Rick Perry Proposes Letting States Opt Out of Social Security from THINKPROGRESS 6NOV10

MORE TEA-BAGGER right wing fanatical fiscal policy cloaked in untruths and deception to deceive the public on Social Security......read the whole article from ThinkProgress....
 
Appearing on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer this past week, occasionally secessionist Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) proposed allowing states to opt-out of Social Security:

“Here’s what I think would be a very wise thing,” he began. “In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there.”

“So, you want to let people opt out?” responded Spitzer.
“I think, let the states decide if that’s what’s best for their cities,” Perry replied.
“So the states will let people opt out of Social Security?” Spitzer asked
“They should,” the recently reelected Texas governor said.

Watch it: (NEED TO CLICK THE HEADER TO GO TO ARTICLE ON THINKPROGRESS TO SEE THE VIDEO)
Perry should learn a little history before he raises up the 1981 experiment as a model for Social Security reform. In that experiment, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” But this system left participants worse off than they would have been under Social Security.
Moreover, Perry’s proposal closely resembles Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe “A Noun, a Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller’s economically impossible plan for a state takeover of Social Security and Medicare. A workable plan to allow states to opt out of Social Security would require draconian provisions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Otherwise, workers who are too young to receive Social Security benefits would move to an opt-out state to avoid paying Social Security taxes — and then promptly move to a state with Social Security benefits the moment they became eligible. Eventually, the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system.
And this isn’t even the first time this week that Perry released a completely unworkable idea whose only virtue is that it will poll well with the Tea Party. Earlier this week, Perry released excerpts from his forthcoming book that attack the Constitution for allowing a national income tax and for requiring senators to be chosen through a radical process known as an “election.”

 The Texas Privatization Plan  27APR05
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=728

In his Social Security roundtable yesterday, President Bush stated, “If you’ve got a good idea, bring it forward. I don’t care if it’s a Republican idea, or a Democrat idea, independent idea, Texas idea, any kind of idea, bring it forward.” Well, it seems that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) took the president up on the “Texas idea” suggestion. The senator’s office has released a report looking at the 1981 Texas plan. In 1981, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” The analysis done by Boxer’s office and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service “compares two sets of families in three different income brackets [and] shows what happens to their retirement in 2005 under Social Security and under the Texas plan.” The conclusion:

By examining the actual system in place in Texas, this study shows that Americans are worse off with privatized accounts — not in theory, but in reality.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE GAO REPORT FROM 1999 ON THE TEXAS EXPERIMENT, NOTE THE REPORT WAS DONE BEFORE THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN OF 2008
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf
AND FROM WIKIPEDIA

Claim that it gives a low rate of return

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

Critics of Social Security ^[120] claim that it gives a low rate of return, compared to what is obtained through private retirement accounts. For example, critics point out ^[120] that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month, at interest rates prevailing in 1996.^[120] While some advocates of privatization of Social Security point to the Galveston pension plan as a model for Social Security reform, critics point to a GAO report to the House Ways and Means Committee, which indicates that, for low and middle income employees, particularly those with shorter work histories, the outcome may be less favorable. The use of anecdotal returns from one investment or another can also be misleading. Indeed, the substantial risk from relying on private investment instruments was highlighted with the massive losses suffered to both private and public pension plans in the economic collapse beginning in 2007.
However, a more fundamental flaw in this criticism is the fact that Social Security is not analogous to a retirement investment plan because it is an insurance program, not an investment account. Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age. It is, however, legitimate to compare the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by this government-run insurance program with the return on the "risk pool of funds" garnered by a for-profit commercial insurance company. Commercial insurance companies must be able to cover substantially the same types of extra payouts, particularly where the beneficiary lives longer than expected, but they do not have the taxing power or relatively unlimited borrowing power of the government, and so the insurance companies must be capable of earning better returns on the pooled monies than has the government done historically.

Malaysia must stop criminalizing migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers from AI 4NOV10

PLEASE participate in this action calling on the Malaysian government to protect migrant workers, who make up 25% of the Malaysian workforce. The physical, sexual, psychological and economic abuse suffered by these people is horrible, and often includes torture. Amnesty International is calling on the governments of Malaysia and Indonesia to crack down on agencies in both countries that manipulate, exploit and abuse these workers and the employers who treat these people as slaves, or worse. Think about your family members being one of these migrants and click the header to participate.

Malaysia must stop criminalizing migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers

This is the story of a 22 year old ethnic Karen man from Myanmar.  He told Amnesty International the story of his detention in Lenggeng in Malaysia.  He was later sentenced by a judge to whipping and was sent to Kajang prison.  He has since been recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR, but not by the Malaysian government.
“I left Myanmar for Malaysia because of the military regime.  Once in Malaysia, I worked in many different places—in a paper factory, planting flowers, in a restaurant, an oil palm plantation and in a car wash where I as arrested during a RELA (volunteer immigration forces) raid.  That was in May 2008.
After my arrest, I spent three hours in a police station.  Then I was sent to the Lenggeng detention camp.
In Lenggeng, there were insects that bit us all the time.  They bit me all over.  No mattresses were provided; we slept on the wooden platforms.   We were only given a blanket and a mug.
After 15 days, I was sent to court.  I did not understand what was going on because there was no translator.  A Chin from Myanmar translated for me when I was questioned by the judge.
The judge asked where I was from, to which I replied.  He did not ask whether I was registered with the UNHCR or not.  When he asked why I had come to Malaysia, I said it was because of money.  When he told me to return to my country, I said I did not have a passport or any money that would allow me to return.  The judge then asked me if what I had done was “salah” (wrong), and I said yes.  I was sentenced to a month in jail and one strike of “rotan” (caning/whipping).
On the day I was whipped, they removed all my clothing except for a small piece of cloth to cover my penis.  It was like a trouser but with the buttocks area cut off.  They tied me up.  I was hit once very hard with a cane.  It cut my skin and hurt very much.  There was blood.  I could not wear any proper clothing for five days after the caning because of the pain and because it stuck to my cut.  I still have nightmares about it.  I cannot bear thinking about it.  I am very afraid that I may be whipped again if caught.”
After he served his sentence, he was deported to the Thai border, where he was trafficked back into Malaysia after paying the traffickers 2,200 ringgit (US$600).  At the time of the interview, he was working as an undocumented migrant in Malaysia.

Thank you for participating in this action. We really appreciate your help. Your letter was sent to the Malaysian Home Minister who is in charge of immigration into the country. Please invite others to take part in this action. If you have five more minutes, may we ask you to participate in two more web actions that are on the protection of migrants in Malaysia. Please follow the two links below. Your support means a lot to our campaign and to the people whose lives are at risk. To write to the Malaysian Prime Minister and ask him to protect all migrants in his country, please go to: http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/malaysia-must-protect-migra... To write to the Indonesian Minister for Transmigration and ask him to ensure that his government ensure the protection of Indonesians working in Malaysia (they are one of the largest sending countries of migrants), please go to: http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/indonesian-government-must-... Again, thank you very much for your help. 

URGENT: Keith Olbermann suspended & UDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover Of MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann 5NOV10 from PCCC & THINKPROGRESS 5NOV10

MSNBC'S blatant hypocrisy is amazing....and they expect the American public to accept it without a fight? Sign the petition from PCCC Progressive Change Campaign Committee by clicking the link below, and read more on this from ThinkProgress....

BREAKING: MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle.

Sign our emergency petition to MSNBC. Tell them to put Olbermann back on the air NOW!
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?source=auto-e&referring_akid=2628.177676.R9TZIa
Then, pass this to your progressive friends.

Media are writing about this breaking story right now, and our growing petition will display the public outrage. Sign here.
NBC policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates. But MSNBC president Phil Griffin is miffed that Keith didn't get "prior approval" first. Seriously. His feelings are hurt.
Meanwhile, Republicans Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan also gave political contributions -- but are not suspended. It must only be ok for MSNBC employees to give to Republicans, not Democrats.
The Democratic Party sadly saw this week what happens when you alienate your base. Tell MSNBC that if they want to keep their viewers, they must put Keith back on the air NOW!
Then tell your friends. Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Julia Rosen, PCCC

P.S. It's worth noting that Olbermann donated to 2 PCCC-endorsed candidates: House Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva (who was just declared the winner, after lots of PCCC help!) and Jack Conway in Kentucky (who sends his immense thanks to PCCC members). Good for Keith. 

Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

 

UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover Of MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules To Suspend Olbermann

UPDATED: We have been notified that Comcast has not yet officially taken over MSNBC/NBC Universal. Although Comcast has tentatively finalized a deal to purchase a majority stake in NBC, Comcast awaits final approval of the takeover from the Justice Department and from the Federal Communications Commission. A statement from Comcast reads: “The joint venture between Comcast and GE has not yet received regulatory approval. Comcast is not in any way involved with decisions made currently by NBC News.” However, once Comcast gains final approval from federal regulators to move forward, Comcast COO Steve Burke, a Bush fundraiser, will be placed at the helm of MSNBC and other NBC companies. Our original post inaccurately asserted that Comcast’s Burke was involved in the decision to fire Olbermann. We apologize for the error.
Earlier today, MSNBC declared that it would be suspending progressive host Keith Olbermann because he violated NBC’s ethics rules by donating to three Democratic candidates for Congress. As many bloggers have noted, conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC’s ethics rules to Olbermann. However, it important to realize that MSNBC has undergone a fundamental change in leadership in the last two months.
Late last year, Comcast — the nation’s largest cable provider and second largest Internet service provider — inked a deal taking over NBC Universal, the parent company of MSNBC. Comcast moved swiftly to reshuffle MSNBC’s top staff. On September 26th of this year, Comcast announced perhaps the most dramatic shift, replacing longtime MSNBC chief Jeff Zucker with Comcast executive Steve Burke [Updated: The shift from Zucker to Burke has not taken place yet -- Burke will preside over MSNBC once the Comcast merger is complete. We have been informed that no Comcast officials are currently involved in the decisions of NBC or MSNBC.]. Burke has given generous amounts to both parties — providing cash to outgoing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) as well as to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and other top Republicans. But as Public Citizen has noted, Burke has deep ties to the Republican Party. Public Citizen’s report reveals that Burke served as a key fundraiser to President George Bush, and even served on Bush’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology:

Comcast – the country’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet services – has increased its political giving along with its mergers and acquisitions. CEO Brian Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the 2000 Republican Convention. Comcast Cable President Stephen Burke has raised at least $200,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign. [...] Comcast’s political giving has increased along with its mergers and acquisitions. The company was a “platinum sponsor” at the 2000 GOP convention, and Roberts was a co-chairman of the host committee at the Philadelphia event. Burke was appointed to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology in 2002.

Why would Comcast be interested in silencing progressive voices? Historically, Comcast has boosted its profits by buying up various telecommunication and media content companies — instead of providing faster Internet or better services (overall, American broadband services are far slower than in many industrialized nations). Many of these mergers, as Public Citizen and Free Press have reported, have been allowed by regulators because of Comcast’s considerable political muscle. Comcast’s latest regulatory battle has been to oppose Net Neutrality — a rule allowing a free and open Internet — because the company would prefer to have customers pay for preferred online content.
Olbermann has been a strong voice in favor of a free and open Internet. Republicans, on the other hand, have supported the telecommunication industry’s push to radically change the Internet so corporate content producers have the upper hand over start-ups like blogs, independent media, small businesses, etc. As Reuters has reported, the incoming Republican Congress has signaled that it will vigorously side with companies like Comcast against an open Internet.
It is not clear why MSNBC has selectively suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay — but the move showcases the limits of the corporate media. While modern technology has created a seeming multitude of entertainment and television choices, the reality of corporate media consolidation has resulted in fewer investigative news options and less voices in the media with a critical perspective on powerful business interests. Olbermann has stood out as a voice for working people in a media universe dominated by “reality television” and business lobbyists posing as political pundits. It is unfortunate that Comcast and MSNBC have chosen to suspend him. [Update: Comcast has no formal control over MSNBC yet, but will once the merger is complete in the coming months.]

Update Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts tacitly acknowledged that he would be open to interfering with the editorial content of MSNBC shows and with hosts like Keith Olbermann:

Comcast is in line to acquire control of NBC Universal, once regulators sign off on the $30 billion deal. Mr. Chernin asked Mr. Roberts how he planned to handle daily editorial control of such an immense news operation. “Are you saying that you’ll never interfere?” he asked. Mr. Roberts blanched slightly at the question, which included a hypothetical situation that had Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC host, attacking a couple of Republican congressmen just as the approvals were being finished. “Let’s have that conversation in six months or 12 months,” Mr. Roberts said.

Update Media Matter's Eric Hananoki notes that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough gave a local Alabama Republican candidate $5,000 as recently as last year, and CNBC host Larry Kudlow donated $1,000 to Republican Chris Shays in May of 2009. Indeed, Kudlow also serves on the Leadership Council to the Club for Growth, a group that has donated over $2 million to Republican candidates this year. Do NBC ethics rules apply to Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Kudlow, or other conservatives working for the media company? As Greg Sargent reported, a close reading of the NBC ethics rules suggest that the political donation standards do not even apply to opinionated hosts like Olbermann.

Obama Aide Backs Child Soldier Policy 1NOV10 from MOJO

THE PRESIDENT should consider what life would be like for his daughters if they lived in any of these countries, as girls, as women, as child soldiers. Maybe if he would have put that kind of human face on this issue he would take a strong stand on the human rights aspect instead of standing up for the greed of the corporations with profit interest in these countries......Hey Michele Obama, as a mother, do you approve of child soldiers??????
Last week, Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin broke the story that the Obama White House had decided to quietly waive sanctions against four countries—Chad, Yemen, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—that use child soldiers. Through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) fund, the United States supports a number of military training and counter terrorism programs in each of these countries. If the Obama adminstration had adhered to 2008's Child Soldiers Prevention Act—a law the president himself co-sponsored when he served in the Senate—that funding should have been yanked. Instead, the administration effectively gave the four offending countries a pass, with the State Department arguing that withdrawing the assistance would jeopardize America's ability to "positively influence the negative behavoir patterns currently exhibited."
Naturally, the decision to waive sanctions angered human rights activists and others who believed the adminstration was caving on a key issue. On Friday the White House hosted a conference call to smooth things over with Hill staffers and represenatives of NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, and World Vision. On the White House end of the line was Samantha Power, the National Security Council's senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights. "Given the way you all heard about the implementation of the statute," she said on the call, "I can understand why some of the reactions that you had were prevalent."
Power covered the wars in the Balkans in the mid-'90s before attending Harvard Law School. She's also a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and authored the Pulitzer-prize winning A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, a sweeping history of the persisting causes of genocide. In it, Power argues that countries like the United States must consider how their interests in other parts of the world profoundly shape those countries' human rights equations.
Power's book doesn’t let anyone off the hook, so it's more than a little jarring to hear that Power was forced to defend the White House's non-announcement of the controversial waiver. Participants on the call argued that the four countries have had plenty of time to adapt to the Child Soldier Prevention Act's rules on child soldiers, and that military aid hasn't had any palpable impact on reforming their practices so far. Even worse, the United States loses leverage over those four countries by forgoing sanctions. Power said that the Obama administration still plans to fight the use of child soldiers, and warn Chad, Yemen, Sudan, and the DRC that they wont get off so easy next time.
From Rogin:

Power repeatedly attempted to argue that the attention over the president's decision to waive sanctions was exactly the kind of public pressure needed to spur violator governments to change. However, her argument was complicated by the fact that the administration failed to tell anyone about the decision and announced it with no rollout or explanation whatsoever.

Power's knack for spin isn't why she was brought onto the Obama campaign as an advisor back in 2008 and later given a job on the NSC. Presumably it was her staunch commitment to human rights, which was in line with Obama's own campaign pledges on the subject. Working as a top aide to the president, though, she's required to sell his policies. But you have to wonder if she's actually on board with this one.

Gibbs: Obama Will Listen To GOP Pitch On Extending Tax Cuts For Wealthy 4NOV10

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! THE WEALTHY HAVE RECEIVED THIS TAX CUT ALL THROUGH THIS RECESSION AND HAVE NOT BEEN USING IT TO CREATE JOBS (THE gop and tea-bagger ARGUMENT FOR THEM RECEIVING IT IS IT IS NEEDED TO CREATE JOBS). THE MIDDLE CLASS THE WORKING CLASS AND THE POOR DESERVE AND NEED THE TAX CUT TO BE EXTENDED, THE WEALTHY WILL SURVIVE WITHOUT IT. CONTINUING THE bush ERA TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY IS WRONG AND MUST BE TAKEN OFF THE TABLE. LET PRESIDENT OBAMA KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, E MAIL THE WHITE HOUSE AT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
WASHINGTON -- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated on Thursday that the president will be open to extending the upper-end Bush tax cuts for one or two years as part of a broader compromise with Republicans.
"He would be open to having that discussion and open to listening to what the debate is on both sides of that," said Gibbs, during an off-camera gaggle with reporters. "Obviously... making those tax cuts for the upper end permanent is something the president does not believe is a good idea."
The issue, Gibbs said, will be a topic of discussion when the president convenes a bipartisan meeting of lawmakers at the White House in two weeks. Included in that meeting (and working dinner) will be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
At his press conference on Wednesday, the president expressed his first openness to date with the process of negotiating on the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year. Earlier, the administration had insisted that extending those cuts for the wealthy (families making more than $250,000 a year) would be off the table -- wary that extending them temporarily would simply invite lawmakers to keep extending them indefinitely.
Tuesday's elections, undoubtedly, changed the dynamics and, in turn, has given Republicans little incentive to compromise. Appearing on MSNBC, Sen. Orinn Hatch (R-Utah) said he saw no room for negotiating on the Bush tax cuts. All of them, he argued, should be extended.
"He is certainly willing to listen to both sides," said Gibbs when press specifically on a one or two-year extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy.
"It is again, November 4. We know that, when this year ends, tax rates are going to go up for the middle class... So if we don't act on the expiring tax cuts by the end of this year, we know what's going to happen... We have both houses coming back and this is an issue that must and has to be dealt with."

Coburn Boldly Calls For Cutting Pentagon’s ‘Sacred Cows’: ‘Taking Defense Spending Off The Table Is Indefensible’ 5NOV10 from THINKPROGRESS

CAN it be true????? Will Sen. Coburn force the gop to take this sort of action in Congress or will they cave to pressure from the military-industrial complex? From ThinkProgress...

This morning, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has an op-ed in the Washington Examiner titled “What Republicans Can Accomplish In The 112th Congress.” In the op-ed, Coburn lays out a legislative agenda that he thinks Republicans should pursue in the new Congress. Many of these are boilerplate conservative ideas, like refusing to raise the debt ceiling and relying entirely on spending cuts instead.
Yet at one point, Coburn breaks with many of his Republican colleagues — and his party’s own much-touted “Pledge For America” — by calling for cuts to the defense budget. He writes that “Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table.” He advocates for taking “common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget.” Coburn concludes that “taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows“:

Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table. Newly elected Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had the courage to say he’d go after defense waste during his campaign, and I look forward to working with him.
We should start by taking common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget. Our nation’s military leaders understand the need to cut spending.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” History shows that every nation eventually adopts the foreign policy it can afford. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows.

As Coburn notes with his praise for Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY), he isn’t the only Senate Republican calling for reining in the military budget. Paul told PBS’s Gwen Ifil last month that that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” The same month, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois Senator-elect Mark Kirk said we need “across-the-board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier that same month, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” And two weeks ago, Bob Corker (R-TN) said on CNBC that defense cuts have to be “on the table” because there’s “a lot of waste there.”
If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecas

President Obama’s Press Conference: "Let's Find Those Areas Where We Can Agree" 3NOV10 &Mitch McConnell: Dumping Obama In 2012 Is The Only Way To Achieve The GOP Agenda 4NOV10

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S news conference the day after the election. Unfortunately I don't see the gop and their tea-bagger allies, controlled by repiblicorp, working with the administration or for the common good of the nation for the next two years....Think this is just my disdain for the gop and tea-baggers...read sen mitch mcconnel's remarks to the heritage foundation on 4NOV10 below....

President Obama’s Press Conference: "Let's Find Those Areas Where We Can Agree"

In a news conference in the East Room this afternoon, the President spoke openly about the lessons of the previous night’s elections, and his hope for working with the new Congress going forward.  He made clear that he understood the profound frustrations and anxiety around the economy felt by so many families, and pledged to redouble his efforts to work across the aisle to speed up our recovery and move the country forward:

I’m not suggesting this will be easy.  I won’t pretend that we will be able to bridge every difference or solve every disagreement.  There’s a reason we have two parties in this country, and both Democrats and Republicans have certain beliefs and certain principles that each feels cannot be compromised.  But what I think the American people are expecting, and what we owe them, is to focus on those issues that affect their jobs, their security, and their future:  reducing our deficit, promoting a clean energy economy, making sure that our children are the best educated in the world, making sure that we’re making the investments in technology that will allow us to keep our competitive edge in the global economy.

Because the most important contest we face is not the contest between Democrats and Republicans.  In this century, the most important competition we face is between America and our economic competitors around the world.  To win that competition, and to continue our economic leadership, we’re going to need to be strong and we’re going to need to be united.

None of the challenges we face lend themselves to simple solutions or bumper-sticker slogans.  Nor are the answers found in any one particular philosophy or ideology.  As I’ve said before, no person, no party, has a monopoly on wisdom.  And that’s why I’m eager to hear good ideas wherever they come from, whoever proposes them. And that’s why I believe it’s important to have an honest and civil debate about the choices that we face.  That’s why I want to engage both Democrats and Republicans in serious conversations about where we’re going as a nation.

And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.  We just had a tough election.  We will have another in 2012.  I’m not so naïve as to think that everybody will put politics aside until then, but I do hope to make progress on the very serious problems facing us right now. And that’s going to require all of us, including me, to work harder at building consensus.

You know, a little over a month ago, we held a town hall meeting in Richmond, Virginia.  And one of the most telling questions came from a small business owner who runs a tree care firm.  He told me how hard he works and how busy he was; how he doesn’t have time to pay attention to all the back-and-forth in Washington.  And he asked, is there hope for us returning to civility in our discourse, to a healthy legislative process, so as I strap on the boots again tomorrow, I know that you guys got it under control?  It’s hard to have a faith in that right now, he said.

President Barack Obama holds a news conference in the East Room of the White House, November 3, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Asked later to discuss how other issues aside from the economy played in the election, the President looked back at the way things got done in Washington during the last two years and before:

I’m doing a whole lot of reflecting and I think that there are going to be areas in policy where we’re going to have to do a better job. I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.
But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious -- a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies -- I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.
Now, the reason was it was an emergency situation.  But I think it’s understandable that folks said to themselves, you know, maybe this is the agenda, as opposed to a response to an emergency.  And that’s something that I think everybody in the White House understood was a danger.  We thought it was necessary, but I’m sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach.
In addition, there were a bunch of price tags that went with that.  And so, even though these were emergency situations, people rightly said, gosh, we already have all this debt, we already have these big deficits; this is potentially going to compound it, and at what point are we going to get back to a situation where we’re doing what families all around the country do, which is make sure that if you spend something you know how to pay for it -- as opposed to racking up the credit card for the next generation.
And I think that the other thing that happened is that when I won election in 2008, one of the reasons I think that people were excited about the campaign was the prospect that we would change how business is done in Washington.  And we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done.  And I think that frustrated people.

Mitch McConnell: Dumping Obama In 2012 Is The Only Way To Achieve The GOP Agenda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/mitch-mcconnell-heritage-health-care_n_778796.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110410&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) damped down expectations about the repeal of health care reform on Thursday, saying that the only way that goal can truly be achieved is if voters help get rid of President Obama in 2012.
McConnell stood by his recent comments that the "single most important thing" for the GOP to achieve in the new Congress is to make sure Obama doesn't get a second term.
"Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office," McConnell will say at a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation on Thursday at 11:00 a.m, according to his prepared remarks. "But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it."
McConnell added that Republicans will still nevertheless repeatedly propose and vote on straight repeal. "But we can't expect the president to sign it," he added. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."
In his speech, McConnell also sent a warning to the Obama administration to be ready for constant investigations.
"Oversight will play a crucial role in Republican efforts going forward," he said in his prepared remarks, adding, "Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation."
In the House, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Cali.) is likely to take over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and aggressively use his newfound power to probe the administration. He has already gained praise in conservative circles for aggressively going after Obama on issues such as what offer the White House made Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) in an effort to persuade him to drop his Senate run.

In addition to investigations, McConnell will talk on Thursday about plans to "freeze and cut discretionary spending" and "fight to make sure that any spending bill that reaches the Senate floor is amendable, so members can vote for the spending cuts Americans are asking for."

The Most Important Social Security Chart Ever & What I Told Fiscal Commission About Social Security 25JUL10 & 1NOV10 from MOJO

THIS may be one of the best solutions to the Social Security "problem" facing the nation. I still think anyone retiring with a yearly income over $250,000.00 a year shouldn't receive anything from Social Security, but unfortunately that is not going to happen. WE STILL NEED TO BE VIGILANT AND READY TO TAKE ON THE DEFICIT COMMISSION'S SOON TO BE RELEASED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS THEY WILL BE A 
FULL ATTACK ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM. From MOJO 
This is apropos of nothing in particular, but I guess that Social Security is going to be back in the news when the president's deficit commission reports back, so I want to take this chance to post the single most important chart you'll ever see about the finances of Social Security. Here it is:

This is from page 15 of the latest trustees report. What's important is that, unlike Medicare, Social Security costs don't go upward to infinity. They go up through about 2030, as the baby boomers retire, and then level out forever. And the long-term difference between income and outgo is only about 1.5% of GDP.
This is why I keep saying that Social Security is a very manageable problem. It doesn't need root-and-branch reform. The trust fund makes up Social Security's income gap for the next 30 years, so all it needs is some modest, phased-in tweaks that cut payouts by a fraction of a point of GDP and increase income a fraction of a point. Here's a proposal from Jed Graham (see below) that's designed to cut benefits a bit for high earners and encourage them to retire later, and maybe it's great. I haven't looked at it in detail. But the point is that the changes he recommends are fairly small. Any plan for fixing Social Security requires only tiny benefit cuts and tiny revenue increases. It's just not that big a deal

What I Told Obama’s Fiscal Commission About Social Security

By Jed Graham

Thu., July 29, 2010 2:20 PM ET

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with two first-rate staff members of the White House fiscal commission who were seeking creative ideas for restoring Social Security solvency. The gist of my message to them was the same I gave in “A Well-Tailored Safety Net,” a new book that does not reflect the editorial view of IBD. While politics is surely the biggest hurdle to Social Security reform, a menu of mostly flawed and regressive policy options has further raised the bar. If you carefully consider four critical goals of Social Security reform, it is clear that the policy options that have been kicked around for years are ill-suited to producing an affordable and effective safety net. Both political and policy concerns should point the fiscal commission in a new direction: a safety net that is firmer for lower earners than higher earners early in retirement, with benefit cuts gradually unwinding to provide robust support for retirees of all income levels in very old age. This is the only path to Social Security reform that can limit the need for tax hikes and borrowing without cutting away critical parts of the safety net. First, let’s look at those four essential goals of Social Security reform: 1. Preserve income security in very old age. Increasing life expectancy and rising health care costs will leave retirees at growing risk of depleting their savings and being left to scrape by on an insufficient benefit check in very old age. The reality is that Social Security is hardly generous to begin with, particularly once you factor in early retirement penalties that are scheduled to reduce annual benefits by 30% for those retiring at 62. Consider that after a 30% reduction, a career $30,000-earner retiring today would receive just a poverty-level benefit, including the portion that goes to pay Medicare premiums. If we want a Social Security system that maintains the promise of income security late in life, additional benefit cuts that apply in very old age should be off the table. 2. Encourage delayed retirement. If workers opt for longer careers and a shorter time collecting old-age benefits, it would provide the best possible medicine for our fiscal ailments. To the extent that workers offset benefit changes by working longer, it could contribute to economic growth, boost tax revenue and rein in Social Security’s spending path — all while improving personal financial outcomes. Yet while it makes sense to tilt Social Security’s incentives in favor of delayed retirement, it needs to be done in a way that provides a built-in, fail-safe function for those who may have difficulty responding to more constructive incentives. 3. Preserve income support in early 60s. At times of high unemployment, like the present, it’s easy to see the logic in Social Security providing a credible level of income support as early as age 62 — particularly for modest wage earners. 4. Save money. Realistically, savings from Social Security can only make a very modest dent in projected deficits over the coming decade, and the program’s long-term financing gap is dwarfed by that of Medicare and Medicaid. Still, the budget prognosis is so grim that every program needs to be streamlined for maximum efficiency. Those bigger budget problems outside of Social Security mean that the government is in no position to take on the $5.3 trillion in extra debt (in today’s dollars) that would accumulate by 2037 under current law before the last special-issue trust-fund bond is redeemed by the Treasury. If these four goals seem mutually exclusive, that’s because they are under the current menu of policy options for reforming Social Security. Consider one idea that has gotten more attention lately: hiking the official retirement age to 70. This could leave a gaping hole in the safety net in very old age as early retirement penalties reach 43% for those who opt to claim benefits at 62. On the other hand, hiking the earliest eligibility age from 62 to 65 in tandem with an increase in the official retirement age from 67 to 70 would pull away the floor of income support for those in their early 60s and still exact a severe 30% early retirement penalty from those retiring at 65. Such an increase in the early eligibility age would only underscore the unfairness of a big, across-the-board hike in the retirement age, since gains in life expectancy are disproportionately enjoyed by higher earners who generally have the pension savings and range of work skills to allow them to rely less on Social Security in their early 60s. Questions of fairness will always be central to Social Security reform, yet there is a way to address these concerns, while striking an appropriate balance between the need for income security late in life with the need many workers will have for income support in their early 60s. In “A Well-Tailored Safety Net,” I introduce a new solvency approach called Old-Age Risk-Sharing, under which the steepest benefit cuts would come in the initial year of retirement; the cuts would be progressively smaller for lower earners; and they would gradually unwind over 20 years to provide robust support for retirees of all income levels in very old age, when almost everyone will depend on it. Under Old-Age Risk-Sharing, a career-average earner ($42,000 in 2009) retiring after 2032 would face an upfront benefit cut of 20%, which would gradually unwind over 20 years to keep the safety net intact. However, thanks to enhanced incentives for delayed retirement, that worker could fully overcome this upfront cut and attain an extra measure of income security in very old age by working two years past the official retirement age. A lower earner would face a 10% upfront cut that could be overcome with one extra year of work, while a high earner would need to work three extra years to overcome a 30% upfront benefit cut. The surest way of tilting Social Security’s incentives toward delayed retirement (in a way that saves money) is by scaling back the incentives, i.e. benefits, for retiring early. The front-loaded benefit cuts prescribed in Old-Age Risk-Sharing would go further in this regard than the lifelong benefit cuts in the traditional menu of Social Security policy options. And because the cuts are front-loaded, the savings would accrue much faster. Combining Old-Age Risk-Sharing with an increase in the official retirement age to 68 would save as much as hiking the retirement age to 70 on the same time table (50% of the 75-year cash-flow gap or 70% of the official shortfall that treats the trust fund as money in the bank). But Old-Age Risk-Sharing would yield a much more effective safety net: A worker claiming Social Security at 65 would enjoy a benefit that is 14% greater in very old age than if the retirement age were simply raised to 70. While the earliest retirement age would have to rise to 63 to limit the maximum early retirement penalty to 30%, this could be done in a way that preserves 62 as the early eligibility age, with benefits ramping up as careers wind down. Workers could still be eligible to receive 75% of their benefit at 62, with full eligibility phasing in by age 68. Thus, Old-Age Risk-Sharing offers the first cost-effective path to Social Security reform that doesn’t force policymakers to choose between providing income support at age 62 or income security at age 92. http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1926-what-i-told-obamas-fiscal-commission-about-social-security

WE WILL OWN YOU VIDEO & REPUBLICORP CHAIRMAN & BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3NOV10

Our “We Will Own You” can beat up your “Yes, We Can,” any day, anywhere, especially once our hostile takeover of the 2010 Elections™ is complete. To celebrate our upcoming ownership of America, we invited Russian oligarch-gangster, and RepubliCorp™ spokesperson, Ivanov Ivnievsnivniev™, to take first crack at our official anthem, “We Will Own You”: (see video below)

Rep. Michele Bachmann claims Obama's trip to India will cost the taxpayers $200 million a day 3NOV10

THE TRUTH BE DAMNED, rep michele bachman r MN is going to keep the public outraged over big government spending because she can, because she lacks the morals that would prevent her from spreading lies and creating hate and mistrust of the federal government.

"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day."

Michele Bachmann on Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 in a CNN interview

Rep. Michele Bachmann claims Obama's trip to India will cost the taxpayers $200 million a day

Share this story:

It sure sounds outrageous. On his upcoming presidential trip to India, President Barack Obama is bringing an entourage of 3,000, staying in swanky hotels, guarded by an armada of Navy ships -- costing American taxpayers the staggering sum of $200 million a day.

To say this figure -- $200 million a day -- has made the rounds in the blogosphere would be a huge understatement. It has been repeated by nearly every conservative pundit in the land: Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge. Always with a healthy dose of indignation.

It also got picked up by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Nov. 3, 2010, it was just the latest example of government excess and spending from the Obama administration.

"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann said. "He's taking 2,000 people with him.
He will be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending. It's a very small example, Anderson.

"And I think this is an example of the massive overspending that we have seen, not only just in the last two years, really in the last four. That's what we saw at the ballot box last evening."

Again, $200 million a day sounds outrageous. But is it true?

The White House says, emphatically, that it's not.

"Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it’s safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," said White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield.

Cooper asked Bachmann how she came up with the number.

"These are the numbers that have been coming out in the press," Bachmann said.

Actually it's a figure that came from just one source, a news agency in India, relying on an anonymous source. It was then repeated thousands more times in the blogosphere and over conservative airwaves.

The claim that the U.S. would be spending "a whopping $200 million per day" on Obama's visit to Mumbai, India, originated in a report from the news agency Press Trust of India. It was an estimate attributed anonymously to "a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit." Maharashtra is a state located in western India.

Here's what the story said:

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, U.S. government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and U.S. security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

Said Bedingfield: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality."

Now it's true that overseas travel by presidents can be expensive, said Kelley Gannon, who worked on the press advance team for George H. W. Bush and was director of press advance for George W. Bush. "You have to re-create a mini White House."

But pegging an exact cost has long been an elusive task for news reporters.

In an Oct. 7, 2009, story for McClatchy Newspapers, reporter Steven Thomma took a stab:

The costs of the trips -- borne by taxpayers -- are difficult to measure, but they're expensive. When (the president) uses the familiar blue-and-white reconfigured 747 as Air Force One, it costs $100,219 an hour to operate, according to the Air Force. And that's just HIS plane.

There also are cargo planes, used to fly in armored limousines, helicopters, staff and other equipment, as well as the Secret Service. A single Air Force C-17 cargo jet, for example, costs $6,960 an hour, according to the Congressional Research Service.

A total of 77 other aircraft were used on one multi-country trip to Asia by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, according to the Air Force Times, including 14 C-17 Globemasters, 12 C-5 Galaxys, three C-141 Starlifters and two C-130 Hercules. ABC News at the time estimated the cost of that entire trip at $50 million.

An Air Force Times story on March 27, 2000, said Clinton's trip to India and Pakistan "may be the most expensive such mission ever carried out by the Air Force." The reporters said the operation required hundreds of aircraft missions. They tagged the cost of the 5-day trip at $50 million as well. That comes to $10 million per day.

Previous trips by the Clinton administration were less expensive, according to a September 1999 U.S. Government Accountability Office analysis of the costs for Clinton's 1998 trips to Africa, Chile and China.

"Presidential travel to foreign destinations requires planning, coordination, and logistical and personnel support," the report stated. "The estimated incremental costs of President Clinton’s trips to Africa, Chile, and China were at least $42.8 million, $10.5 million, and $18.8 million, respectively. The largest of these costs consisted of operating expenses of the president’s aircraft and other military passenger and cargo aircraft; travel expenses, including lodging for the travelers; and telecommunications, vehicle, and other equipment rentals and procurement in the countries visited."

We couldn't find any significant evidence that Obama's 3-day trip to India was going to be unusual in scope.

According to Press Trust of India and the Times of India, two US Air Force Jumbos and four helicopters landed ahead of the president's visit; and Obama will be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier.

In addition, the Times story states:

Obama is expected to fly by a helicopter -- Marine One -- from the city airport to the Indian Navy's helibase INS Shikra at Colaba in south Mumbai.

From there, he will drive down in a Lincoln Continental -- the Presidential limousine -- to the nearby the Taj Hotel.

Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obama's convoy.

Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.

The President will have a security ring of American elite Secret Service, which are tasked to guard the President, along with National Security Guards (NSG) and personnel from central paramilitary forces and local police in Mumbai and Delhi.

Similar arrangements will be in place in Delhi, with the Air Force One to be kept in all readiness throughout Obama's stay here from Sunday afternoon to Tuesday morning.

That probably sounds like a lot, but it's pretty standard fare for presidential travel, several people familiar with such travel told us.

James Gerstenzang, a former reporter who covered numerous foreign trips by presidents for the Los Angeles Times, laughed at the $200 million a day figure, which he guessed was probably "inflated by a factor of 10." And the claim about the entourage of 3,000 also seems grossly inflated, he said. He noted that any members of the press traveling with the president pay their own way, so that's not a cost borne by taxpayers.

"It really bothers me when numbers like that get thrown around by both sides for political reasons, without it being backed up," Gerstenzang said.

Veteran reporter David Jackson, who has traveled on a number of foreign trips by presidents, wrote for the USA Today, "No, President Obama's trip is not going to cost $200 million a day."

"That figure -- first thrown out by a single Indian media outlet and now viral on conservative talk radio -- is wildly, wildly off the mark."

And basing the claim on an estimate from an anonymous state government official in India is dubious at best.

"I think you have to ask, 'How would they know how much any of this costs?'" said Gannon, the advance press director under George W. Bush "We don't share that with officials from foreign governments. I'd question where they got that number from. That does sound very inflated."

As fact-checkers, we wish we had hard numbers from public documents to settle the issue of the cost of Obama's trip to India. But they don't exist. White House officials say details about foreign travel -- including the cost -- are not released for security reasons. So we don't know the cost to taxpayers of Obama's trip.

But we think Bachmann and others have a responsibility to back up statistics they cite. And in this case, the backing appears to be one news story, relying on an anonymous state government official in India. People familiar with presidential travel say that estimate is way off, and they question how a government official in India would know anyway. And a report by the independent GAO backs that up: A trip to India by Clinton, regarded at the time as perhaps the most expensive in history, was estimated to cost $50 million, or $10 million per day. That alone should cause someone to question the $200 million a day figure. In short, we don't see any evidence to back up this statistic. And we rate Bachmann's claim False.