mens hairstyles 2011: White House

Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts

Friday, July 29, 2011

Boehner Bill Passed, Moody's Says No Change and Boehner's Emotional Speech

Thankfully, the Boehner bill passed (as expected) but by a relatively close margin 218-210 and 7 abstentions .

Most of the debate was the normal political hoo-ha, but Boehner's speech was emotional and hard hitting.

Boehner said in part:

“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising.

"I've offered ideas, I've negotiated," Boehner said in closing debate on his bill. "Not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. All they would do is criticize what I put out there.

"I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States," Boehner continued to grumbling among Democrats. "Hey, I put revenues on the table i order to try to come to an agreement in order to avert us being where we are. But a lot of people in this town can never say yes."

Boehner closed his remarks by thundering: "This House has acted. And it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across the aisle… put something on the table! Tell us where you are!" (if you cannot see video below click here)

Good News, Moody's the major ratings service least likely to downgrade US debt announced:

Moody’s Investors Service said today it expects the U.S. will get to keep its Aaa credit rating, “albeit with a shift to a negative outlook,” provided Congress and the White House can work out a deal to avoid missing payments to U.S. bondholders.

Moody’s launched a review of the U.S. credit rating on July 13, as the fight over how to raise the current $14.3 trillion federal borrowing limit was starting to heat up. Moody’s review will finish when the debt limit is extended “for more than a short period of time,” the company said. That line gives some ammunition to Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have said any debt deal should lift the borrowing cap through the end of 2012.

Moody’s also offered a definition of “default” – which could be of some comfort to conservative lawmakers who have said that action on the debt ceiling isn’t strictly necessary by the Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.

“What would Moody’s consider a default? We do not consider delayed payments for obligations other than debt service to be a default.” In other words, President Barack Obama could make good on his warnings that Social Security checks wouldn’t go out, and that wouldn’t constitute a “default.”

It would have been much better if that announcement came from Standard and Poor's which is the credit rating service most likely to downgrade US debt.

Bottom Line: Senator Reid, your dice

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill: Why It Needs To Pass

Allow me to begin by saying as a true large-sized tea party hobbit, I am disappointed in John Boehner's plan to raise the debt limit. I was hoping for much deeper cuts along the lines of the Ryan budget plan, and the thought of new bi-partisan committee to come up with ideas to close the budget as the second half of the speaker plan gives me the creeps. Somehow those groups always come up with tax increases instead of budget cuts. That being said, I believe it essential for the house to vote yes on the bill today.

On the positive side, the plan cuts spending $1 trillion dollars immediately, does not raise taxes and imposes a spending cap. In all probability it will not pass the Senate, but the plan's passage put the onus on the progressives to finally come up with a plan and eventually it will lead to a deal.

The bottom line is, as Charles Krauthammer told Bill O'Reilly the other day

“I respect what they want to do; I share what they want to do: shrink the government. But at a time when the country is going into debt and destroying everything in its path, Conservatives need to understand the only way to stop the damage, according to our Constitutional system, is to control the White House and the Congress.

“You cannot govern from one branch. All the Conservatives control now is half a branch … and under our system, you’ve got to have it all.” he said. “All of us respect the Constitution; it sort of defines the new Conservatism. If you believe in it, then respect the Constitution, understand its restraints, and win the election in November.”

Allow me to explain where this will end up. If the Boehner plan passes the House it will not pass the Senate, if the Senate passes the Reid plan it will not pass the House, but as sources inside the Beltway are starting to whisper, the plans are close enough that it will lead to a compromise.

In all probability, if it does lead to a compromise, it will probably take the debt ceiling past the election, have cuts higher than the rise of the debt ceiling ($2.6-2.8 trillion), will not count the bogus war savings, will not raise taxes and will require a vote in the Senate for the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Think about that for a second, before this debate really heated up, if conservatives were presented with a plan legitimately cutting $2.6 trillion, no taxes and a balanced-budget Amendment vote there would be a huge celebration, not only for what we got, but for the major defeat suffered by President Obama.

And look what the house works on next the budget debate--- an opportunity to cut more.

On the other hand, practically speaking if the Boehner bill fails today, the conservative position loses its leverage, the progressives in the Senate will passe the Reid plan with its bogus cuts and they become the ones who offered the only compromise plan.

Barack Obama and the progressives will become heroes, and the message"the house filled with those evil tea party-backed Republicans who want Granny thrown off the cliff is even too radical to get a plan passed"

As Bill Kristol said yesterday:

To vote against Boehner is to choose to support Barack Obama. It is to choose to increase the chances that worse legislation than Boehner's passes. And it is to choose to increase the chances that Obama emerges from this showdown politically stronger. So when the Heritage Action Fund and the Club for Growth, and Senators Vitter, Paul, et al., choose to urge House Republicans to join the Democrats to defeat Boehner, they're choosing to side with Barack Obama.

The Boehner plan, whether it passes the Senate or leads to a compromise, shackles Obama for the final year and a half of his first term and shows Obama to be ineffectual in this debate. A missile shot into his chances of (God Forbid!) being elected for a second term.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare, and make the necessary changes needed to save our country. Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is around Five-O'clock this after noon. I urge you to call your Congressman and tell them to support the Boehner plan.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

White House: Time Is Running Out

White House Knew About ATF's Fast and Furious (You Didn't Get This From Me)

"Project Gunrunner" (A.K.A Fast and Furious) was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks where basically some "geniuses" high up in ATF (and possibly the DOJ) thought it would be a great idea to sell assault weapons to the violent Mexican drug cartels. Yes, that's right, the US government decided--in order to fight the Mexican Drug Cartels, we should arm them and let them keep their weapons once they were used in committing crimes .

Yesterday morning we learned that the administration was trying to obstruct the congressional hearings with intimidating letters to the ATF agents about to testify, later in the day we learned why, at least one person on the White House staff was told about the flawed operation.

With Special Agent in Charge William Newell sitting on the committee hot seat, we not only know that the program's strategy found its way into the White House, but to the IRS, Drug Enforcement Agency and ICE.

Newell testified he discussed Operation Fast & Furious with his old friend, White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O’Reilly. Issa’s committee got its hands on an email from Newell that began with the frightening words, “you didn’t get this from me.”

Newell says O’Reilly was “asking about the impact of Project Gunrunner to brief people in preparation for a trip to Mexico… what we were doing to combat firearms trafficking and other issues.” A White House spokesman denied this exchange had anything to do with Operation Fast and Furious.

But as you can see below, that's not what the testimony reflected:

LABRADOR: Special Agent Newell, do you know who Kevin O'Reilly is?

NEWELL: Yes, Sir.

LABRADOR: What's the nature of your relationship with him?

NEWELL: I've known Kevin for ‑ I'd say probably 10‑12 years?

LABRADOR: How often do you communicate with him?

NEWELL: Oh, I haven't communicated with him in a while but probably three or four times a year or something like that. Or maybe ‑ maybe more depending on him reaching out to me.

LABRADOR: Isn't it a little bit unusual for a special agent in charge of an ATF field division to have direct email contact with the national security staff at the White House?

NEWELL: He's ‑ he's a friend of mine.

LABRADOR: How many times did you talk to him about this case?

NEWELL: The specifics of this case? I don't think I ‑‑ I mean ‑‑ I don't think I had one specific conversation with him about the specifics of this case.

LABRADOR: OK. Who ...

ISSA (?): Would the gentleman allow me to help him a little? Not that you need it, but could you take the word specific out and ‑ and answer the general ‑‑ did you talk to him about this case?

NEWELL: I might have talked to him about this case. Yes, Sir.

ISSA(?): Do you know when that was?

NEWELL: It was probably ‑‑ I ‑‑ as I recall I think it was during the summer ‑‑ it might have been the summer or early fall of 2010.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy picked up the O'Reilly connection to press for more information:

GOWDY: Let me ask you this. When you begin a sentence, "You didn't get this from me..." what does that mean to you?

NEWELL: Just means that didn't get it from me.

GOWDY: Well, but that's kind of a pleonasm, isn't it, because you are getting it from them? So it's a ‑‑ what do you mean by that, "You didn't get this from me..."? I'm referring to your e‑mail to Mr. O'Reilly (ph).

NEWELL: Well, obviously Mr. O'Reilly (ph) was a friend of mine and it's ‑‑ it's ‑‑ I shouldn't have been sending him that, obviously, I recognize that, it being a friend.

GOWDY: But what do you mean, "You didn't get this from me..."? Does that mean you should not have been talking to him about it?

NEWELL: Not that I shouldn't have been talking about. He's a friend of mine. He asked for information and I provided it to him.

GOWDY: Well, then, why wasn't it appropriate for you to give it to him? Why would you preface it by saying, "You didn't get this from me..."? Was it an improper communication?

NEWELL: No, it wasn't an improper communication.

GOWDY: Well, then, why would you preface it by that?

NEWELL: It's ‑‑ he's been a friend of mine for a long time and he asked me for information. So I gave him information that ‑‑ it's probably an improper use of the term or phrase.

Operation Fast and Furious has become like a dripping faucet, every day a bit more information leaks out. Just this week we learned that conflicted US felons were allowed to purchase weapons without background checks, an administration cover up, and that the scope of the project was much wider than originally thought. Maybe its time for the Administration fess up and stop stonewalling.