.
America has been through big changes before — wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more and more people. And because we did — because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril — we emerged stronger and better than before.
What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation — our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law — these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.
In fact, it’s that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It’s how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It’s how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.
But such progress is not inevitable. It is the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, and turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, what we stand for, and the incredible things we can do together?
So let’s talk about the future, and four big questions that we as a country have to answer — regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.
First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?
Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us — especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?
Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?
And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?
Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: the United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the ’90s; an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. Manufacturing has created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we’ve done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.
Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction. What is true — and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious — is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit and haven’t let up. Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top.
All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It’s made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start on their careers, and tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.
For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works better for everybody. We’ve made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments we’ve had these past few years, there are some areas where Americans broadly agree.
We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we’ve increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, and boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all, offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one, and we should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids.
And we have to make college affordable for every American. Because no hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We’ve already reduced student loan payments to ten percent of a borrower’s income. Now, we’ve actually got to cut the cost of college. Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I’m going to keep fighting to get that started this year.
Of course, a great education isn’t all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. After all, it’s not much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package, for 30 years, are sitting in this chamber. For everyone else, especially folks in their forties and fifties, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, they may have to retool and retrain. But they shouldn’t lose what they’ve already worked so hard to build.
That’s why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever; we shouldn’t weaken them, we should strengthen them. And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It’s about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when we lose a job, or go back to school, or start that new business, we’ll still have coverage. Nearly eighteen million have gained coverage so far. Health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.
Now, I’m guessing we won’t agree on health care anytime soon. But there should be other ways both parties can improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job — we shouldn’t just make sure he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that’s ready to hire him. If that new job doesn’t pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he’s going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That’s the way we make the new economy work better for everyone.
I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a hand up, and I’d welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers without kids.
But there are other areas where it’s been more difficult to find agreement over the last seven years — namely what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. And here, the American people have a choice to make.
I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed, and there’s red tape that needs to be cut. But after years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. And this year I plan to lift up the many businesses who’ve figured out that doing right by their workers ends up being good for their shareholders, their customers, and their communities, so that we can spread those best practices across America.
In fact, many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. This brings me to the second big question we have to answer as a country: how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?
Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.
That spirit of discovery is in our DNA. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. We’re Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. We’re every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better world. And over the past seven years, we’ve nurtured that spirit.
We’ve protected an open internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. We’ve launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.
But we can do so much more. Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had in over a decade. Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past forty years, I’m putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save, let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.
Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources.
Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.
But even if the planet wasn’t at stake; even if 2014 wasn’t the warmest year on record — until 2015 turned out even hotter — why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future?
Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal — in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy — something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.
Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.
Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.
None of this will happen overnight, and yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we’ll create, the money we’ll save, and the planet we’ll preserve — that’s the kind of future our kids and grandkids deserve.
Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that’s why the third big question we have to answer is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there’s a problem.
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead — they call us.
As someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that’s not because of diminished American strength or some looming superpower. In today’s world, we’re threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states. The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds blow from a Chinese economy in transition. Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria — states they see slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.
It’s up to us to help remake that system. And that means we have to set priorities.
Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.
But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions. We just need to call them what they are — killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.
That’s exactly what we are doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we are taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, and their weapons. We are training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.
If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America’s commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, ask Osama bin Laden. Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. It may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limit.
Our foreign policy must be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. For even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.
We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq — and we should have learned it by now.
Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.
That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.
That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. As we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war.
That’s how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. Our military, our doctors, and our development workers set up the platform that allowed other countries to join us in stamping out that epidemic.
That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs. With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do. You want to show our strength in this century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it.
Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America. That’s why we restored diplomatic relations, opened the door to travel and commerce, and positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. You want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere? Recognize that the Cold War is over. Lift the embargo.
American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world — except when we kill terrorists; or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as part of our national security, not charity. When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change — that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our children. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend upon. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick, that prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we are on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS, and we have the capacity to accomplish the same thing with malaria — something I’ll be pushing this Congress to fund this year.
That’s strength. That’s leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That is why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo: it’s expensive, it’s unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies.
That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.
“We the People.”
Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we’ve come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together. That brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing I want to say tonight.
The future we want — opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids — all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates.
It will only happen if we fix our politics.
A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task — or any President’s — alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber who would like to see more cooperation, a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the demands of getting elected. I know; you’ve told me. And if we want a better politics, it’s not enough to just change a Congressman or a Senator or even a President; we have to change the system to reflect our better selves.
We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can’t bankroll our elections — and if our existing approach to campaign finance can’t pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution. We’ve got to make voting easier, not harder, and modernize it for the way we live now. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do.
But I can’t do these things on my own. Changes in our political process — in not just who gets elected but how they get elected — that will only happen when the American people demand it. It will depend on you. That’s what’s meant by a government of, by, and for the people.
What I’m asking for is hard. It’s easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn’t possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don’t matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.
We can’t afford to go down that path. It won’t deliver the economy we want, or the security we want, but most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.
So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. To stay active in our public life so it reflects the goodness and decency and optimism that I see in the American people every single day.
It won’t be easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I’ll be right there with you as a citizen — inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that have helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word — voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.
They’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.
I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you. I know you’re there. You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future. Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time.
I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages to keep him on board.
I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.
I see it in the American who served his time, and dreams of starting over — and the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters, and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe.
I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him ’til he can run a marathon, and the community that lines up to cheer him on.
It’s the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he’s been taught.
I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count, because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.
That’s the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you. That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
White House unveils plan to end NSA's bulk collection of phone data
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Thursday announced details of its plan to end the government's vast bulk collection of data about phone calls made in the United States, including new procedures to get judicial approval before asking companies for such records.
Under the plan, phone companies would have to provide data from their records quickly and in a usable format when requested by the government, a senior administration official told reporters on condition of anonymity.
It would also allow the government to seek the data without a court order in a national security emergency.
"I am confident that this approach can provide our intelligence and law enforcement professionals the information they need to keep us safe while addressing the legitimate privacy concerns that have been raised," President Barack Obama said in a statement about the plan, which needs approval by Congress.
The US government began collecting so-called metadata shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, under part of the Patriot Act known as Section 215.
The program's defenders say it helps the government find connections between people plotting attacks overseas and co-conspirators inside the United States, while critics view it as an infringement of privacy rights.
Obama has been under pressure to rein in surveillance since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden last year disclosed classified details about the breadth of the government's intelligence gathering, sparking an international uproar.
Next step: Congress
Obama announced his initial response to the debate in January, including a ban on eavesdropping on the leaders of allied nations.
On Thursday, the administration provided additional details about its plans for telephone records known as metadata. Such records document which telephone number called which other number, when the calls were made and how long they lasted. Metadata does not include the content of the calls.
Under the proposal, once the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approves gathering records associated with a phone number, phone companies could be required to turn over data associated with that number on an "ongoing and prospective" basis, a senior administration official said on a conference call.
Companies would be compelled to provide technical assistance to the government to query the records, and may be compensated in a way that is consistent with current procedures, the official said.
The administration will ask the court to allow it to operate its existing program for at least another 90 days, as Congress weighs legislation.
"We would hope that the Congress would take something up very expeditiously," the official said.
At least two proposals for ending bulk collection of phone data have already been unveiled by lawmakers.
In October, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jim Sensenbrenner, a House Republican, introduced a bill that would require the government to show a request for data was relevant to an ongoing investigation.
Their bill, called the USA Freedom Act, has been endorsed by privacy advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union.
Earlier this week, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, the top lawmakers on the House of Representatives' intelligence panel, released a plan that would not require the government to first get court approval of a request for data.
Instead, the court could order the data expunged if it was later found not to be linked to suspicious activity.
House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, has said he supports the bill.
But Obama has been clear that "one of the main attributes" he wanted to see in the overhaul was requiring court approval before data requests are made, the senior administration official said, noting the government has been following that practice since January. (Additional reporting by Mark Felsenthal)
source: interaksyon.com
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Obama, congressional leaders still deadlocked on shutdown
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama met with Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress on Wednesday to try to break a deadlock that has shut down wide swaths of the federal government, but there was no breakthrough.
After more than an hour of talks, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said Obama refused to negotiate, while House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accused Republicans of trying to hold the president hostage over Obamacare.
Reid said Obama told Republicans "he will not stand" for their tactics.
As hundreds of thousands of federal employees faced a second day without pay, leaders of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate offered token concessions that were quickly dismissed by the other side. Obama, meanwhile, scaled back a long-planned trip to Asia.
Republicans have tried to tie continued government funding to measures that would undercut Obama's signature healthcare law. Obama and his Democrats say that is a non-starter.
"The president reiterated one more time that he will not negotiate," Boehner told reporters after the White House meeting. "All we're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare."
Reid said Democrats were willing to discuss any ways to tackle the budget after a temporary funding bill is passed. "We're through playing these little games," he said.
The shutdown, which took effect Monday at midnight (0400 GMT Tuesday), has raised questions about Washington's ability to carry out its most essential duties.
Though it would do relatively little damage to the world's largest economy in the short term, global markets could be roiled if Congress also fails to raise the debt limit before borrowing authority runs out in coming weeks.
The shutdown has closed landmarks like the Grand Canyon and prevented some cancer patients from receiving cutting-edge treatment.
United Technologies Corp, which makes Sikorsky helicopters and other items for the military, said it would be forced to furlough as many as 4,000 employees, if the US government shutdown continues through next week, due to the absence of government quality inspectors.
Exasperated
"Am I exasperated? Absolutely I'm exasperated. Because this is entirely unnecessary," Obama told CNBC television in an interview before meeting the congressional leaders. "I am exasperated with the idea that unless I say to 20 million people, 'You can't have health insurance,' these folks will not reopen the government. That is irresponsible."
The US Army's top general said the shutdown was significantly harming day-to-day operations, and intelligence leaders say it is undermining their ability to monitor threats. A Federal Reserve official said it could delay the central bank's ability to assess whether its monetary stimulus efforts are still needed.
The uncertainty in Washington has forced the White House to scale back an Asia trip that was designed to reinforce US commitment to the region.
Obama scuttled two stops on a planned four-country tour and left visits to two other countries up in the air. He was due to leave on Saturday and return a week later.
Secretary of State John Kerry will visit Malaysia and the Philippines in his place. Obama is weighing whether to attend diplomatic summits in Indonesia and Brunei, a White House official said.
Despite the disruption, Boehner's Republicans have failed to derail Obama's controversial healthcare law, which passed a milestone on Tuesday when it began signing up uninsured Americans for subsidized health coverage.
Though some moderate Republicans have begun to question their party's strategy, Boehner so far has kept them united behind a plan to offer a series of small bills that would re-open select parts of the government most visibly affected by the shutdown.
The Republican-controlled House passed and sent to the Senate a funding bill that would re-open the National Institutes of Health, which conducts medical research, and another bill to reopen shuttered federal parks and museums, such as the Smithsonian museums, the National Gallery of Art and the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.
Both bills passed with the support of about two-dozen Democrats, who joined Republicans. The House was expected to vote Thursday on measures to fund veterans' care, the District of Colombia and the Army Reserve.
The measures are likely to be defeated in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and Obama said he would veto them if they reached his desk.
Still, they allowed Republicans to charge that their adversaries are standing in the way of help for elderly veterans and young cancer patients. "Will they now say 'no' to funding for veterans, our National Parks and the National Institutes of Health?" asked Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
Reid told Republicans he would engage in talks about tax reform, farm policy and other pressing issues that Congress has failed to address once Republicans agreed to re-open the government without conditions. Republicans dismissed that idea.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated that 24 percent of Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown, while 19 percent blamed Obama or Democrats. Another 46 percent said everyone was to blame.
Bigger fight ahead
The shutdown fight is rapidly merging with a higher-stakes battle over the government's borrowing power that is expected to come to a head soon.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said the United States will exhaust its borrowing authority no later than October 17.
The government could have difficulty paying pension checks, interest charges and other bills after that point.
Many Republicans see the debt limit vote as another opportunity to undercut Obama's healthcare law or extract other concessions -- an approach that business groups say could lead to disaster.
"You can re-litigate these policy issues in a political forum, but they shouldn't use the threat of causing the US to fail on its ... obligations to repay on its debt as a cudgel," Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein told reporters after he and other financial-industry executives met with Obama.
Some Democrats have begun to consider asking Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling on his own -- a move that could lead to years of court battles. The White House has said that approach is not feasible.
Asked whether there is a push underway among Democrats to convince Obama that he should use this power, a senior House Democrat who asked not to be identified said: "No, not at this point."
Stock investors on Wednesday appeared to show growing anxiety over the standoff after taking the news in their stride on Tuesday. The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq both closed down 0.1 percent.
Obama said Wall Street should be worried about the debt ceiling. "I think this time's different. I think they should be concerned," Obama told CNBC. "When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble."
A short-term shutdown would slow US economic growth by about 0.2 percentage points, Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday, but a weeks-long disruption could weigh more heavily -- 0.4 percentage points -- as furloughed workers scale back personal spending.
The last shutdown in 1995 and 1996 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion, according to congressional researchers.
source: interaksyon.com
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
What happens if the US government shuts down?
WASHINGTON -- A US government shutdown is possible on Tuesday, the first day of fiscal 2014, because Congress has so far failed to find a way to pay for it.
A closure would have far-reaching consequences at federal agencies dealing with everything from sending out Social Security checks to collecting admission fees at national parks.
Here is a roundup of how the impact would be felt:
FEDERAL WORKERS: As many as 1 million US federal employees could face unpaid furloughs or payless paydays, according to the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 670,000 union members.
NATIONAL PARKS: National parks would close, meaning a loss of 750,000 daily visitors and an economic loss to gateway communities of as much as $30 million for each day parks are shut, according to the non-profit National Parks Conservation Association.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: All military personnel would continue on normal duty status, but many civilian employees would be temporarily furloughed, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a memo. He said furlough notices would be issued on Tuesday, October 1, if no agreement to fund the government is reached.
The ratings agency Standard & Poor's said a shutdown of less than two weeks would not materially affect the credit of big defense contractors, though a longer shutdown could weaken smaller defense contractors. Most defense contractors would not be paid, new contracts would not start and orders would be delayed, with service contracts hardest hit, S&P said.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE: Most of the federal tax agency's 90,000 employees would be furloughed. Taxpayers who requested an extension beyond the April 15 deadline to file their 2012 taxes must do so by October 15, and they will still be able to file these returns even if the IRS is still shut down then.
FEDERAL RESERVE AND OTHER FINANCIAL AGENCIES: The Fed would stay open, since it does not depend on congressional appropriations to operate; so would the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the Fed funds. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pay for themselves and would remain open. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has been rushing through approvals for a new, untested type of trading platform ahead of a possible shutdown, its top regulator said.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Fewer than 18,000 of the department's 114,486 employees would be furloughed, and if the furlough is prolonged, some of those could be brought back to work. Criminal litigation would continue under a government shutdown, while civil litigation would be curtailed or postponed as much as possible "without compromising to a significant degree the safety of human life or the protection of property," the department said in its contingency plan.
COURTS: The US Supreme Court would probably operate normally, as it has during previous shutdowns, but a spokesman declined to share the high court's plans.
Federal courts would remain open for approximately 10 business days if the government closes on October 1, and would reassess on or about October 15.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: The agency's research hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, would take no new patients.
US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE'S OFFICE: Already squeezed by automatic spending cuts imposed by so-called sequester, the USTR office has cut back on travel to the 41 countries where there are concerns about intellectual property, Trade Representative Michael Froman said.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said this week that the agency would effectively shut down with only a core group of individuals available in case of a "significant emergency."
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: USDA meat inspectors would stay on the job, industry experts said. Statistical reports would be delayed. An October 1 shutdown would come as the agency is surveying farmers and checking fields for yields and acreage in advance of the October 11 crop report. A government closure of more than a few days could delay the report, relied upon by traders and food manufacturers as the best estimate available of the US food supply.
WASHINGTON DC SIGHTS: Some popular tourist spots in the nation's capital would probably close, including the FDR Memorial, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Library of Congress, the Lincoln Memorial, the National Archives, the National Zoo and all Smithsonian Museums.
source: interaksyon.com
US govt shuts down
The United States lurched into a dreaded government shutdown early Tuesday for the first time in 17 years, triggering agency closures and hundreds of thousands of furloughs as Congress missed a deadline to pass a budget.
Ten minutes before midnight bells rang throughout a deeply divided Washington, and after a day of furious brinkmanship President Barack Obama's Democrats and rival Republicans, the White House ordered federal agencies to initiate their shutdown procedures.
"We urge Congress to act quickly to pass a Continuing Resolution to provide a short-term bridge that ensures sufficient time to pass a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year," Management and Budget director Sylvia Mathews Burwell said in a memo to agencies.
Lawmakers had hardly haggled over budgetary matters in the final frantic hours before the deadline -- the end of the fiscal year. Instead, they argued over whether to link the budget pact with efforts to delay Obama's health care law.
"This is an unnecessary blow to America," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor two minutes after the witching hour.
As a mood of crisis enveloped Washington no compromise emerged to head off the first such disaster since 1996.
Instead, the Democratic-led Senate and Republican House of Representatives played a futile game, sending funding bills between them that were doomed to fail.
Obama accused Republicans of holding America at ransom with their "extreme" political demands, while his opponents struck back at his party's supposed arrogance.
Around 800,000 government workers are expected to be sent home, government services are to be slashed and monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and national parks will close.
The crisis is rooted in an attempt by "Tea Party" Republicans in the House to make passage of a new government budget conditional on thwarting Obama's signature health reform law.
The Democratic-led Senate and the president have repeatedly rejected this strategy and urged Republicans to pass an extension to government funding to temporarily stave off the shutdown.
In a deeper sense, the shutdown is the most serious crisis yet in a series of rolling ideological skirmishes between Democrat Obama and House Republicans over the size of the US government and its role in national life.
"One faction of one party in one house of Congress in one branch of government doesn't get to shut down the entire government just to re-fight the results of an election," Obama said, referring to his own re-election.
"You don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job, for doing what you're supposed to be doing anyway," he said, in a stern televised statement at the White House.
But on a day of accelerating brinkmanship, Republicans doubled down on their bid to gut Obamacare, as the health care law, the most sweeping social legislation in decades, is known.
With just three hours to go, House lawmakers passed a bill that would delay the individual mandate, which forces all Americans to buy health insurance under the new law, for a year.
"It's a matter of fairness for all Americans," said Republican House speaker John Boehner, who has struggled to control the riotous anti-government Tea Party faction of his caucus.
But the Senate, which must also sign off on budget measures, immediately rejected the bill.
That led House leaders, less than an hour before midnight, to move to go to conference, meaning the two chambers would appoint formal negotiators to thrash out a budget deal.
That process was already showing signs that it would take hours to coordinate, and Reid sent the Senate into recess until 9:30 am Tuesday.
"We said we'd go to conference if they wouldn't shut the government down, but they're shutting the government down," number two Senate Democrat Dick Durbin told AFP.
Obama warned that a government shutdown could badly damage an economy which has endured a sluggish recovery from the worst recession in decades.
"A shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away. Past shutdowns have disrupted the economy significantly," Obama said.
Consultants Macroeconomic Advisors said it would slow growth, recorded at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the second quarter.
A two-week shutdown would cut 0.3 percentage point off of gross domestic production.
It would also have a painful personal impact on workers affected -- leaving them to dip into savings or delay mortgage payments, monthly car loan bills and other spending.
Stocks on Monday retreated as traders braced for the shutdown. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 128.57 points (0.84 percent) to 15,129.67.
Markets are likely to be even more traumatized if there is no quick solution to the next fast approaching crisis.
Republicans are also demanding Obama make concessions in the health care law to secure a lifting of the current $16.7 trillion debt ceiling, without which the United States would begin to default on its debts for the first time in history by the middle of October.
Polls show more Americans would blame Republicans for the shutdown than Democrats, leaving Boehner torn between his party's wider political interests and a vocal section of his own party.
source: interaksyon.com
Sunday, September 29, 2013
US Republicans to amend budget bill, return it to Senate
WASHINGTON - The US House will vote Saturday on a Republican plan that funds the government through mid-December and delays implementation of the country's new health care law, a strategy that could lead to a crippling shutdown.
House Speaker John Boehner gathered his caucus and called for a rare Saturday session as Congress struggles to break a funding impasse that, if unresolved, would see federal agencies close after the fiscal year ends Monday night.
Under pressure from his party's far-right conservative wing, Boehner doubled down on his caucus's bid to stop President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement, his health care law, vowing to send a bill back to the Senate with barely any time for legislative action to avoid a shutdown.
"Later today, the House will vote on two amendments to the Senate-passed continuing resolution that will keep the government open and stop as much of the president's health care law as possible," Boehner said in a statement after the meeting.
"We will do our job and send this bill over, and then it's up to the Senate to pass it and stop a government shutdown."
In addition to a one-year delay of the law that has become known as "Obamacare," one of the amendments would repeal an unpopular medical device tax.
"This is exactly what we wanted," conservative congressman Raul Labrador told reporters.
"We're united on sending (it) back to the Senate," congressman Darrell Issa said after the meeting.
"Obamacare is not ready, and the delay is clearly essential."
Issa argued that a one-year delay "might actually be what saves" the health care law, parts of which are set to take effect on October 1.
"And for those of us who believe there are flaws, it gives the president an opportunity to do what he said he would do afterwards, which is start negotiating absurd things like the medical device tax out of Obamacare."
The move sets up a confrontation with the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has insisted that no legislation that defunds or delays the health care law would pass the chamber.
He also warned that the only bill that would prevent a shutdown was the stopgap funding measure passed by the Senate on Friday.
"Harry Reid will be shutting down the government if he doesn't accept this pretty sensible solution to the debate that we're having right now," conservative congressman Raul Labrador told AFP.
The Republican plan "is exactly what we wanted," he said.
Boehner and fellow House leaders had struggled to stake out a position palatable to their divided members.
Congress now has less than 60 hours to strike a deal that funds government beyond the current fiscal year.
If lawmakers fail, federal agencies will shut their doors and order hundreds of thousands of employees to stay home, while more than a million soldiers will remain on duty without pay.
As if anticipating a possible shutdown, Boehner said the House would also "vote on a measure that ensures our troops get paid, no matter what."
Obama chided Republicans Friday for their budget brinkmanship, but also warned that while he is prepared to negotiate on ways to reduce spending, "we're not going to do this under the threat of blowing up the entire economy."
source: interaksyon.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Obama wants immigration bill 'very soon'
WASHINGTON DC - President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged lawmakers to agree as early as January on a bill to lay a path to citizenship for the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
"I'm very confident that we can get immigration reform done," Obama told reporters at his first press conference since a decisive November 6 re-election victory in which Hispanic voters played a major role.
"My expectation is that we get a bill introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my inauguration," said Obama, who is due to begin his second term after a January 21 inauguration ceremony.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney's tack to the right during his presidential campaign, particularly on immigration, was a key reason he lost the Hispanic vote by a substantial margin.
Now, with Republicans soul-searching in the aftermath of their defeat, agreeing to immigration reform is seen as one way to frame the party as more inclusive of Latinos, the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States.
"Before the election I had given a couple of interviews where I predicted that the Latino vote was going to be strong, and that that would cause some reflection on the part of Republicans about their position," Obama said.
"I think we're starting to see that already. I think that's a positive sign," the president said, adding: "We need to seize the moment."
Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have already begun talks on a bipartisan bill that was shelved two years ago.
"Some conversations I think are already beginning to take place among senators and congressmen and my staff about what would this look like," Obama said.
Comprehensive reform would include measures that would retain strong border controls and penalize companies that hire undocumented workers while opening an avenue for legalization.
"It's important for them to pay back taxes. It's important for them to learn English. It's important for them to potentially pay a fine," Obama said.
"But to give them the avenue whereby they can resolve their legal status here in this country, I think, is very important.
"I think there should be a pathway for legal status for those who are living in this country, are not engaged in criminal activity, are here simply to work," he said.
Republican Speaker John Boehner, whose party retained control of the House of Representatives in last week's vote, has since expressed confidence that he can work with Obama to hammer out a comprehensive deal on immigration.
Republicans rejected the DREAM Act, which would legalize undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, and supported tough anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona along the border with Mexico.
Rising Republican star Senator Marco Rubio opposed the DREAM Act and has declined to say whether he believes Congress should allow those immigrants to become citizens without going home first.
But the Cuban-American lawmaker, seen as an early contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, made clear the day after the election that his party needed to reach out to Hispanics.
"The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it," he said in a statement issued less than two hours after Romney's concession speech.
In a historic development in June, five months before he faced re-election, Obama suspended the deportations of young illegal immigrants under 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16.
The plan was welcomed by the Latino community and no doubt boosted Obama's re-election bid.
Obama ended up winning 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, second only to former Democratic president Bill Clinton, who managed 72 percent in 1996.
The Latino vote was seen as decisive in swing states with large influxes of Hispanics like Nevada, Colorado, and Florida.
Romney, breaking his post-election silence in a phone call with his finance committee reported by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, expressed bitterness about what he saw as Obama handouts, particularly to Latinos.
"The amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called 'Dream Act' kids, was a huge plus for that voting group," he said.
The number of eligible Hispanic voters in the United States is expected to almost double from 24 to 40 million by 2030. A record 12.5 million Hispanics voted on November 6, according to exit polls.
source: interaksyon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)