Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com Politics Daily http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.politicsdaily.com/media/feedlogo.gif Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Democrats, Republicans, Independents Differ on Issues That Worry Them Mosthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/21/democrats-republicans-independents-differ-on-the-issues-that-w/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/21/democrats-republicans-independents-differ-on-the-issues-that-w/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/21/democrats-republicans-independents-differ-on-the-issues-that-w/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The top five issues that Americans worry about the most would not surprise anyone -- the economy, federal spending and the deficit, availability and affordability of health care, unemployment and the Social Security system. But one polling snapshot zeroes in on the difference in emphasis that Republicans, Democrats and independents regard as the top issues.

For the overall population, 71 percent say they worry a great deal about the economy, 64 percent name federal spending and the deficit, 58 percent are concerned about health care, 57 percent fret about unemployment and 51 percent mention Social Security, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6.

But looked at along party lines, federal spending tops the list for Republicans at 79 percent, with the economy a close second at 76 percent. The size and power of government is a major worry for 62 percent of Republicans, compared to 48 percent for the overall public. Illegal immigration is another issue higher on the list for Republicans (at 55 percent) than it is for the general public (42 percent).

Democrats put health care at the top of their list with 69 percent saying that's their top worry, followed by the economy at 64 percent, unemployment at 60 percent and Social Security at 53 percent.

Among independents, the order of concerns is: the economy (72 percent), federal spending (65 percent), health care (58 percent) and unemployment (55 percent).

The issue Americans worry about least is race relations, which only 16 percent call a top worry, with the environment second to last at 34 percent. In between, for the public at large, is availability and affordability of energy (46 percent), crime and violence (44 percent), illegal immigration (42 percent), hunger and homelessness (41 percent), possibility of a terrorist attack in the U.S. (40 percent) and drug use (40 percent).

Health care did not break into the ranks of top concerns for Republicans, and a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, conducted March 8-13, shows that it continues to be a polarizing issues, with Republicans strongly opposed to the year-old reform measure and Democrats strongly in support.





Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceBruce Drake2011-03-21T11:51:00+00:00Economic Issues Underpin Obama's Trip to Brazil, Chile, El Salvadorhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/18/obama-set-for-weekend-swing-through-brazil-chile-el-salvador/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/18/obama-set-for-weekend-swing-through-brazil-chile-el-salvador/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/18/obama-set-for-weekend-swing-through-brazil-chile-el-salvador/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

While still focused on the crises in Japan and Libya, President Obama heads to Latin America this weekend in an effort to promote economic ties and also patch up relations with Brazil, the dominant country in the region.

Obama will also visit Chile, an ally, and El Salvador, which is struggling with drug violence. But the main event is Brazil, where former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva once complained that the U.S. acted like an "empire" and that nothing had changed under Obama, the Washington Post reported.

Obama, in his first visit to Latin America as president, will meet with Brazil's new president, Dilma Rousseff, as the two leaders seek to re-set relations between their countries. Both sides are ready to start over, Julia Sweig, a Council on Foreign Relations scholar, told the Post. "Now they have to translate that optimism and goodwill to figure out what they can do together that's in both of their interests and how to mitigate the tensions that will naturally arise."

Obama said his trip is meant to "strengthen our economic relationship with neighbors" who play a growing role in the United States' economic future. The recent "turmoil and tragedy around the globe" underscores the importance of maintaining close economic links with neighboring countries, he said.

"Our neighbors in the Americas are bound to us by a shared history, values, interest," the president wrote in an op-ed column for USA Today. "What I will convey this week is that we are partners in progress. Strengthening these partnerships will advance common prosperity and common security of all our people, creating new jobs and new growth across the hemisphere, and helping our economy remain an engine of strength and opportunity for all our people."

Obama said Latin America's impressive growth "is good for the people of the hemisphere, and it's good for us. Thanks in part to our trade agreements across the region, we now export three times as much to Latin America as we do to China, and our exports to the region . . . will soon support more than 2 million jobs here in the United States."

First Lady Michelle Obama will also have a busy schedule during the trip, highlighted by visits to schools and cultural events, and a speech she will give in Santiago, Chile, aimed at Latin American youth, Politico reported. "She is extraordinarily popular overseas and is a huge asset to the U.S. in terms of her ability to continue our outreach to the region," Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said earlier this week.

In preparation for the trip, the president granted interviews Friday with televisions stations in Miami, Philadelphia and Charlotte, N.C.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Politics Daily Staff2011-03-18T10:02:00+00:00Republicans Losing Their Advantage on How to Handle the Deficit, Poll Findshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/republicans-losing-their-advantage-on-the-issue-of-the-deficit/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/republicans-losing-their-advantage-on-the-issue-of-the-deficit/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/republicans-losing-their-advantage-on-the-issue-of-the-deficit/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

A new poll released Wednesday echoes what a Washington Post/ABC News poll reported a day earlier: President Obama doesn't get good marks for his handling of issues involving the economy, but faith in Republicans doing a better job has slipped.

While the way the questions were framed in the Post/ABC News poll was different from the one by the Pew Research Center -- the Post/ABC survey focused on the economy in general and the Pew poll focused on dealing with the deficit -- the results point to a similar trend suggesting a drop in enthusiasm for Republican policies since the party won big in last year's midterm elections.

The Post/ABC News poll found a majority disapproving of Obama's handling of the economy, but those surveyed still said they trusted him more to do a better job in dealing with the issue than the Republicans.

When it comes to the deficit issue, Pew had found last November that 35 percent thought the Republicans had a better approach than Obama compared to 24 percent who preferred Obama's approach. Thirty-three percent said there was not much difference between the two and 8 percent were undecided.

But in its latest poll, conducted March 8-14, the percentage of those who believed Republicans had a better approach dropped to 21 percent, almost the same as the 20 percent who favored Obama. The percentage of those who said there was not much difference between the two jumped to 52 percent, with 7 percent undecided.

The poll found that the deficit issue now ranks third when it comes to the public's top economic concerns, although the percentage of those who express concern about the deficit is rising. Gallup noted a similar trend in a January poll.

Thirty-four percent cite jobs as the top economic concern, followed by 28 percent who worry most about rising prices. Twenty-four percent named the deficit as the top problem, up from about 15 percent in Pew's last two surveys. Ten percent name problems in the financial and housing markets as the top concern.

When it comes to ways to reduce the deficit, those surveyed were in favor of lowering domestic spending by a 61 percent to 30 percent margin. Americans were roughly split on whether defense spending should be reduced, with 49 percent saying it should and 47 percent disagreeing, which was within the poll's 3-point margin of error. Nearly two-thirds opposed making changes to Social Security or raising taxes.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Obama pollsBruce Drake2011-03-16T14:00:00+00:00New Irish PM in Washington for St. Paddy's, but Facing Money Crunch on Auld Sodhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/new-irish-pm-in-washington-for-st-paddys-but-facing-money-cru/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/new-irish-pm-in-washington-for-st-paddys-but-facing-money-cru/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/16/new-irish-pm-in-washington-for-st-paddys-but-facing-money-cru/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Ireland's new prime minister, Enda Kenny, has traveled to Washington to celebrate the wearing of the green on St. Patrick's Day, but also to begin rebuilding his country's damaged economic reputation.

The taoiseach (Gaelic for leader or first chieftain) wants to assure American investors that Ireland is still open for business and remains a good place for U.S. companies to take root, even with the recent European Union bailout of its finances.

Update: After an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister, President Obama announced Thursday that he would visit Ireland in May. Obama noted that his "great, great, great, great, great grandfather," Falmouth Kearney, was Irish. His trip will include a stop at his ancestor's home town of Moneygall, he said.

In addition to being entertained at the White House by the president Obama, Kenny will meet with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, according to the Irish news agency RTE.

Kenny's Fine Gael (Clan of Gaels) party came to power on Feb. 25 amid a shower of criticism for its predecessor, which took part of the blame for driving Ireland to near-bankruptcy and a $92.8 billion loan package, with plenty of strings attached. The previous Fianna Fail government was faulted for mishandling an economic crisis caused when a housing bubble burst, strapping banks that had financed the mortgages and construction. In his campaign, Kenny promised to seek better terms for the bailout with the EU and International Monetary Fund.

Irish prime ministers have journeyed "across the pond" to the U.S. for decades on St. Patrick's Day to promote investment and also to show their willingness to resolve sectarian strife in Northern Ireland, a British territory. Kenny's deputy, Foreign and Trade Minister Eamon Gilmore, will be a guest of honor at New York City's huge St. Patrick's Day Parade up Fifth Avenue on Thursday.

Northern Ireland's six counties have seen relative peace since the 1998 Good Friday Accord, which was brokered in part by former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell of Maine.

Kenny, who by custom will present President Obama with a bowl of shamrocks, will also be feted on Capitol Hill and hosted by Vice President Biden at the Naval Observatory. On Wednesday, he planned to speak at an American Ireland Fund dinner, honoring Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, the Associated Press said. O'Malley, the former mayor of Baltimore, once headed an Irish folk band.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceFine Gael partyirelandIreland banking crisisPolitics Daily Staff2011-03-16T12:35:00+00:00Poll Shows Faith in Government Plummets; Warning Signs for Republicans Emergehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/15/poll-americans-faith-in-government-plummets-warning-signs-for/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/15/poll-americans-faith-in-government-plummets-warning-signs-for/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/15/poll-americans-faith-in-government-plummets-warning-signs-for/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

While voters may have vented their anger at Washington in last year's elections and altered the balance of power, the public at large is no happier now with the way government is working, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted March 10-13.

Almost half of those surveyed -- 49 percent -- express uncertainty about "our system of government and how well it works" and what it portends for the future. Twenty-six percent said they were optimistic about how well the system of government would serve the nation and 23 percent were pessimistic, with 7 percent undecided.

The 26 percent who expressed optimism represented the lowest number in 35 years.

That compares to February 1999 when 54 percent described themselves as optimistic and 19 percent as pessimistic, with 27 percent uncertain and 1 percent undecided.

The Post/ABC finding comes on the heels of a Gallup poll conducted March 3-6 that showed the percentage of Americans who approved of the way Congress is doing its job dropping to 18 percent, after being in the low 20s in January and February.

Much of the sour outlook appears to stem from public perceptions of the economy, but there are also strong signs of disgruntlement with Republicans, who captured the House last November and strengthened their position in the Senate.

Fifty-three percent do not believe that the economy has begun to recover compared to 46 percent who think it has, with 1 percent undecided. While a majority still holds that view, it is an improvement over December when 57 percent said they saw no improvement.

Forty-nine percent said the economic stimulus program pushed through the last Congress by President Obama and the Democrats had no effect on the economy. Twenty-eight percent said it helped and 21 percent said it had hurt.

Fifty-five percent disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy compared to 43 percent who approved, with 2 percent undecided. That represented an uptick in the percentage of those who disapproved of the job Obama was doing on the economy, and his worst showing since last September.

But that was not necessarily good news for Republicans. Forty-six percent trusted Obama more than the Republicans to do a better job handling the economy compared to 34 percent who believed the Republicans would do a better job, with the remainder answering "both" or "neither."

Those surveyed said Obama represented their values more than the Republicans by a 46 percent to 41 percent margin, with 1 percent undecided. Forty-seven percent said Obama better understood the economic problems people were having than the Republicans, compared to 35 percent who said the Republicans understood better, with the remainder answering both or neither.

ABC polling analyst Gary Langer said, "The drop in trust to handle the economy has occurred chiefly among independents, now drawing away from the GOP after rallying to its side. As recently as January, 42 percent of independents preferred the Republicans in Congress over Obama to handle the economy. Today just 29 percent say the same, and there's been a rise in the number who volunteer that they don't trust either side."

Another possible factor in the overall gloom about government is the continuing war in Afghanistan. Sixty-four percent of Americans do not believe the war is worth fighting, a number that has been rising steadily since last April, when it stood at 52 percent.

Seventy-three percent said the U.S. should withdraw a substantial number of combat troops by this summer. Eighty-seven percent of Democrats held that view, as did 78 percent of independents. Fifty-six percent of Republicans, who have been more supportive than Democrats of the war effort, said the U.S. should withdraw troops.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Confidence in governmentObama pollsBruce Drake2011-03-15T11:11:00+00:00Can the Girl Scouts Help Balance Georgia's Budget?http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/can-the-girl-scouts-help-balance-georgias-budget/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/can-the-girl-scouts-help-balance-georgias-budget/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/14/can-the-girl-scouts-help-balance-georgias-budget/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

If Georgia lawmakers get their way, corporations doing business in the state will get a nice tax cut and the Girl Scouts will be chipping in to help make up the difference in the budget.

Yup. As crazy as that sounds, that's what's going on in the Peach State. In an attempt to bring more jobs to Georgia, GOP lawmakers have proposed a cut in corporate tax rates for domestic and foreign corporations, while calling for a tax increase on gasoline and groceries.

Like most states, Georgia has a budget problem. A recent task force that studied how to manage the shortfall recommended cutting corporate taxes. To help make up for that loss in revenue, House Bill 385 would impose a tax on nonprofit fundraising efforts, which would mean taxing the popcorn sold by the state's Boy Scouts, as well as those Tagalongs and Samoas that the Girl Scouts sell every year to raise money for their leadership and community involvement programs.

The Girl Scout's slogan for the organization's annual cookie drive is "Every Cookie Has a Mission." If this new tax law is passed, that mission will, in effect, include helping the state balance its budget.

The proposed bill doesn't specifically target the goodies that neighborhood Brownies and Daisies sell, but the impact is just the same.

While policy debates are always being made about whom to tax and how to create more jobs, shifting even a portion of the tax burden to nonprofits reflects a certain tone-deafness in the name of fiscal responsibility. How could Georgia Republicans not have foreseen that their new strategy would make them look like the Grinch sneaking into Cindy Lou Who's house at Christmas and stealing the roast beast?

But there's a larger issue here than just one state's approach to its budget crisis. This move in Georgia is just the latest episode in a growing effort to change our culture through legislation. Wisconsin is pitting teachers against taxpayers with its collective bargaining saga. In New Hampshire, some lawmakers want to stifle college-student voters because those crazy kids vote with their hearts, not their heads. And, as Lent proceeds, Congress is investigating religion in a way that makes me think about those so-called Salem witches.

Such efforts may seem "neutral on their face," as they say in the law, but when viewed together they create a larger picture of how those with more power treat those who have less.

As for those Scouts in Georgia, there is one leadership lesson they're learning from all this. The head of the Greater Atlanta Girl Scouts, Marilyn Midyette, reportedly sent an e-mail encouraging parents and supporters to contact their lawmakers about the proposed shift in the state's tax laws -- but asking them to do it in a courteous and "Scout-like" way, of course.

You can follow Joanne Bamberger on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>boy scoutsgeorgiageorgia budget shortfallgirl scout cookiesgirl scoutstaxestaxing nonprofits in georgiaJoanne Bamberger2011-03-14T08:27:00+00:00Sarah Palin's Popularity Slips to 60 Percent Disapproval Rate in Pollhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/sarah-palins-favorability-rating-slips-in-new-poll/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/sarah-palins-favorability-rating-slips-in-new-poll/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/sarah-palins-favorability-rating-slips-in-new-poll/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Sarah Palin, perhaps the most closely watched of all potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, is viewed in an unfavorable light by 60 percent of those questioned in a new Bloomberg News poll.

Palin's numbers suggest she would face a challenge in attracting voters beyond her conservative base if she decides to run for president next year. Bloomberg's survey of 1,001 adults was taken between March 4-7 by the Iowa firm, Selzer & Co. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Within the 60 percent who disapproved of Palin, 38 percent said they had "very unfavorable" feelings about her. She was viewed favorably by 28 percent, with only 4 percent not sure how they felt. A December Bloomberg poll had Palin's unfavorable rating at 57 percent.

But the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee isn't holding back. On Thursday night, Palin told Fox News she thought union bosses were "acting like thugs" in their fight against a bill in Wisconsin taking away public employees' collective bargaining rights. Labor leaders should "turn down the rhetoric and start getting truth out there so nobody gets hurt," she said.

There was good news for President Obama in the Bloomberg poll: 45 percent said he had a "better vision" for the nation's economic future than the Republican opposition. One-third (33 percent) of the sample preferred the GOP approach, and 22 percent didn't like either or weren't sure.

Watch Fox' Sean Hannity's interview with Palin.





 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidanceTom Diemer2011-03-11T16:05:00+00:00Obama on Oil: Tapping Strategic Reserves Possible, But It's a Last Resorthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/obama-on-oil-opening-strategic-reserves-possible-but-its-a-la/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , ,

President Obama has not ruled out tapping America's strategic oil reserves if oil prices continue to rise, but he added such a move would first require a "severe disruption of supply."

Increasing gas prices, triggered by the unrest in the Middle East, were among the topics the president addressed at a Friday afternoon press conference that touched on the devastating Japanese earthquake, America's possible involvement in Libya, and the budget stalemate in Congress.

Obama said the opening of the country's strategic oil reserves remains a possibility, but he declined to specify under what circumstances the reserves would be opened, other than to say it would take a major event -- one similar to 1970s OPEC crisis, or one that severely hobbled production capabilities, as when Hurricane Katrina shut down oil refineries in the Gulf.

He added that opening the reserves could be done expediently -- that the process "was teed up" and would not require months or weeks of preparation.

However, the president also maintained that now there is "no shortage of supply" in the global oil market and said the real problem is uncertainty. "We are confident about our ability to fill any potential gaps in supply," he said, noting that Libya in particular did not account for a significant portion of overall world production.

With oil prices edging up in recent weeks, some analysts have called for increased domestic drilling. Obama shot down suggestions the White House has discouraged it, saying, "Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political soundbite, but it doesn't match up with reality."

The proof, he said, is that the United States is "better prepared for supply disruptions" than in previous years, noting that "Today we use seven percent less oil than we did in 2005." The president attributed the decrease in part to more fuel-efficient cars.

Last year, American domestic oil production reached its highest level since 2003, and that for the first time in over a decade, oil imports accounted for less than half of U.S. consumption, he added.

The president insisted that comprehensive energy reform is the only way America can end its dependence on foreign oil. "We've been having this conversation for nearly four decades now," he said. Vowing not to hand reform off to the next administration, Obama said, "I think the American people are tired of that. They're tired of talk."

Switching to Libya, Obama remained cautious regarding any military measures the U.S. was prepared to take, and instead offered that America had "an obligation to prevent" violence akin to the situations in Rwanda and Bosnia. But he was careful to say there's no evidence that violence on that scale is occuring in Libya."I'm not saying that's what happening," he clarified, "and [that] we're prepared to step in" right now.

The president also addressed the budget war currently being fought in Congress, calling for both sides to come together and compromise. He opened the door to another potential two-week extension to continue funding the federal government, but criticized any temporary measures beyond that as "irresponsible."

Obama placed some blame for the stalemate on Republican leaders, accusing them of filling their approved House budget with a raft of "political" riders -- ones he felt had no place in a budget bill. He further maintained that Democrats were going to "hold the line on critical programs" that he believed were key to America's future, including education funding and reform efforts.

Regarding the recent earthquake in Japan, Obama said he was "heartbroken." He assured the public that the White House was coordinating with the Japanese government regarding security concerns, including possible nuclear containment from damaged reactors.

American efforts to assist the Japanese government, he said, would likely be centered around "lift capacity" and cleanup efforts. Obama remained confident that the Japanese would rebound from the crisis, given the fact that the nation was "so resourceful, with such an advanced economy." Still, he said, the tragedy of the quake was being felt across the world: "Humanity is one," he said.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Alex Wagner2011-03-11T14:51:00+00:00Wisconsin Fight: Bill Limiting Unions Passes in Messy Processhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-fight-bill-limiting-unions-passes-in-messy-process/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-fight-bill-limiting-unions-passes-in-messy-process/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-fight-bill-limiting-unions-passes-in-messy-process/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

A three-week stalemate that saw angry protests, the flight of Democratic state senators to a neighboring state and even a take-down tackle of one lawmaker by police came to an end Thursday as the Wisconsin Assembly gave final passage to a bill stripping public workers of key collective bargaining rights.

Democracy is often a messy thing -- and that has been on display in Madison on an almost dally basis, leading up to Thursday's conclusive 53-42 vote. Last week, Democratic legislator Nick Milroy, whom authorities did not recognize, was wrestled to the ground by police as he tried to enter the closed Capitol.

"Yeah, it was a living and breathing democracy," acknowledged Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who is fighting a similar bill in Columbus.

Events in Wisconsin have demonstrated that elections have consequences -- and also that state government can often touch people's lives in a more direct and personal way than the federal government in far-off Washington. For weeks, thousands of citizens on both sides of the labor rights issue flooded the Statehouse in an effort to hold lawmakers accountable.

Already, Wisconsin Democrats have filed recall petitions aimed at eight GOP senators who supported Republican Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to curtail collective bargaining rights and require larger public employee contributions to pension plans and health care plans. Walker is expected to quickly sign the approved bill into law.

The hard feelings came to a head Wednesday night when the Wisconsin Senate, in a parliamentary maneuver, removed budget provisions from the bargaining bill so it could be passed with fewer than the 20-member quorum required for spending measures. Fourteen Senate Democrats left the state last month and camped out in Illinois to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to act on the "Budget Repair" bill.

With protesters shouting "You are cowards" and "Shame," the slimmed-down bill passed 18-1, with not a single Democratic senator in the chamber. It was taken up Thursday by the State Assembly, which had to concur with the Senate changes. But final passage was delayed by another noisy protest as police removed dozens of pro-labor demonstrators, the New York Times and the Associated Press reported.

Ryan, who joined a recent demonstration in Columbus against the collective bargaining bill pending in Ohio, followed the events in Wisconsin with a hopeful eye. "We are living with the consequences of an election where a lot of people didn't vote and a handful of people probably voted for the other guy," he said, suggesting that some Democratic voters switched sides in the Republican wave last November.

Events in Ohio and Wisconsin, he said, have "energized and mobilized what I think is a sleeping giant -- and that is the American work force." Ryan believes the political pendulum is about to swing again toward his party, but Democrats "need to get back to these bread and butter issues."

"We may lose this battle," he said of the pro-union side, "but we may ultimately win the war."

Watch the scene in Wisconsin Senate Wednesday night, courtesy of the MacIver Institute and YouTube.


 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Collective bargainingLabor unionsTim RyanWisconsin AssemblyTom Diemer2011-03-10T18:40:00+00:00Biden in Russia: Pegs More U.S. Trade to Corruption Cleanuphttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/biden-in-russia-pegs-more-u-s-trade-to-corruption-cleanup/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , ,

He mangled a couple of Russian names and scolded the government for not dealing more forcefully with corruption, but Vice President Biden got his point across in a speech at Moscow State University: the United States wants to do more business with the Russian Federation.

"Some say, 'How can you say those things out loud and expect to have a better relationship?'" Biden said Thursday in remarks to students, business leaders and politicians. "They are necessary to have a better relationship."

Biden said the United States supports Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization and believes that would bring expanded trade between the two countries. But he said the government must also respect the rule of law. Biden complained that a corporate lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was arrested and died in prison after accusing the police of fraud -- "before even being tried."

Using a teleprompter, he got Magnitsky's name right, but flubbed on the great composer Tchaikovsky and missed on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil tycoon who has been imprisoned since 2003 on charges heavy with political implications.

In the context of the struggles for more freedom in the Arab world, Biden urged "all of you students here, don't compromise on the basic elements of democracy."

Earlier, he spoke with Russian opposition leaders at the U.S. ambassador's residence, and also met separately with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. When Putin said to the vice president that he wanted to see visa-free travel between the U.S. and Russia, Biden replied, "Good idea."

During the portion of their meeting open to the press, Biden told Putin it was in the interest of both nations to see "our relationship grow . . . When other countries around the globe have a problem they either go to Moscow or Washington. They don't go to other capitals."

The vice president is in the midst of a five-day trip through Finland, Russia and Moldova.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Tom Diemer2011-03-10T14:15:00+00:00Rival Budget Bills Fail in Senate, Shutdown Countdown Beginshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/09/cliff-rival-budget-bills-fail-in-senate-shutdown-countdown-b/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/09/cliff-rival-budget-bills-fail-in-senate-shutdown-countdown-b/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/09/cliff-rival-budget-bills-fail-in-senate-shutdown-countdown-b/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

The Senate voted Thursday to defeat two rival plans to cut federal spending through the end of the year, reflecting deep divisions over the best course to tame the country's spiraling debt.

The impasse means that lawmakers will continue negotiations ahead of a March 18 deadline. That's when the current short-term spending measure expires and the government could shutdown without a new agreement.

The first bill, approved by House Republicans last month, was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 44 to 56. All 53 Democrats and three Republicans voted against it. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) said the cuts in the GOP bill did not go far enough.

Related Stories

Then the Democratic alternative failed 42 to 58. All 46 Republicans voted no, along with 11 Democrats and one independent.

The GOP bill would have sliced $61 billion from the current budget through cuts to programs dear to Democrats' hearts, like implementation of health care reform, Pell grants, early learning programs, nutrition for women and children, and funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Democratic measure would have trimmed $6.5 billion this year by eliminating earmarks and zeroing out funds for several highway projects and programs that President Obama has agreed to end.

The three-hour debate leading up to the votes became heated at times, with Republicans accusing Democrats of ignoring the debt problem, and Democrats warning that the GOP plan would harm women, children, homeless veterans, the sick, the poor and the elderly.

"If this were a plan to get us to a balanced budget, I would support it, but it's not," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). "It's just a plan that compromises our national security without doing much else. When a real plan is presented, I'll vote for it. Until then, I'm voting no."

But Republican senators argued that no matter what had led up to this moment, the country is burning cash at a rate that will cripple the nation and its ability to prosper in the future.

"For goodness sakes, we've got to stop spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a longtime budget hawk.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized GOP efforts to cut non-defense discretionary spending alone. He said reductions to all programs, as well as "revenue raisers," or tax hikes, must be discussed during the next round of budget negotiations.

"This is a Trojan horse spending proposal and we should not be fooled by it," he said. "These cuts will harm our ability to prepare for the future because they gut the very priorities we need to be investing in to help our economy grow -- education, energy investment, technology and infrastructure."

Other Democrats wondered why Republicans have become so concerned about the budget under President Obama, but made no attempt to deal with deficits that George W. Bush presided over as president.

"We borrowed the money for [the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] -- one that went way beyond what it was ever supposed to be and the other we should not have been in in the first place," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "We also cut taxes for oil companies and rich people and everyone else."

For their part, Republicans said the Democratic proposal did not go nearly far enough. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) called the plan to cut $6.5 billion at a time when the deficit is growing by $4 billion per day "pathetic and entirely inadequate."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) warned that current spending levels had put the United States on a path toward European-style socialism.

"Are we going to be a country with a constitutionally limited government that limits the burden of taxation on individuals and families and businesses, or are we going to become Europe?" Hatch asked.

Several senators voted against both proposals, criticizing both parties for failing to put a serious and fair budget proposal forward for senators to consider.

"In my view, neither is serious," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D. Neb.). "These bills are loaded down with tricks, treats, gimmicks, and games."

With the two votes completed, senators said they are ready to go back to the negotiating table, a process that began last week with a meeting presided over by Vice President Joe Biden, but complicated by his current trip overseas.

Funding for the government will expire at midnight on March 18 under a short-term measure called a continuing resolution. On Tuesday, House GOP whip Kevin McCarthy said Republicans have little hope that a seven-month budget agreement will be reached before then, so are prepared to negotiate another continuing resolution to keep the government operating while the talks continue.

With a lengthy negotiating process ahead, Coburn warned Wednesday that time is running out for Washington to solve the problem.

"We can no longer kick the can down the road without spilling the soup all over our kids. The time for action is now," he said.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>senate abd budgetsenate and spending cutsspendingspending cutsPatricia Murphy2011-03-09T17:01:00+00:00Unemployed? Retrain!http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/unemployed-retrain/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/unemployed-retrain/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/08/unemployed-retrain/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>economic recoveryeconomyentrepreneurentrepreneursjob retrainingjob searchjobless recoveryjobsoffshoringretrainingunemployedunemploymentunemployment rateRobert and Donna Trussell2011-03-08T10:20:00+00:00Enough With Budget Brinksmanship: The Case for Waiting Until 2012http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/enough-with-budget-brinksmanship-the-case-for-waiting-until-201/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/enough-with-budget-brinksmanship-the-case-for-waiting-until-201/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/enough-with-budget-brinksmanship-the-case-for-waiting-until-201/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , ,

With the government living on a two-week financial reprieve that will expire on March 18, this is Rumpelstiltskin time in politics as everyone seems to be stamping his feet in rage over the $14-trillion national debt.

Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is making the rounds with charts entitled "Reckless Spending Spree" and "Tidal Wave of Debt." In a clarion-call address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Indiana GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels warned of "the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink." Talking to a convention of religious broadcasters recently, House Speaker John Boehner sounded like a Biblical prophet as he warned, "We're broke. Broke going on bankrupt." And Barack Obama, speaking Friday at a Democratic fund-raiser in Florida, hailed the coming national debate over the deficit "because we can't sustain the spending path that we're on."

Related Stories

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who chaired the president's bipartisan debt commission, are launching Tuesday in Washington what they dub "The Moment of Truth Project" to restore fiscal discipline to the federal government. To deficit hawks like Bowles and Simpson, every tick of the debt clock sounds like a tocsin. In their view, there is not a second to be lost in the race to enact fundamental changes such as the Bowles-Simpson commission recommendation that the retirement age for Social Security be gradually raised to 69 by the year 2075.

After ignoring the deficit for almost a decade, the new orthodoxy is that Medicare and Social Security must be revamped immediately because 2075 is getting closer every day. With a series of artificial deadlines coming up (March 18 for funding the government and sometime later this spring for raising the statutory debt ceiling), congressional Republicans and the Obama White House are giving lip service to fantasies about long-term fixes.

Even if it would not jeopardize the fragile recovery, this is the wrong medicine at the wrong time. For all the apocalyptic rhetoric from Boehner and Company, America is neither broke nor broken. America is not Greece - we lack leaders like Pericles and there is scant danger that the global bankers will stop lending us money. Interest rates on two-year federal bonds - a key barometer of perceived risk - are a microscopic 0.7 percent. Put in piggy-bank terms, investors get 7 cents back on every $10 they invest in Uncle Sam.

Since the markets are giving us the luxury of years to get our fiscal house in order, there is a potent political reason for taking a deep breath and stepping away from the abyss.

A significant portion of the deficit crisis has been caused not by 85-year-olds living the lush life courtesy of Social Security and Medicare, but by the worst economic downturn since cars came equipped with rumble seats. Newt Gingrich recognizes this reality, even though this admission is not often featured in Republican rhetoric. Making the case for the GOP elixir of another round of Miracle-Gro tax cuts last week, Gingrich stressed that getting the unemployment rate down to 4 percent is "the first and biggest step to get back to a balanced budget."

For all the haste gripping the political community in Washington, there is no national consensus whatsoever on how to tame the deficit. House Republican freshmen may believe that they came to Washington with a mandate to slash domestic spending, but this slash-and-burn agenda is not reflected in the national polls.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that, if pushed, 35 percent of all Americans would cut essential programs to eliminate the deficit and another 33 percent would raise taxes. The swing group: the 26 percent who say that they would prefer to postpone doing anything about the deficit if confronted with those unpalatable choices. In similar ostrich-like fashion, an early February poll by the Pew Research Center found that the only program that many Americans (45 percent) are eager to cut is global poverty assistance, a microscopic fraction of the federal budget.

For all the glib Washington talk of cutting back major government benefit programs, the NBC/WSJ poll underscored how difficult it is to trim Social Security (22 percent favor this remedy) or Medicare (18 percent) to staunch the deficit. In contrast, it is fascinating that polls show significant support for an agenda item rarely discussed in Washington - downsizing the Pentagon budget. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 46 percent of Americans would find it "acceptable" to slash military spending. Using different question wording, the Pew survey asked whether Americans would prefer to increase (31 percent) or decrease (30 percent) the Defense budget.

These poll numbers are suggestive rather than definitive because there has never been a sustained national debate over how to bring down the national debt. That is what a presidential campaign is for - to create a national consensus on important policy issues. What passed for a debate on the deficit in 2008 was comically unsophisticated, with John McCain all but implying that eliminating earmarks was the route to a balanced budget. Even during the 2010 congressional elections (with a much smaller electorate than in presidential years), issues like health-care reform and the unpopularity of Nancy Pelosi loomed larger than red-ink budgeting in most races.

Putting off the moment-of-truth reckoning on dealing with the nation's structural budget deficit would not be a ploy to aid the Democrats or Republicans. While predictions this far in advance of an election are fraught with risk of embarrassment, it is certainly plausible that Obama will be reelected but Republicans will gain control of the Senate and hold the House. The point is that there might be even more political balance between the two parties after 2012 than there is now.

The difference is that voters will have two years to hear the arguments from both Obama and his GOP rivals about the decisions necessary to bring federal spending in line with governmental revenues. In an ideal universe, voters will learn that eliminating foreign aid or canceling bridges to nowhere are budgetary gimmicks rather than fiscal remedies. If ultimately there is going to be a grand political bargain on the deficit in Washington in 2013, Americans deserve to understand what the stakes are for Social Security, Medicare, domestic spending, tax rates and, yes, the Pentagon budget.

Follow Walter Shapiro on Twitter (lucky you).

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Alan Simpsonbarack obamabudget deficitbudget showdownbudget+us+governmentbudgetusgovernmentcampaign 2012Erskine Bowlesgreece+debt+clockgreecedebtclockJohn BoehnerMitch McConnellmitch+daniels+red+menacemitchdanielsredmenacenational debtpaul ryanpresidential politicssimpson+bowles+moment+of+truth+conferencesimpson-bowlessimpsonbowlesmomentoftruthconferenceWalter Shapiro2011-03-07T23:55:00+00:00McDonald's Grows Up: Coffee, Wi-Fi Supplanting Junk Food Imagehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/mcdonalds-grows-up-coffee-wi-fi-supplanting-junk-food-image/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/mcdonalds-grows-up-coffee-wi-fi-supplanting-junk-food-image/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/07/mcdonalds-grows-up-coffee-wi-fi-supplanting-junk-food-image/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Well, it would appear that the New York Times magazine isn't the only iconic American institution undergoing a makeover. McDonald's is changing its menu and ambiance to project a more grown-up image.

Over the past few years, the fast-food chain has embraced a whole new look and feel. On the menu end of things, it has begun offering healthier fare like salads, Asian chicken sandwiches and fruit smoothies. And on the appearance end of things, McDonald's has also upgraded its look, offering free Wi-Fi, comfortable seats, funky lighting fixtures and cool wall hangings.

Front and center in this up-market move is coffee. According to Business Week, the company's McCafe drinks, which were rolled out nationally in 2009, have driven revenue growth at the company in six of the past seven quarters. The idea has been to offer a lower-cost alternative to Starbucks (although Starbucks -- which has had its own image makeover -- disputes that McDonald's is making serious inroads into its business).

The goal behind Mickey D's transformation is to reach new, more sophisticated customers. And while that doesn't mean renouncing its signature "Happy Meals" for children, the net effect is that the fast-food chain now feels more, well . . . adult. Indeed, among other casualties of the image overhaul is Ronald McDonald himself, who will now play a much more muted role in the company's marketing.

The changes to McDonald's are no doubt brought on in part by a series of recent legal actions. Last April, lawmakers in Santa Clara County, Calif., passed a bill prohibiting restaurants from giving away toys with meals that didn't meet national nutritional standards for children.

In June, a public health watchdog also called upon the fast-food giant to stop giving away toys with its meals, on the grounds that toys lure children into the restaurant to eat food that is high in sugar and fat. The Center for Science in the Public Interest expressed its intent to sue McDonald's over this issue, and in December it found a plaintiff for the case.

There's also been a sea-change in public attitudes toward obesity, which has no doubt raised the stakes for fast-food chains in today's political landscape. The obesity crisis is now well-documented, not just in the U.S. but in the U.K., where I live .

There's much more public attention showered upon the adverse health effects of eating junk food. Michelle Obama has made reducing childhood obesity a cornerstone of her work as first lady. And Walmart has announced a five-year plan to cut back on unhealthy foods and make healthy foods cheaper. Heck, you can't go into a restaurant in New York state these days without seeing a calorie count on your menu.

I'm not a big fan of junk food. My son has extensive food allergies, which means that on the odd occasion when we do grace the doorstep of a McDonald's, we have to "hold" so many items on his Quarter Pounder (the cheese, the mayo, the bun) that all we're left with is a naked piece of flattened ground beef lying on a paper wrapper (which is rather depressing). Plus, all I have to do is call up the image of that guy in the film "Super Size Me" -- or look at that ad with the fat guy lying on a stretcher clutching a half-eaten McDonald's hamburger -- to remind myself why I rarely go there.

Still, I'd like to take a moment to mourn Ronald McDonald's diminishment in our collective consciousness. With his stripey undergarment, blaring yellow overalls, fire-engine-red hair and enthusiastic (bordering on creepy) grin, he embodied all that is oversized, outlandish and inappropriate about childhood.

And as much as I love my lattes, I will be sad to see him go.


Follow Delia on Twitter.






 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>mc donalds new lookMcCafemcdonalds happy mealsmcdonalds happy meals law suitsmcdonalds makeovermcdonalds vs. starbucksmichelle obama childhood obesityobesity epidemicronald mcdonald advertisingDelia Lloyd2011-03-07T23:55:00+00:00Mitt Romney in New Hampshire: Lots of Buzz but No Announcement -- Yethttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/mitt-romney-in-new-hampshire-lots-of-buzz-but-no-announcement/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/mitt-romney-in-new-hampshire-lots-of-buzz-but-no-announcement/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/05/mitt-romney-in-new-hampshire-lots-of-buzz-but-no-announcement/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , ,

It falls short of any campaign launch, but Mitt Romney's appearance at a Republican dinner in New Hampshire Saturday created plenty of political buzz over the weekend.

Romney, who served as governor of neighboring Massachusetts between 2003 and 2007, finished a close second to Sen. John McCain in the state's first-in-the-nation GOP primary three years ago. And winning New Hampshire will be an imperative if -- as is widely speculated -- he runs for president again in 2012.

Romney planned to give the keynote address Saturday at the sold-out Carroll County Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in Bartlett, N.H., according to the Union Leader of Manchester.

No announcement about his plans for next year was expected, but that didn't tamp down interest in the potential candidate's first sighting in the Granite State since the mid-term elections.

In fact, the text of his speech was in wide circulation hours before the dinner. CNN, and other news outlets, said Romney's prepared remarks argue that President Obama "created a deeper recession and delayed the recovery" by expanding government and borrowing trillions of dollars. He talks about something he calls the "Obama Misery Index:" continuing unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies.

His speech comes a day after the unemployment rate fell below 9 percent for the first time in nearly two years. In Miami, Fla. Friday, Obama noted that 220,000 jobs were added in the private sector in February -- marking the 12th straight month of job growth.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>dailyguidancenew hampshire primaryTom Diemer2011-03-05T18:01:00+00:00Jobless Rate Dips Below 9 Percent but White House Holds the Applausehttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/04/jobless-rate-dips-below-9-percent-but-white-house-holds-applause/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/04/jobless-rate-dips-below-9-percent-but-white-house-holds-applause/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/04/jobless-rate-dips-below-9-percent-but-white-house-holds-applause/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Obama administration greeted news that unemployment finally fell below 9 percent with caution and restraint, calling the February downtick "encouraging" but warning against reading "too much into any one monthly report."

"Though unemployment remains elevated, we are seeing signs that the initiatives put in place by this administration -- such as the payroll tax cut and the investment tax credit -- are creating the conditions for sustained growth and job creation," said Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee. Declines in the jobless rate over the last three months -- to the lowest mark in nearly two years -- and overall economic trends are encouraging, he said. "But there is still considerable work to do to replace jobs lost in the downturn."

The Labor Department said Friday that 192,000 jobs were added to the economy in February -- compared to just 63,000 the month before -- as the 8.9 percent unemployment rate was down a hair from 9.0 percent in January. The biggest gains came in manufacturing, construction, business services and health care. But jobs were wiped off payrolls in strapped state and local governments. Across the country 13.7 million Americans remained unemployed -- one stark reason for Goolsbee's pointed caution.

The news wasn't good enough for the Republican National Committee. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said even with the better jobs numbers, "we have yet to see the leadership we need coming out of the White House to restore sustainable economic growth. . . . Frankly, if the answer doesn't involve more spending, this administration is simply out of solutions."

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saw a better day ahead and warned that cutting the federal budget too deeply this year could cost jobs in a fragile economy. "Republicans should work with us to quickly pass a long-term budget that reduces the deficit while protecting jobs, and [giving] business certainty," he said. Similarly, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the improving economy "remains threatened by irresponsible budget cutting in Congress and in states and cities."

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Austan Goolsbeedailyguidanceharry reidReince PriebusRichard TrumkaTom Diemer2011-03-04T12:04:00+00:00What Would Jesus Cut? Deficit Debate Rallies Christians -- and Exposes Divisionshttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/what-would-jesus-cut-deficit-debate-rallies-christians-and-e/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/what-would-jesus-cut-deficit-debate-rallies-christians-and-e/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/what-would-jesus-cut-deficit-debate-rallies-christians-and-e/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

"What would Jesus do?" That question has for years been a powerful slogan for conservative Christians who want to challenge Americans to conform to Gospel teachings. But now that some are applying the rallying cry to the nation's divisive budget battles, it is also exposing divisions among Christians as much as it is offering a united witness of faith -- or public policy.

Earlier this week a coalition of dozens of progressive Christian leaders led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners launched a campaign, "What would Jesus cut?" with a full-page ad in Monday's edition of Politico, and the group is following it up by sending e-mails and orange wristlets with the slogan to all members of Congress in an effort to prevent cuts for the poor and reduce defense spending.

Then on Thursday, a group of prominent evangelicals with a more conservative cast (though some signed onto both initiatives) launched a "A Christian Proposal for American Debt Crisis" that focuses on the deficit as a moral issue -- much as House Speaker John Boehner did this week -- but which also opposes the Republican-led effort to address the debt by slashing discretionary spending.

"Effective programs that prevent hunger and suffering and empower poorer members of society must continue and be adequately funded," the latest petition says.

Yet even as these Christian leaders, many of them card-carrying conservatives, push to spare the poor while reducing the deficit, they face serious internal tensions and fractures on two fronts: among themselves, on the one hand, and between these leaders and the folks in the pews, on the other.

Among the leadership, one clear difference of opinion is over what ought to be cut. Some would spare foreign aid to the poor and sacrifice more on the domestic side, while others disagree about whether defense spending should be significantly reduced. And the minefield of entitlement reform is treaded on ever so lightly, much as it is on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

At the same time, these faith-based campaigns focus almost exclusively on the issue of cutting spending and largely avoid the dreaded "t-word" -- taxes -- which has the potential to splinter any coalition.

For example, the "Christian Proposal for American Debt Crisis" launched on Thursday has only a broadly worded phrase near the end that says Congress "should remove many special exemptions, end many special subsidies, and keep the tax code progressive."

"Our general statement says we keep the tax code progressive. It doesn't say exactly how we do that," Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, a chief organizer of the petition, said on a Thursday conference call with other signatories that was organized by the liberal-leaning group, Faith in Public Life.

Sider said he would personally support a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans but acknowledged that not all of his colleagues agree with him.

Indeed, only one of the other five evangelicals on the call, Michael Gerson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, who is now a fellow at the ONE Campaign and a columnist for the Washington Post, responded to a question about tax hikes, and he cautioned against the idea because he said it would undermine economic growth.

Yet even modest language on protecting anti-poverty programs, for example, which are a relatively miniscule part of the federal budget, were seen as tantamount to "heresy" by Peter Wehner, writing at Commentary, about the "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign.

Wehner's critique points directly to the other fault line facing Christian leaders advocating for the poor, namely the veritable gulf between even the more conservative activists like Michael Gerson and the believers in the pews.

As a recent Pew survey showed, evangelical Christians in particular are significantly more likely than other Americans to favor spending cuts on aid to poor people in the United States and overseas, and cuts on spending on behalf of the unemployed, environmental protection, scientific research, health care and education.

"I would say that we need an ongoing biblical dialogue with my brother and sister evangelicals," is how Ron Sider diplomatically phrased his reaction to the survey.

Shane Claiborne of The Simple Way, another speaker at Thursday's press conference, was more direct:

"I think that much of evangelical Christianity has lost the centeredness of Jesus and Jesus' heart for the poor and Jesus' Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount," he said. "We're starting with Christians because in some ways we've forgotten the 2,000 [Bible] verses that dare us and challenge us to remember the poor."

Claiborne called defense spending the "elephant in the room" that no one wanted to talk about, a reflection of the fact that the Pew survey showed that the only sectors of the federal budget on which evangelicals wanted to increase spending more than the rest of the public was defense and fighting crime.

Likewise, Gideon Strauss, president of Center for Public Justice, seemed to reject the philosophy of the tea party movement -- which surveys show is disproportionately composed of conservative white evangelicals -- when he declared Thursday that "those who disdain government and the political process dishonor God and their own humanity."

That's a powerful bit of preaching, but it's hard to see how it can affect a conversion on a flock that is in no mood to hear about shared sacrifices. Even more daunting is the task of translating such lofty principles into policy proposals that could unite Christian leaders themselves while having any chance of achieving their shared goals of protecting social programs while reducing the deficit and not raising taxes.

In the end, the Devil is always in the details, whether it's a question of the federal budget or what Jesus really meant.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>ChristiansdeficitJim WallisJimWallisMichael GersonMichaelGersonRon SiderRonSiderSocialJusticeDavid Gibson2011-03-03T22:25:00+00:00Newt Gingrich Poised to Run: Why the 1990s GOP Icon Struggles for Respecthttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/newt-gingrich-poised-to-run-why-the-1990s-gop-icon-struggles-fo/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/newt-gingrich-poised-to-run-why-the-1990s-gop-icon-struggles-fo/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/newt-gingrich-poised-to-run-why-the-1990s-gop-icon-struggles-fo/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

Newt Gingrich moved toward launching his first presidential campaign with all the grace of a suitcase falling down a flight of stairs.

It all began with conflicting signals from aides about what Gingrich actually would be announcing Thursday in Atlanta (correct answer: A website called "NewtExplore2012"). Then, in an odd one-question press conference, Gingrich proposed a Tenth Amendment Implementation Act (a vague project to return federal responsibilities to the states) while he simultaneously unveiled the exploratory White House candidacy. Finally, there was the embarrassing glitch when a liberal group pointed out that the flag-waving crowds in the background on the new Gingrich website were from a stock photo also used by Ted Kennedy with the logo: "We are the Democratic Majority."

Related Stories

Not a single GOP voter, in all likelihood, will be influenced by these banana-peel moments by the time the Iowa caucuses roll around next year. But what they illustrate is how easy it is for Gingrich's chronic weakness (a shambling lack of political discipline) to crowd out his obvious strength (his unmatched creativity as a conservative idea generator).

Despite being the most influential figure in the Republican Party (not counting presidents named Bush) over past two decades, Gingrich is the Rodney Dangerfield of the potential 2012 field. As newly elected South Carolina GOP Gov. Nikki Haley said dismissively about Gingrich, "There was a place and time for him." Candidates who are registering as asterisks in the national polls (former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour) are taken seriously as potential GOP nominees, while Gingrich (who attracted 13 percent support from Republicans in the latest national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll) is written off as an unrealistic dreamer.

"Newt's like Palin," said a veteran Republican strategist likely to sign on to work for one of Gingrich's rivals. "Everybody loves listening to him. But they won't vote for him."

The former House speaker's liabilities might be fatal if this were a normal presidential cycle for the Republicans. First elected to Congress when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, the 67-year-old Gingrich is not only the oldest potential GOP contender, but he is also the only one who has not been on an election ballot in this century. Even though he all but portrayed his third wife, Callista, in Clinton-esque buy-one-get-one-free terms during his Thursday announcement and on the new website, Gingrich's tangled marital history is apt to be an issue in the campaign.

But never in modern memory (not even in 2007 when front-runner John McCain's candidacy collapsed) has there been a GOP presidential race this difficult to handicap. The gaffe-prone Mike Huckabee (the front-runner with 25 percent support in the NBC poll) will either enter the Republican fray late -- or not at all. Mitt Romney (21 percent backing in the poll) is certain to run a well-funded, professional, solid campaign. What is unknown about Romney, after spending more time in quest of the presidency than he did as a one-term Massachusetts governor, is whether he can inspire Republicans beyond grudging acceptance.

As counter-intuitive as it seems, someone will win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination - and, like as not, it will be the candidate who rides the right issue or catches fire at the right moment. If the secret to success this time around is the Big Idea, then there is a political case for Gingrich. As pollster David Winston, who worked for Gingrich as speaker but is not currently involved in his presidential effort, put it, "Given the problems facing the country, people are looking for ideas to solve these problems. And the person with the ability to develop these ideas is Newt Gingrich."

Politicians are a competitive breed - and few (other than vanity candidates) run for the presidency without convincing themselves that there is a path to victory. As Gingrich inches closer to a formal candidacy, it seems clear that he believes that the prize (the nomination) is worth the price (going under the marital microscope). "I assume Newt thinks he can win," said GOP strategist Rich Galen, another veteran of Gingrich's 1990s staff as speaker. "He's gone far enough down the road toward a candidacy. And he's old enough and comfortable enough with himself that he's not doing it for the ego."

But talking with influential Republicans outside of the Newt orbit, it is difficult to find many who envision Gingrich as someone who could be standing center stage at the Tampa convention with his arms aloft in triumph as the confetti and balloons rain down on his white-thatched head. "Newt will punch above his weigh in terms of his presence in the primaries," said a GOP insider, who has worked on several prior presidential campaigns. "He will be felt much more than other candidates who don't have a chance."

The hardest thing to master in presidential politics is to know when to stifle the urge to make dismissive judgments about the chances of presidential contenders. Sixteen years after he confounded the skeptics by ending the four-decade Democratic stranglehold on the House of Representatives, an older and possibly even wiser Newt Gingrich is again challenging the political doubters. What we are about to witness is either the last hurrah of a conservative icon or the latest installment of the Gingrich Revolution.

Follow Walter Shapiro on Twitter (lucky you).

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>2012 presidential election2012 Republicanscallista gingrichgingrichHaley BarbourMitt RomneyNewtnewt gingrichnewt+gingrich+story+with+wifenewt+gingrich+websitenewtgingrichstorywithwifenewtgingrichwebsiteWalter Shapiro2011-03-03T22:25:00+00:00Poll: Republican Push for Deep Budget Cuts Could Alienate Independents, Swing Votershttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-republican-push-for-deep-budget-cuts-could-alienate-indepe/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-republican-push-for-deep-budget-cuts-could-alienate-indepe/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/poll-republican-push-for-deep-budget-cuts-could-alienate-indepe/#commentsFiled under: , , , , , , , ,

Republicans may be in a tenuous political position as they try to navigate between tea party adherents and conservatives who want deep reductions in federal spending, and independents and swing voters who don't share the same zeal, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Feb. 24-28. (Wall Street Journal story; MSNBC "First Read" story; Poll data).

The poll found that 34 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of tea party movement supporters and 35 percent of voters who supported John McCain for president in 2008 say the top priority for them is scaling back spending and reducing the federal deficit.

However, key voting groups like independents, suburban women, seniors, and those in the 18-to-34 age group put much more emphasis on job creation and economic growth.

Forty percent of independents, 41 percent of suburban women, 35 percent of seniors and 39 percent of 18-to-34 Americans come down on the side of job creation and economic growth as the priority.

That compares to the 23 percent of independents, 24 percent of suburban women, 19 percent of seniors and 19 percent of those between 18 and 24 who say cutting spending and the deficit is most important.

Fifty-two percent in the poll said they were concerned that the Republicans in Congress will go too far in cutting programs to reduce the deficitand 51 percent say the same of tea party movement supporters on the Hill. Sixty-three percent are concerned that the Democrats will not push hard enough for spending cuts and 62 percent say the same about Obama.

The poll also tested public opinion on 26 different ways to reduce the deficit.

Most popular (supported by 81 percent) was a surtax on people making more than $1 million a year, followed by eliminating congressional earmarks (78 percent), cancelling funding for weapons systems the Pentagon says aren't needed (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

Least popular were cutting Medicaid funding (only 32 percent found that acceptable), cutting funding for Medicare (23 percent), cutting funding for kindergarten-to-high-school education (22 percent) and cutting Social Security (22 percent).



The remainder of those surveyed on each question answered "not sure."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>Budget cutsdailyguidanceFederal spending cutsBruce Drake2011-03-03T14:00:00+00:00Ohio Senate Limits Public Union Rights; Bill Goes Beyond Wisconsin Proposalhttp://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/ohio-senate-limits-public-union-rights-bill-goes-beyond-wiscons/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/ohio-senate-limits-public-union-rights-bill-goes-beyond-wiscons/http://politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03/ohio-senate-limits-public-union-rights-bill-goes-beyond-wiscons/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

An Ohio bill cutting more deeply into the public employee bargaining rights than similar legislation in Wisconsin narrowly passed the state senate and looks like a good bet to clear the House of Representatives in Columbus.

Shouts of "shame" echoed through statehouse corridors Wednesday after the measure won 17-16 approval, with six Republicans breaking away to join all 10 Democrats in opposing it. The GOP has a hefty majority in the other body, where House Speaker Bill Batchelder has promised ample hearings on the bargaining bill. But it is expected to pass, and then get signed into law by Republican Gov. John Kasich, a hard-edged conservative who sought the changes.

Related Stories

The new legislation would severely restrict public worker rights under a law that has been on the books in Ohio for the better part of three decades and survived three Republican governors. Unions could still negotiate wages with governmental units, but health care benefits and pension issues would come off the table and third-party binding arbitration would be taken away. Unlike in Wisconsin, police and firefighters are included in the package.

Three weeks of angry statehouse protests by teachers, uniformed safety force workers, other union members and their supporters could not stop the vote result on Wednesday.

"These [public employee] contracts have slowly clogged the arteries of state and local governments -- their hands are tied by collectively bargained agreements," Republican Sen. Shannon Jones said, according to The Plain Dealer.

Sen. Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat and an opponent of the legislation, disagreed, calling the bill unjust and un-American. "It strips middle-class Americans of their rights," she said.

Folo Tom Diemer on Twitter http://twitter.com/tomdiemer

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

]]>collective bargainingdailyguidanceJohn KasichlaborunionswisconsinTom Diemer2011-03-03T08:59:00+00:00