Politics Daily

GOP Filibuster Stops Obama Nominee, With Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln's Help

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-09T18:43:00 00:00

Craig Becker, President Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, was stopped by a Republican filibuster Tuesday more than 10 months after Obama chose him for the post. The Senate voted 52 to 33 to move Becker's nomination forward, but that fell well short of the 60 votes required to overcome a GOP filibuster. Fifteen senators did not vote because of snow storms wreaking havoc on Washington's airports.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's choice to take a vote on Becker's nomination Tuesday, knowing it would fail, raised speculation that President Obama will use a recess appointment to install his nominee without the approval of the Senate, a maneuver used often by President George W. Bush and derided by Reid at the time.

Becker was nominated last April to become one of five members of the NLRB, which oversees labor elections and rules on cases involving labor unions and corporate management under the National Labor Relations Act.

As the associate general counsel at Service Employees International Union, one of the largest and most politically powerful unions in the country, Becker is "labor's secret weapon," The Wall Street Journal said. It warned that he would put a fist on the scale for big labor in any labor dispute that comes before the NLRB.

Joining in the group that stopped Becker from receiving a final vote were newly minted Sen. Scott Brown, who lived up to his promise to become the 41st vote (or the 33rd on a snowy day?) against the Democratic agenda, and Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson from Nebraska. Lincoln and Nelson have both suffered devastating drops in their home-state approval ratings since the health care reform debate and are working to scratch their way back to 50 percent before Election Day in November.

Nelson said he opposed Becker's appointment because he felt Becker "would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration." Nelson also said that Becker's past positions on union rights in labor disputes "fly in the face" of Nebraska's status as a right-to-work state.

Following the vote, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) blasted Republicans for stopping the Senate from taking a final vote on Becker's nomination, which would likely pass with more than the 51 votes needed.

"I hear them saying, let's not rush this. It's been more than 10 months. Senate Republicans are the only people in the United States of America who think it should take more than 10 months to give us an option to vote up or down on a nominee who is clearly qualified," Brown said. "I think they're making the case for staying in the minority a long time."

Earlier in the day, Obama extolled the virtues of bipartisanship in an appearance before the White House press corps, saying that bipartisanship "depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

Moments later, he accused Senate Republicans of playing politics with his nominees and warned he would use an end-run around the Senate if he can't get his nominees through the chamber.

"If the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess," Obama said. "Because we can't afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Robert Gibbs Gets Hands-On About Mocking Sarah Palin

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-09T18:27:00 00:00

Filed under: Humor, Viral Video, Sarah Palin, Obama Administration

During a briefing in the White House press room Tuesday, administration spokesman Robert Gibbs held up his hand and revealed a shopping list scribbled onto his palm -- "eggs, milk and bread" -- along with a few other notes.

"I wrote down hope and change just in case I forgot that," Gibbs told groaning reporters.

It was a not-so-subtle jab at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who was caught consulting notes on her palm during a question-and-answer session at the National Tea Party Convention Saturday night. Photos showed Palin had scrawled "energy," "tax cuts" and "lift American spirits" on her hand.

Watch Gibbs' attempt at humor:

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Transcript of News Conference by President Obama

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-09T16:22:00 00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Obama Administration, Congress

NEWS CONFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

February 9, 2010; 1:38 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. I am glad to see that all of you braved the weather to be here. A little while ago I had a meeting with the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, and it went very well. In fact, I understand that McConnell and Reid are out doing snow angels on the South Lawn together. (Laughter.) Can you picture that, Chuck? Not really?

The meeting did go well, and I appreciate them making the trek. We had a good and frank conversation and it's one that I hope we can continue on a more regular basis.

We all understand that there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. That's what the American people are demanding of us. I think they're tired of every day being Election Day in Washington. And at this critical time in our country, the people sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.

That's why I'm going to continue to seek the best ideas from either party as we work to tackle the pressing challenges ahead. I am confident, for example, that when one in 10 of our fellow citizens can't work, we should be able to come together and help business create more jobs. We ought to be able to agree on providing small businesses with additional tax credits and much needed lines of credit. We ought to agree on investments in crumbling roads and bridges, and we should agree on tax breaks for making homes more energy-efficient -- all of which will put more Americans to work. Many of the job proposals that I've laid out have passed the House and are soon going to be debated in the Senate. We spent a lot of time in this meeting discussing a jobs package and how we could move forward on that. And if there are additional ideas, I will consider them as well. What I won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country.

We also talked about restoring fiscal responsibility. There are few matters on which there is as much vigorous bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately there's also a lot of partisan wrangling behind closed doors. This is what we know for sure: For us to solve this extraordinary problem that is so many years in the making, it's going to take the cooperation of both parties. It's not going to happen in any other way.

I'm pleased that Congress supported my request to restore the pay-as-you-go rule, which was instrumental in turning deficits into surpluses during the 1990s. I've also called for a bipartisan fiscal commission. Unfortunately this measure, which originally had received the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and was cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Gregg, Democrats and Republicans, was blocked there. So I'm going to be creating this commission by executive order. And during our meeting I asked the leadership of both parties to join in this serious effort to address our long-term deficits, because when the politics is put aside, the reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan. There ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. What we can't accept is business as usual, and we can't afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done.

During our meeting we also touched briefly on how we can move forward on health reform. I've already announced that in two weeks I'll be holding a meeting with people from both parties, and as I told the congressional leadership, I'm looking forward to a constructive debate with plans that need to be measured against this test. Does it bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government, which spends a huge amount on health care? Does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? Does it make coverage affordable and available to the tens of millions of working Americans who don't have it right now? And does it help us get on a path of fiscal sustainability?

We also talked about why this is so urgent. Just this week, there was a report that Anthem Blue Cross, which is the largest insurer in the largest state, California, is planning on raising premiums for many individual policyholders by as much as 39 percent. If we don't act, this is just a preview of coming attractions. Premiums will continue to rise for folks with insurance; millions more will lose their coverage altogether; our deficits will continue to grow larger. And we have an obligation -- both parties -- to tackle this issue in a serious way.

Now, bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both Democrats and Republicans to put aside matters of party for the good of the country. I won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience. We talked about this as well, particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. I respect the Senate's role to advise and consent, but for months, qualified, non- controversial nominees for critical positions in government, often positions related to our national security, have been held up despite having overwhelming support. My nominee for one important job, the head of General Services Administration, which helps run the government, was denied a vote for nine months. When she finally got a vote on her nomination, she was confirmed 96 to nothing. That's not advise and consent; that's delay and obstruct.

One senator, as you all are aware, had put a hold on every single nominee that we had put forward due to a dispute over a couple of earmarks in his state. In our meeting, I asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds in which nominees for critical jobs are denied a vote for months. Surely we can set aside partisanship and do what's traditionally been done to confirm these nominations. If the Senate does not act -- and I made this very clear -- if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can't afford to allow politics to stand in the way of a well-functioning government.

My hope is that this will be the first of a series of meetings that I have with leadership of both parties in Congress. We've got to get past the tired debates that have plagued our politics and left behind nothing but soaring debt and mounting challenges, greater hardships among the American people, and extraordinary frustrations among the American people. Those frustrations are what led me to run for President, and as long as I'm here in Washington, I intend to try to make this government work on their behalf.

So, you know, I'm going to take a couple of questions, guys.

Major.

Q After meeting with you, John Boehner came out and told us, "The House can't pass the health care bill it once passed; the Senate can't pass the health care bill it once passed. Why would we have a conversation about legislation that can't pass?" As a part of that, he said you and your White House and congressional Democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. How do you respond? Are you willing to do that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's how I responded to John in the meeting, and I've said this publicly before. There are some core goals that have to be met. We've got to control costs, both for families and businesses, but also for our government. Everybody out there who talks about deficits has to acknowledge that the single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending. We cannot deal with our deficits and debt long term unless we get a handle on that. So that has to be part of a package.

Number two, we've got to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of Americans who've got health insurance. And number three, we've got to make health insurance more available to folks in the individual market, as I just mentioned, in California, who are suddenly seeing their premiums go up 39 percent. That applies to the majority of small businesses, as well as sole proprietors. They are struggling.

So I've got these goals. Now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we'll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals. But when I was in Baltimore talking to the House Republicans, they indicated, we can accomplish some of these goals at no cost. And I said, great, let me see it. And I have no interest in doing something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it.

So I'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing. Let's get the relevant parties together; let's put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don't get every single thing that I want.

But here's the point that I made to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: Bipartisanship can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the things I believe in and want, and that's the price of bipartisanship, right? But that's sometimes the way it gets presented. Mitch McConnell said something very nice in the meeting about how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production. Well, of course he likes that; that's part of the Republican agenda for energy, which I accept. And I'm willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway. But there's got to be some give from their side as well. That's true on health care; that's true on energy; that's true on financial reform. That's what I'm hoping gets accomplished at the summit.

Q Do you agree the House and Senate bill can't pass anymore?

THE PRESIDENT: What I agree with is that the public has soured on the process that they saw over the last year. I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills. I think it is important for all of these issues to be aired so that people have confidence if we're moving forward on such a significant part of the economy as health care, that there is complete transparency and all of these issues have been adequately vetted and adequately debated.

And this gives an opportunity not just for Democrats to say here's what we think we should do, but it also gives Republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here's our plan; here's why we think this will work. And one of the things that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both said is they didn't think that the status quo was acceptable, and that's, right there, promising. That indicates that if all sides agree that we can't just continue with business as usual then maybe we can actually get something done.

Q Mr. President, one of the reasons Anthem said -- Anthem Blue Cross says that it's raising its premiums is because so many people are dropping out of individual coverage because the economy is so bad and that leaves the people in the pool who are people who need medical care driving up costs. One of the reasons why businesses are not expanding right now, in addition to some of the credit issues you've talked about, at least according to business leaders, is they say there's an uncertainty of what they need to plan for because of the energy bill, because of health care. That's what they say. I'm not saying it's true or not, but that's what they say. What do you say when you hear that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the biggest uncertainty has been we just went through the worst recession since the Great Depression and people weren't sure whether the financial system was going to melt down and whether we were going to tip into a endless recession. So let's be clear about the sources of uncertainty in terms of business investment over the last several years: A huge contraction, trillions of dollars of losses in people's 401(k)s; people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade that they still haven't worked out; the housing market losing a whole bunch of value.

So the good news is that where we were contracting by 6 percent the economy is now growing by 6 percent. The CEOs I talked to are saying they are now making investments, and I anticipate that they're going to start hiring at a more rapid clip. What I've also heard is them saying that we would like to feel like Washington is working and able to get some things done.
There are two ways of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. One way would be to say, well, you know what, we'll just go back to what we were doing before on, let's say, the financial markets. We won't have the regulations that we need; we won't make any changes in terms of "too big to fail." That will provide certainty -- until the next financial crisis.

That's not the kind of certainty I think that the financial markets need. The kind of certainty they need is for us to go ahead and agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road in place so that consumers are protected in the financial markets; so that we don't have banks that are too big to fail; that we have ways of winding them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailouts. That requires legislation. The sooner we can get that done, the better.

The same would be true when it comes to health care. A lot of CEOs I hear from will say, boy, we'd like you to get health care settled one way or another, but they will acknowledge that when they open up their latest invoice for their premiums and they find out that those premiums have gone up 20 percent or 25 percent, that's the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investment.

So I guess my answer would be this: The sooner the business community has a sense that we've got our act together here in Washington and can move forward on big, serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of posturing and partisan wrangling, I think the better off the entire country is going to be. I absolutely agree on that.

What I think is important is not to buy into this notion that is perpetrated by some of the business interests that got a stake in this who are fighting financial reform, for example, to say, boy, we'd be doing fine if we just didn't try to regulate the banks. That I think would be a mistake.

Q Just to play devil's advocate on that -- a small business, let's say, not somebody who's going to be affected by the regulatory reform, small business -- you have proposed, you would acknowledge, a bold agenda. And a small business might wonder, I don't know how the energy bill is going to affect me, I don't know how the health care reform bill is going to affect me -- I'd better hold off on hiring.

THE PRESIDENT: The small businesses I talk to --- and I've been talking to a lot of them as I've been traveling around the country over the last several months -- their biggest problem is right now they can't get credit out of their banks so they're uncertain about that. And they're still uncertain about orders -- do they just have enough customers to justify them doing more.

It's looking better at this point. But that's not the rationale for people saying, I'm not hiring. Let me put it this way. Most small businesses right now, if they've got enough customers to make a profit and they can get the bank loans required to boost their payroll, boost their inventory, and sell to those customers, they will do so. Okay?

Let's see, let's get a print guy here. David.

Q You heard McConnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, free trade -- that's a lot of Republican stuff. Is your party going to go for that if you decide to support that --

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that on energy there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take a both/and approach rather than an either/or approach. What do I mean by that? I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal -- that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. So we have to move in that direction.

What is also true is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth, produce jobs, make sure our businesses are competitive around the world, that we're going to need some of the old, traditional energy sources as we're developing these new ones and ramping them up. So we can't overnight convert to an all-solar or an all-wind economy. That just can't happen. We're going to have needs in these traditional sources.

And so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure nuclear power; that includes new technologies so that we can use coal -- which we have in abundance and is very cheap, but often is adding to our greenhouse gases -- can we find sequestration technologies that clean that up; can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? And that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy.

And my hope is that my Republican friends, but also Democrats, say to themselves, let's be practical and let's do both. Let's not just do one or the other; let's do both. Over time I think the transition is going to be more and more clean energy and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. But we've got to do both.

Q How confident are you there will be that kind of consensus for that double-edged approach?

THE PRESIDENT: I am just a eternal optimist -- (laughter) -- and so -- it's the right thing to do. And all I can do is just to keep on making the argument about what's right for the country and assume that over time people, regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions, are going to gravitate towards the truth. Okay?

I'm going to take two more. Let's see --

Q How about the back? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just want to make sure that I was getting a balance here, so -- go ahead, Chuck.

Q Awwww --

THE PRESIDENT: Why is everybody moaning about Todd?

Q He's too good. His questions are too precise. (Laughter.)

Q Iran -- we got the news today that they're doing more of these -- trying to enhance this uranium even more. Obviously Secretary Gates today in Paris was quoted as saying basically the dialogue seems to be over and now the question is sanctions. Where are we on sanctions? How close is this? I know you had sort of an end-of-the-year deadline when you stood up there with Sarkozy and Brown. It's now February. How quickly is this moving along?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's moving along fairly quickly. I think that we have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and reenter as full members of the international community.

The most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we are going to provide the conversion of some of the low-enriched uranium that they already have into the isotopes that they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to a million Iranian citizens. They rejected it -- although one of the difficulties in dealing with Iran over the last several months is it's not always clear who's speaking on behalf of the government, and we get a lot of different, mixed signals. But what's clear is, is that they have not said yes to an agreement that Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain and the United States all said was a good deal, and that the director of the IAEA said was the right thing to do and that Iran should accept.

That indicates to us that, despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization. And that is not acceptable to the international community, not just to the United States. So what we've said from the start was we're moving on dual tracks. If you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of being a member of good standing, then we welcome you. If not --

Q Haven't they responded, though? I mean, by deciding to do what they did, with these --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm getting to that.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And if not, then the next step is sanctions. They have made their choice so far, although the door is still open. And what we are going to be working on over the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole.

Q What do you mean by "regime of sanctions"?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, meaning that there's going to be a --

Q Some will be U.N. and some will be --

THE PRESIDENT: We are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to Iran that their approach is unacceptable. And the U.N. will be one aspect of that broader effort.

Q China will be there? You're confident?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- we are confident right now that the international community is unified around Iran's misbehavior in this area. How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something that we're going to have to see. One thing I'm pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue. I think they clearly have seen that Iran hasn't been serious about solving what is a solvable dispute between Iran and the international community.

All right? I'm going to make this the last question. And I'll take somebody from the back -- yes.

Q Me?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Thanks for doing this. It's been a while. (Laughter.) On health care, the Republicans are asking whether the February 25th session will include economists and public interest groups and people supporting your side, or will it just be the members of Congress? And on Anthem Blue Cross, do you have the authority to go in and tell a private company they can't charge that -- how will you stop them?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't have the authority as I understand it -- I can't simply issue an executive order lowering everybody's rates. If I could I would have done that already and saved myself a lot of grief on Capitol Hill. That's why reform is so important. That's why the status quo is unacceptable.

But there is no shortcut in dealing with this issue. I know the American people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups and different interests. It is a big, complicated, tough issue. But what is also true is that without some action on the part of Congress, it is very unlikely that we see any improvement over the current trajectory. And the current trajectory is premiums keep on going up 10, 15, 20, 30 percent. The current trajectory is more and more people are losing health care.

I don't know if people noted, because during the health care debate everybody was saying the President is trying to take over -- a government takeover of health care. I don't know if anybody noticed that for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than you did from the private sector -- not because of anything we did, but because more and more people are losing their health care from their employers. It's becoming unaffordable. That's what we're trying to prevent.

We want people to be able to get health care from their employers. But we also understand that you've got to fix the system so that people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can afford to give their employees insurance at an affordable rate. And that's not happening right now.

To your question about the 25th, my hope is that this doesn't end up being political theater, as I think some of you have phrased it. I want a substantive discussion. We haven't refined exactly how the agenda is going to go that day. We want to talk with both the Democratic and Republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. I do want to make sure that there's some people like the Congressional Budget Office, for example, that are considered non-partisan, who can answer questions.

In this whole health care debate I'm reminded of the story that was told about Senator Moynihan, who was I guess in an argument with one of his colleagues, and his colleague was losing the argument so he got a little flustered and said to Senator Moynihan, "Well, I'm entitled to my own opinion." And Senator Moynihan said, "Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." I think that's the key to a successful dialogue on the 25th or on health care.

Let's establish some common facts. Let's establish what the issues are, what the problems are, and let's test out in front of the American people what ideas work and what ideas don't. And if we can establish that factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then I think we can make some progress. And it may be that some of the facts that come up are ones that make my party a little bit uncomfortable. So if it's established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that. On the other hand, if I'm told that that is only a fraction of the problem and that is not the biggest driver of health care costs, then I'm also going to insist, okay, let's look at that as one aspect of it, but what else are we willing to do?

And this is where it gets back to the point I was making earlier. Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything that they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That's not how it works in any other realm of life. That's certainly not how it works in my marriage with Michelle, although I usually do give in most of the time. (Laughter.) But the -- there's got to be some give and take, and that's what I'm hoping can be accomplished. And I'm confident that's what the American people are looking for.

So, all right?

Q Jobs question?

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, since there wasn't a jobs question --

Q Well, I just --

THE PRESIDENT: I'll make this the last one, jobs question.

Q At the stakeout, the Republicans were saying, well, the jobs package we've seen, it's not really ready yet, we're a little worried about the cost. Are you satisfied that there is something that can be quickly moved through Congress on jobs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my understanding is -- first of all, the House has moved forward a jobs package that has some good elements in it. My understanding is, is that there is bipartisan talks taking place as we speak on the Senate side about some elements of a package.

I think there are some things that a lot of people agree on. Just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small businesses -- something we can all agree on. I talked about it at the State of the Union address. My hope would be that we would all agree on a mechanism to get community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital, because that is something that I keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems that small businesses have out there.

So I think that it's realistic for us to get a package moving quickly that may not include all the things I think need to be done, and it may be that that first package builds some trust and confidence that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill can work together and then we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. It may take a series of incremental steps, but the one thing I'm absolutely clear about is, is that we've got an economy that's growing right now, a huge boost in productivity -- that's the good news. The bad news is, is that companies still haven't taken that final step in actually putting people on their payroll full-time.

We're seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they haven't yet taken on that full-time worker. And so providing some additional impetus to them, right as the economy is moving in a positive direction, I think can end up yielding some good results.

All right? Thank you, guys. That was pretty good, thanks.

END 2:11 P.M. EST

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder Calls for White House Staff Shake-Up

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-09T16:18:00 00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, Governors

Former Democratic Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder says if Barack Obama is to fulfill his promise of positive change in America, the president must "make some hard changes of his own" by replacing inexperienced members of his team with "others more capable of helping him govern."

In an editorial for Politico Tuesday, Wilder writes Obama's White House staff is made up of too many people left over from the campaign or from his time in Chicago. "Getting elected and getting things done for the people are two different jobs," Wilder writes, suggesting the president and his people haven't fully made the transition from campaign mode to governing.

Wilder, who endorsed Obama in 2008, goes on:

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Some are even questioning whether Obama has forgotten how he got elected and the promises he made to the people who elected him.

Don't take my word for any of this. Look at the clear message the American people have been sending at the polls these past few months.

Wilder places part of the blame for recent election losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts squarely on one of his successors as governor: the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine. He calls on Kaine to step down as head of the DNC, saying it is "the wrong job for him."

Shake-ups at the White House and at the top of the party are necessary if the president is to succeed and Democrats are going to turn around downward trending poll numbers and survive in November, Wilder writes.

In addition to replacing his staff, Wilder, the nation's first African-American governor, also urges the president to fine tune his message and focus on one major issue: jobs.

"Unless changes are made at the top, by the top, when the time comes for voters to show how they really feel about Obama, his policies and the messages he sends directly or through the people around him, the president will discover that Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were not just temporary aberrations but, rather, timely expressions of voters who always show that they are ahead of the politicians," Wilder writes.

Read the full editorial here.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Americans Say There's Enough Blame to Go Around for Partisanship

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-09T16:05:00 00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Congress

Fifty-eight percent of Americans say the Republicans are not doing enough to comprise with President Obama on important issues and 44 percent put the burden on Obama for not finding ways to work with the GOP, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted Feb. 4-8.

But more Americans say Obama has got it right compared to the Republicans, with 45 percent rating Obama's efforts at compromise "about right" while only 30 percent say that about the Republicans.

Some of the findings are similar to a Fox News poll conducted Feb. 2-3 which said 44 percent believed Obama was trying to reach out to the GOP while 41 percent said he was more concerned with enacting the Democratic agenda.

Sixty-three percent said Obama and lawmakers should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform measure -- something that will depend heavily on whether both sides can break through the partisanship that has stalled the legislation. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats want to press ahead as do 56 percent of independents. But Republicans favor giving up by 55 percent to 42 percent.

Obama met with congressional leaders of both parties today and told reporters afterward, "Bipartisan can't be that I agree to all the things that they believe in or want and they agree to none of the things that I want." He has invited Republicans to a half-day summit on February 25 to start talking with Democrats about ways to move forward on health care. The summit will be open to TV cameras.

Here's a transcript of Obama's remarks in the White House press room after the meeting with congressional leaders.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Chaos Theory - Hey Banks, Let's Put On a Show!

Robert and Donna Trussell — 2010-02-09T15:52:00 00:00

Filed under: Chaos Theory

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

States in Budget Trouble Turn to the Bottle

Christopher Weber — 2010-02-09T15:32:00 00:00

Filed under: Taxes

Several financially strapped states with with strict alcohol controls are considering saving money by privatizing the regulation and sales of booze, beer and wine.

The states say they could raise revenue by selling distribution centers and auctioning liquor licenses to private companies, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Virginia, North Carolina, Washington, Vermont and Mississippi are all looking at proposals that would loosen control of distributorships or retail stores.

As ways to boost revenue, Colorado now allows spirits to be sold seven days a week instead of six, and Pennsylvania will soon permit liquor sales at automated kiosks inside grocery stores.

Moves toward privatization are opposed by religious groups, labor unions and independent liquor stores, the Journal reported.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Gender-Neutral Housing Debate: Not on My Campus

Aaron Steiner — 2010-02-09T14:30:00 00:00

Filed under: The Cram

Recently, my colleague and fellow Crammer Willy Hameline raised a few interesting points about the interesting trend on campuses around the country to adopt gender-neutral housing, allowing members of opposite genders to room together.

Willy wrote that some 30 colleges across the country offer gender-neutral housing, and concluded that there's continued progress in the evolution of dormitory life, leading him to state that "there was a day when it was unthinkable to have mixed dorms."

I'm here to report that such a day has not yet passed for many schools, including my own.

The University of Notre Dame, with 30 undergraduate residence halls, has exactly 16 male-only dorms and 14 female-only dorms. That's correct: at Notre Dame there are only single-sex dorms.

So when I read Willy's piece, while I agreed with almost everything he said about the necessity of gender-neutral housing, I thought it was worth raising the point that there are still prominent universities where gender-neutral housing -- let alone mixed-gender housing -- is far from being accepted.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hodes Can't Gain Ground on Ayotte in New Hampshire Senate Race

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-09T14:02:00 00:00

Filed under: Senate, Polls, Poll Watch, 2010 Elections

New Hampshire's Republican Attorney General Kelly Ayotte continues to be the strongest GOP candidate against Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes, leading him 41 percent to 33 percent with 25 percent undecided, according to a WMUR/University of New Hampshire Granite State poll conducted Jan. 27 - Feb. 3. The margin of error is 4.4 points.

That's about the same margin Ayotte has enjoyed since October.

Hodes leads the three other GOP hopefuls.

He's ahead of lawyer Ovide Lamontagne 38 percent to 29 percent with 25 percent undecided.

He leads businessman William Binnie 34 percent to 30 percent with 33 percent undecided.

He leads businessman Jim Bender 36 percent to 27 percent with 35 percent undecided.

The results are about the same as a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll conducted Feb. 1-3.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Kasich Maintains Lead Over Strickland in Ohio Governor Race

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-09T13:36:00 00:00

Filed under: Polls, Governors, Poll Watch, 2010 Elections

The contest for governor in Ohio remains about where it has been in the last two months with former Republican Rep. John Kasich leading Ted Strickland, the Democratic incumbent, by 47 percent to 41 percent with 5 percent preferring someone else and 8 percent undecided, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted Feb. 5-6. The margin of error is 4.5 points.

While the two men are seen favorably by about the same percentage of voters, Strickland's job approval rating has 53 percent disapproving of his performance and 46 percent approving. Strickland, like many governors, has been facing some hard budget times due to the economy.

Kasich's support from fellow Republicans is higher than that of Strickland's among Democrats -- 85 percent compared to 75 percent. Unaffiliated voters favor Kasich 45 percent to 29 percent with the rest preferring another candidate or undecided.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Americans Held in Haiti Plead for U.S. Government Help

David Sessions — 2010-02-09T12:25:00 00:00

Filed under: Haiti

A group of 10 Americans jailed in Haiti for attempting to take 33 children out of the country illegally is pleading with the U.S. government to assist them, the New York Times reports. The Americans were charged on Jan. 26 with kidnapping and criminal conspiracy, and now say the U.S. is not doing enough to help them.

"I have faith in God," said Corinna Lankford, one of the detainees, who say they believed they had permission to rescue orphans after last month's earthquake. "But maybe the U.S. government could help a little more, too. No one is giving us any kind of information about what is going on." The group is being held in sweltering jail cells, where they have suffered from infected mosquito bites and where one of them, a diabetic, went a week without insulin.

Five of the Americans were questioned by the investigation judge on Monday, and the other five will be interrogated on Tuesday afternoon. The judge has said he plans to investigate the case fully, and will not be pressured into releasing the detainees, all members of an Idaho church group, before their case has been decided.

"I want to hear what they thought they were doing," the judge said about their testimony this week. "I hope to hear from the parents of the younger ones."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Insurgent Debra Medina Shakes Up GOP Governor Race in Texas

Bruce Drake — 2010-02-09T12:23:00 00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Primaries, Polls, Poll Watch, 2010 Elections, Tea Party

Following a series of elections where conservative activists, Tea Partiers, disgruntled independents and energized Republicans have shaken things up, a political neophyte in Texas is riding that same kind of wave and may affect the outcome of the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

Debra Medina, who was a former GOP county chairman and runs a medical billing business, has pulled within four points of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who, like Medina, is mounting a primary challenge to Gov. Rick Perry, according to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted Feb. 4-7. (Read the Houston Chronicle's profile of Medina here.)

Perry still holds a big lead, running ahead of Hutchison by 39 percent to 28 percent, with Medina at 24 percent. The margin of error is 4.8 points.

This is the second poll that showed Medina gaining, probably at Hutchison's expense. Rasmussen Reports put support for Medina at 16 percent in a survey conducted Feb. 1, a four-point gain since the previous poll. Hutchison's numbers slipped by the same amount. Last November, Medina's support stood at 4 percent.

Medina made her gains in the PPP survey despite the fact that 51 percent didn't know enough about her to say whether they view her favorably or not. She is drawing her strength from the same kind of Libertarian base that rallied around Texas Rep. Ron Paul's presidential run, as well as the anti-establishment Tea Party movement.

The Houston Chronicle says Medina "has made herself a factor in the race. She could be a spoiler, pulling enough votes to deny Gov. Rick Perry the re-nomination. Or she could force Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison into an expensive runoff that could send a bruised nominee into a potentially tough battle against the probable Democratic nominee, former Houston Mayor Bill White."

PPP finds Medina supporters split about who they would back as a second choice. Forty-three percent chose Perry, 39 percent picked Hutchison and 18 percent were undecided.

A Rasmussen poll conducted Feb. 1 had all three Republicans ahead of White, although Medina's lead was statistically insignificant.

"The big question for Debra Medina is whether there's enough unhappy voters out there for her to get into a runoff with Rick Perry," said PPP's Dean Debnam "That would rank up there with the results of the Massachusetts Senate election as an early shocker in the 2010 political season."

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The First Lady's Childhood Obesity Remarks: 'We Know the Cure'

Lynn Sweet — 2010-02-09T12:15:00 00:00

Filed under: The Daily FLOTUS with Lynn Sweet

Remarks of First Lady Michelle Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Let's Move Launch
Washington, DC
February 9, 2010

Hello everyone, thank you so much. It is such a pleasure to be here with all of you today.

Tammy, thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your outstanding work in the White House garden.

I want to recognize the extraordinary Cabinet members with us today - Secretaries Vilsack, Sebelius, Duncan, Salazar, Donovan and Solis -- as well as Surgeon General Benjamin. Thanks to all of you for your excellent work.

Thanks also to Senators Harkin and Gillibrand, and Representatives DeLauro, Christensen and Fudge for their leadership and for being here today.

And I want to thank Tiki Barber, Dr. Judith Palfrey, Will Allen, and Mayors Johnson and Curtatone for braving the weather to join us, and for their outstanding work every day to help our kids lead active, healthy lives.

And I hear that congratulations are in order for the Watkins Hornets, who just won the Pee Wee National Football Championship. Let's give them a hand to show them how proud we are.

We're here today because we care deeply about the health and well-being of these kids and kids like them all across the country. And we're determined to finally take on one of the most serious threats to their future: the epidemic of childhood obesity in America today -- an issue that's of great concern to me not just as a First Lady, but as a mom.

Often, when we talk about this issue, we begin by citing sobering statistics like the ones you've heard today - that over the past three decades, childhood obesity rates in America have tripled; that nearly one third of children in America are now overweight or obese - one in three.

But these numbers don't paint the full picture. These words -- "overweight" and "obese" -- they don't tell the full story. This isn't just about inches and pounds or how our kids look. It's about how our kids feel, and how they feel about themselves. It's about the impact we're seeing on every aspect of their lives.

Pediatricians like Dr. Palfrey are seeing kids with high blood pressure and high cholesterol -- even Type II diabetes, which they used to see only in adults. Teachers see the teasing and bullying; school counselors see the depression and low-self-esteem; and coaches see kids struggling to keep up, or stuck on the sidelines.

Military leaders report that obesity is now one of the most common disqualifiers for military service. Economic experts tell us that we're spending outrageous amounts of money treating obesity-related conditions like diabetes, heart disease and cancer. And public health experts tell us that the current generation could actually be on track to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

None of us wants this kind of future for our kids -- or for our country. So instead of just talking about this problem, instead of just worrying and wringing our hands about it, let's do something about it. Let's act . . . let's move.

Let's move to help families and communities make healthier decisions for their kids. Let's move to bring together governors and mayors, doctors and nurses, businesses, community groups, educators, athletes, Moms and Dads to tackle this challenge once and for all. And that's why we're here today -- to launch "Let's Move" -- a campaign that will rally our nation to achieve a single, ambitious goal: solving the problem of childhood obesity in a generation, so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight.

But to get where we want to go, we need to first understand how we got here. So let me ask the adults here today to close your eyes and think back for a moment, think back to a time when we were growing up.

Like many of you, when I was young, we walked to school every day, rain or shine -- and in Chicago, we did it in wind, sleet, hail and snow too. Remember how, at school, we had recess twice a day and gym class twice a week, and we spent hours running around outside when school got out. You didn't go inside until dinner was ready -- and when it was, we would gather around the table for dinner as a family. And there was one simple rule: you ate what Mom fixed -- good, bad, or ugly. Kids had absolutely no say in what they felt like eating. If you didn't like it, you were welcome to go to bed hungry. Back then, fast food was a treat, and dessert was mainly a Sunday affair.

In my home, we weren't rich. The foods we ate weren't fancy. But there was always a vegetable on the plate. And we managed to lead a pretty healthy life.

Many kids today aren't so fortunate. Urban sprawl and fears about safety often mean the only walking they do is out their front door to a bus or a car. Cuts in recess and gym mean a lot less running around during the school day, and lunchtime may mean a school lunch heavy on calories and fat. For many kids, those afternoons spent riding bikes and playing ball until dusk have been replaced by afternoons inside with TV, the Internet, and video games.

And these days, with parents working longer hours, working two jobs, they don't have time for those family dinners. Or with the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rising 50 percent higher than overall food costs these past two decades, they don't have the money. Or they don't have a supermarket in their community, so their best option for dinner is something from the shelf of the local convenience store or gas station.

So many parents desperately want to do the right thing, but they feel like the deck is stacked against them. They know their kids' health is their responsibility - but they feel like it's out of their control. They're being bombarded by contradictory information at every turn, and they don't know who or what to believe. The result is a lot of guilt and anxiety -- and a sense that no matter what they do, it won't be right, and it won't be enough.

I know what that feels like. I've been there. While today I'm blessed with more help and support than I ever dreamed of, I didn't always live in the White House.

It wasn't that long ago that I was a working Mom, struggling to balance meetings and deadlines with soccer and ballet. And there were some nights when everyone was tired and hungry, and we just went to the drive-thru because it was quick and cheap, or went with one of the less healthy microwave options, because it was easy. And one day, my pediatrician pulled me aside and told me, "You might want to think about doing things a little bit differently."

That was a moment of truth for me. It was a wakeup call that I was the one in charge, even if it didn't always feel that way.

And today, it's time for a moment of truth for our country; it's time we all had a wakeup call. It's time for us to be honest with ourselves about how we got here. Our kids didn't do this to themselves. Our kids don't decide what's served to them at school or whether there's time for gym class or recess. Our kids don't choose to make food products with tons of sugar and sodium in super-sized portions, and then to have those products marketed to them everywhere they turn. And no matter how much they beg for pizza, fries and candy, ultimately, they are not, and should not, be the ones calling the shots at dinnertime. We're in charge. We make these decisions.

But that's actually the good news here. If we're the ones who make the decisions, then we can decide to solve this problem. And when I say "we," I'm not just talking about folks here in Washington. This isn't about politics. There's nothing Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, about doing what's best for our kids. And I've spoken with many experts about this issue, and not a single one has said that the solution is to have government tell people what to do. Instead, I'm talking about what we can do. I'm talking about commonsense steps we can take in our families and communities to help our kids lead active, healthy lives.

This isn't about trying to turn the clock back to when we were kids, or preparing five course meals from scratch every night. No one has time for that. And it's not about being 100 percent perfect 100 percent of the time. Lord knows I'm not. There's a place for cookies and ice cream, burgers and fries - that's part of the fun of childhood.

Often, it's just about balance. It's about small changes that add up -- like walking to school, replacing soda with water or skim milk, trimming those portion sizes a little -- things like this can mean the difference between being healthy and fit or not.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution here. Instead, it's about families making manageable changes that fit with their schedules, their budgets, and their needs and tastes.

And it's about communities working to support these efforts. Mayors like Mayors Johnson and Curtatone, who are building sidewalks, parks and community gardens. Athletes and role models like Tiki Barber, who are building playgrounds to help kids stay active. Community leaders like Will Allen who are bringing farmers markets to underserved areas. Companies like the food industry leaders who came together last fall and acknowledged their responsibility to be part of the solution. But there's so much more to do.

And that's the mission of Let's Move -- to create a wave of efforts across this country that get us to our goal of solving childhood obesity in a generation.

We kicked off this initiative this morning when my husband signed a presidential memorandum establishing the first ever government-wide Task Force on Childhood Obesity. The task force is composed of representatives from key agencies - including many who are here today. Over the next 90 days, these folks will review every program and policy relating to child nutrition and physical activity. And they'll develop an action plan marshalling these resources to meet our goal. And to ensure we're continuously on track to do so, the Task Force will set concrete benchmarks to measure our progress.

But we can't wait 90 days to get going here. So let's move right now, starting today, on a series of initiatives to help achieve our goal.

First, let's move to offer parents the tools and information they need - and that they've been asking for -- to make healthy choices for their kids. We've been working with the FDA and several manufacturers and retailers to make our food labels more customer-friendly, so people don't have to spend hours squinting at words they can't pronounce to figure out whether the food they're buying is healthy or not. In fact, just today, the nation's largest beverage companies announced that they'll be taking steps to provide clearly visible information about calories on the front of their products - as well as on vending machines and soda fountains. This is exactly the kind of vital information parents need to make good choices for their kids.

We're also working with the American Academy of Pediatrics, supporting their groundbreaking efforts to ensure that doctors not only regularly measure children's BMI, but actually write out a prescription detailing steps parents can take to keep their kids healthy and fit.

In addition, we're working with the Walt Disney Company, NBC Universal, and Viacom to launch a nationwide public awareness campaign educating parents and children about how to fight childhood obesity.

And we're creating a one-stop shopping website -- LetsMove.gov -- so with the click of a mouse, parents can find helpful tips and step-by-step strategies, including healthy recipes, exercise plans, and charts they can use to track their family's progress.

But let's remember: 31 million American children participate in federal school meal programs - and many of these kids consume as many as half their daily calories at school. And what we don't want is a situation where parents are taking all the right steps at home - and then their kids undo all that work with salty, fatty food in the school cafeteria.

So let's move to get healthier food into our nation's schools. That's the second part of this initiative. We'll start by updating and strengthening the Child Nutrition Act -- the law that sets nutrition standards for what our kids eat at school. And we've proposed an historic investment of an additional $10 billion over ten years to fund that legislation.

With this new investment, we'll knock down barriers that keep families from participating in school meal programs and serve an additional one million students in the first five years alone. And we'll dramatically improve the quality of the food we offer in schools - including in school vending machines. We'll take away some of the empty calories, and add more fresh fruits and vegetables and other nutritious options.

We also plan to double the number of schools in the HealthierUS School Challenge -- an innovative program that recognizes schools doing the very best work to keep kids healthy -- from providing healthy school meals to requiring physical education classes each week. To help us meet that goal, I'm thrilled to announce that for the very first time, several major school food suppliers have come together and committed to decrease sugar, fat and salt; increase whole grains; and double the fresh produce in the school meals they serve. And also for the first time, food service workers - along with principals, superintendents and school board members across America -- are coming together to support these efforts. With these commitments, we'll reach just about every school child in this country with better information and more nutritious meals to put them on track to a healthier life.

These are major steps forward. But let's not forget about the rest of the calories kids consume - the ones they eat outside of school, often at home, in their neighborhoods. And when 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million American children, live in "food deserts" -- communities without a supermarket -- those calories are too often empty ones. You can see these areas in dark purple in the new USDA Food Environment Atlas we're unveiling today. This Atlas maps out everything from diabetes and obesity rates across the country to the food deserts you see on this screen.

So let's move to ensure that all our families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities. That's the third part of this initiative. Today, for the very first time, we're making a commitment to eliminate food deserts in America - and we plan to do so within seven years. Now, we know this is ambitious. And it will take a serious commitment from both government and the private sector. That's why we plan to invest $400 million a year in a Healthy Food Financing initiative that will bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places like convenience stores carry healthier food options. And this initiative won't just help families eat better, it will help create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods across America.

But we know that eating right is only part of the battle. Experts recommend that children get 60 minutes of active play each day. If this sounds like a lot, consider this: kids today spend an average of seven and a half hours a day watching TV, and playing with cell phones, computers, and video games. And only a third of high school students get the recommended levels of physical activity.

So let's move. And I mean that literally. Let's find new ways for kids to be physically active, both in and out of school. That's the fourth, and final, part of this initiative.

We'll increase participation in the President's Physical Fitness Challenge. And we'll modernize the challenge, so it's not just about how athletic kids are -- how many sit-ups or push-ups they can do -- but how active they are. We'll double the number of kids who earn a Presidential Active Lifestyle Award in the next school year, recognizing those who engage in physical activity five days a week, for six weeks. We've also recruited professional athletes from a dozen different leagues -- including the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the WNBA -- to promote these efforts through sports clinics, public service announcements and more.

So that's some of what we're doing to achieve our goal. And we know we won't get there this year, or this Administration. We know it'll take a nationwide movement that continues long after we're gone. That's why today, I'm pleased to announce that a new, independent foundation has been created to rally and coordinate businesses, non-profits, and state and local governments to keep working until we reach our goal -- and to measure our progress along the way. It's called the Partnership for a Healthier America, and it's bringing together some of the leading experts on childhood obesity, like The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The California Endowment, The Kellogg Foundation, the Brookings Institution, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, which is a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation. And we expect others to join in the coming months.

So this is a pretty serious effort. And I know that in these challenging times for our country, there are those who will wonder whether this should really be a priority. They might view things like healthy school lunches and physical fitness challenges as "extras" -- as things we spring for once we've taken care of the necessities. They might ask, "How can we spend money on fruits and vegetables in our school cafeterias when many of our schools don't have enough textbooks or teachers?" Or they might ask, "How can we afford to build parks and sidewalks when we can't even afford our health care costs?"

But when you step back and think about it, you realize -- these are false choices. If kids aren't getting adequate nutrition, even the best textbooks and teachers in the world won't help them learn. If they don't have safe places to run and play, and they wind up with obesity-related conditions, then those health care costs will just keep rising.

So yes, we have to do it all. We'll need to make some modest, but critical, investments in the short-run, but we know that they'll pay for themselves -- likely many times over -- in the long-run. Because we won't just be keeping our kids healthy when they're young. We'll be teaching them habits to keep them healthy their entire lives.

We saw this firsthand here at the White House when we planted our garden with students like Tammy last Spring. One of Tammy's classmates wrote in an essay that her time in the garden, and I quote, ". . . has made me think about the choices I have with what I put in my mouth." Another wrote with great excitement that he'd learned that tomatoes are both a fruit and a vegetable and contain vitamins that fight diseases. Armed with that knowledge, he declared, "So the tomato is a fruit and is now my best friend."

Think about the ripple effect when children use this knowledge to make healthy decisions for the rest of their lives. Think about the effect it will have on every aspect of their lives. Whether they can keep up with their classmates on the playground and stay focused in the classroom. Whether they have the self-confidence to pursue careers of their dreams, and the stamina to succeed in those careers. Whether they'll have the energy and strength to teach their own kids how to throw a ball or ride a bike, and whether they'll live long enough to see their grandkids grow up -- maybe even their great grandkids too.

In the end, we know that solving our obesity challenge won't be easy -- and it certainly won't be quick. But make no mistake about it, this problem can be solved.

This isn't like a disease where we're still waiting for the cure to be discovered -- we know the cure for this. This isn't like putting a man on the moon or inventing the Internet -- it doesn't take some stroke of genius or feat of technology. We have everything we need, right now, to help our kids lead healthy lives. Rarely in the history of this country have we encountered a problem of such magnitude and consequence that is so eminently solvable. So let's move to solve it.

I don't want our kids to live diminished lives because we failed to step up today. I don't want them looking back decades from now and asking us, why didn't you help us when you had a chance? Why didn't you put us first when it mattered most?

So much of what we all want for our kids isn't within our control. We want them to succeed in everything they do. We want to protect them from every hardship and spare them from every mistake. But we know we can't do all of that. What we can do...what is fully within our control...is to give them the very best start in their journeys. What we can do is give them advantages early in life that will stay with them long after we're gone. As President Franklin Roosevelt once put it: "We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future."

That is our obligation, not just as parents who love our kids, but as citizens who love this country. So let's move. Let's get this done. Let's give our kids what they need to have the future they deserve.

Thank you so much.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Michelle Obama Kicks Off Anti-Obesity Drive With White House Events

Lynn Sweet — 2010-02-09T12:08:00 00:00

Filed under: Education, Health Care, Obama Administration, The Daily FLOTUS with Lynn Sweet, Culture, Congress, News Media, Michelle Obama, Campaigns

First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Obama administration's anti-childhood obesity drive Tuesday with a goal, she said, of "solving childhood obesity in a generation."

Mrs. Obama for the first time entered the Oval Office on "official business" Tuesday morning when she sat with President Obama as he signed "a memorandum on childhood obesity" as part of the first lady's taking charge of the national campaign. That memo created a Task Force on Childhood Obesity that over the next 90 days will develop an action plan. The president and first lady were joined in the Oval Office by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

"So let's move, right now, starting today, on a series of initiatives to help achieve our goal," Mrs. Obama said at the kick off event in the White House State room.

The drive Mrs. Obama is overseeing -- named "Let's Move" -- was unveiled with Tiki Barber, an NBC correspondent and former NFL football player; Dr. Judith Palfrey, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Will Allen from Milwaukee, a "leader in the effort to bring fresh produce to inner cities and urban areas"; Mayors Chip Johnson of Hernando, Miss., and Joseph Curtatone of Somerville, Mass., who are leading efforts in their communities to reduce childhood obesity, and local students. The letsmove.gov Web site is already live.

"For the first time in history, our health problems stem from abundance and excess," Palfrey said.

Meanwhile, in excerpts from a speech Tom Vilsack was to have given Monday at the National Press Club -- but had to cancel due to after-effects of the weekend snowstorm in Washington -- the agriculture secretary mounts an argument that kids who don't eat right may develop learning and health problems that have an impact on other classmates.

"Ask any teacher how students who fail to eat a healthy breakfast or lunch perform in class," Vilsack said in excerpts obtained by Politics Daily. "Hungry kids don't learn as well. . .If we want and need our children fully prepared for a competitive world we cannot afford for them to be hungry." Even classmates can be affected, he said, when undernourished kids fail to compete and challenge in classrooms and playgrounds.

Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, is also calling for school vending machines to sell healthy items instead of junk food with empty calories. "Cookies, cakes, pastries, and high-fat salty snacks are three times more likely to be sold outside the school cafeteria than fruits or vegetables.

"Foods served in vending machines and the a la carte line shouldn't undermine our efforts to enhance the health of the school environment. We must have the capacity to set standards for all the foods served and sold in schools. It doesn't mean the end of vending machines in schools -- but instead ensuring that they are filled with nutritious offerings to make the healthy choice the easy choice for our nation's children," Vilsack's prepared text said.

In an interview taped as part of the kick off, Mrs. Obama tells ABC's Robin Roberts, "There is no expert on the planet who says the government telling people what to do does any good." The first lady is not holding herself up as a purist: "I love burgers and fries and I love ice cream and cake," she said. The point, however, is to "balance that out" so people are not "facing life threatening illness."

In her speech, Mrs. Obama framed the obesity issue as related to health, education and the economy-and with the problem so recognized, she said, apart from partisan politics.

"There's nothing Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative about doing what's best for our kids."

She said the American Beverage Association already announced that its members voluntarily-within two years-- will provide the number of calories in "clear, uniform, front-of-pack" on cans and bottles up to 20 ounces. For containers more than 20 ounced, the label will reflect a 12 ounce serving.

Other program elements, besides the Task Force:

*Congressional reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act so school lunches have more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low fat dairy products.

*Asking school lunch vendors within five years to decrease sugar, salt and fat in meals and double, within ten years, the amount of produce served.

*Creation of a new foundation-the Partnership for a Healthier America-whose members are other, existing foundations.

*The American Academy of Pediatrics will ask doctors to monitor children's Body Mass Index.

Vilsack, in his text, outlined eight elements the Obama White House is looking to include in the Child Nutrition Act legislative package.

Here is his overview:

1. Improving access to the school nutrition programs must be a priority. States and local communities need be fully engaged as partners in our efforts to identify innovative strategies to ending child hunger. We cannot rest while so many of our young children struggle with access to food, which is why I'm calling on Congress to provide tools to increase participation, streamline applications, and eliminate gap periods. Another strategy for getting more children into the programs should be simplifying the application process through increased direct certification. If a child already qualifies for other assistance programs there is no reason why the parents of that child need to be bothered filling out one more application to qualify for school breakfast or lunch. Bonus payments should be offered to schools that effectively reach out to children who currently qualify but who are not participating

2. Increasing participation in School Breakfast must be part of reauthorization. On school days, almost two-thirds of children who participate in the lunch programs do not eat a school breakfast. And School Lunch is served in around 100,000 schools, while the breakfast program is only available in 88,000. We should be providing higher reimbursement rates for schools serving breakfast and combining that support with USDA-purchased foods to give more children the option of a healthy breakfast.

3. Helping to substantially improve the nutritional quality of the meals being served to our children is high on the list of 'must haves' in reauthorization. A recent Institute of Medicine Study commissioned by USDA sounded an alarm about the nutritional value of school meals. The study concluded that our children are eating too much sugar, salt, and fats and too few fruits, vegetables, and low fat dairy products. This mix may help explain why one-half of the calories consumed by children ages 6-11 in this country are "empty" calories. We need to better align our meals with the Dietary Guidelines, leading to increased consumption of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and low fat and fat free dairy products. USDA is working as aggressively as possible to implement the Institute of Medicine recommendations, but we also know that the improved foods will increase costs for local schools. That is why I am calling on Congress to offer support in the form of financial reimbursements and equipment as part of this reauthorization.

4. Recognizing that many schools do not have the equipment in place to improve food selections, the reauthorization should include funding to improve school kitchens so they can provide meals that meet the Dietary Guidelines and offer fresh fruits and vegetables. At the same time, we need to support school food service providers with resources for the critical training and credentialing they need to do their jobs.

5. The reauthorization effort should also ensure that all foods served in schools are healthy and nutritious. A 2006 study showed that cookies, cakes, pastries, and high fat salty snacks are three times more likely to be sold outside the school cafeteria than fruits or vegetables. Foods served in vending machines and the a la carte line shouldn't undermine our efforts enhance the health of the school environment. We must have the capacity to set standards for all the foods served and sold in schools. It doesn't mean the end of vending machines in schools - but instead ensuring that they are filled with nutritious offerings to make the healthy choice the easy choice for our nation's children.

6. Making sure that parents and students have correct and complete nutritional information about foods being served in schools must be part of the reauthorization effort. With better information and simple assessments parents can know what is available in their child's cafeteria and can assist their children in making the right nutritional choices.

7. Strengthening the link between local farmers and school cafeterias must remain a priority for this legislation. Supporting farm-to-school programs will increase the amount of produce available to cafeterias and help to support local farmers by establishing regular, institutional buyers.

8. Guaranteeing the integrity of the nutrition programs remains central to a credible reauthorization. Support for new technology will help schools avoid inaccuracies in eligibility requirements, and maintain the confidence that our help is only provided to those who need it.

Here is a chart of the rise in U.S. childhood obesity via AOL News:

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Washington in 60 Seconds: Who Needs Scott Brown When There's Ben Nelson?

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-09T12:02:00 00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

Good morning, Capitolists! Once derided by Barack Obama as not "flinty" enough to handle a few inches of snow like the tough Chicago crowd, the capital region has more than handled the three feet dumped on us Saturday and is braced for the foot or more on its way tonight.

The Senate has several votes scheduled today, including a cloture vote on a controversial Obama nominee that will require 60 yeas, meaning the Capitolist will be strapping on our flintiest snow boots and heading to the Capitol to watch it go down.

Here's what's making news in Washington until then:

* Obama Nominee Gets the Full Nelson. Sen. Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat best known for bucking his party one day and getting $100 million in stocking stuffers for his home state the next, has informed Harry Reid that he will join a Republican filibuster today against Craig Becker, a nominee to join the National Labor Relations Board. Nelson said he thinks Becker will take "an aggressive personal agenda" to the NLRB, so he'll do his part to block the nomination.

* Honors for Murtha. Flags are at half-mast across Washington, including at the White House, the Capitol and all war memorials, in memory of Rep. Jack Murtha, who died yesterday. Murtha was a Vietnam Marine and prolific federal spender for the cause of the U.S. military and his Western Pennsylvania district. His hometown paper, aptly named the Tribune Democrat, remembers him as being "like a father to the community."

* Bi-passing Bipartisanship? President Obama is meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders today to talk about passing a jobs bill, but the conversation will undoubtedly wander to Obama's invitation for the GOP to meet with him live on C-SPAN to talk turkey on health care. Word on the street, however, is that the White House wants to bring a fully cooked proposal to the table for discussion, a move Republicans say would force them to push back from the table.

* Barney Frank on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In an op-ed forThe Hill, the Massachusetts Democrat calls for the full repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a policy he says "turns logic on its head." More: "As a gay man, I want to pay particular tribute to the decency, integrity, and courage of Admiral Mullen, who so clearly stated his opposition to a policy that has been deeply unfair to many men and women with whom he himself has served."

* Grsly Twts R th Bst! Is there anything more entertaining than Sen. Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed? We give you Exhibit A as to why the answer is no: a Tweet from the Iowa Republican before dawn this morning, relaying the fact that he slept in his office last night to avoid snow delays and appear on CNBC this morning. "Bad weather.Took 12hrs to fly bk DC. DCA shut down.Had fly BWI. Slept in office so b on Hill for CNBC intrvu 7am in 20min."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pennsylvania Must Hold Special Election to Replace John Murtha

David Sessions — 2010-02-09T09:55:00 00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Primaries, 2010 Elections

According to state law, Pennsylvania must hold a special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha, Politico reports. After Murtha's vacancy has been officially declared, Gov. Ed Rendell has 10 days to call a special election, which can take place no more than 60 days later. The likely date is May 18, the day the state's regularly scheduled primary elections will be held.

There will be no primary to select candidates for the special election. County party leaders from Murtha's western Pennsylvania district will select candidates at a convention, and the winner of the special election will serve the remainder of Murtha's term. Like all House members, Murtha was up for re-election in November, which means the winner of the special election will have to win another vote less than six months after taking office.

Replacing Murtha is one more headache for House Democrats, who could be facing punishing losses in the midterm elections. The Cook Political Report calls Pennsylvania a "toss up," and recent upsets in strongly Democratic states have fueled worries that Republicans could mount a serious bid for Murtha's seat.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Unemployment Taxes for Companies Skyrocket in 35 States

David Sessions — 2010-02-09T08:28:00 00:00

Filed under: Economy, Taxes, Jobs

Given persistent job losses in the struggling economy, companies in at least 35 states are seeing their unemployment taxes jump an average of nearly 30 percent, CNN reports. Many of the hikes will happen automatically as prolonged unemployment triggers state laws governing unemployment insurance programs. Other states have voted to raise the taxable base wage or tax rate.

The states are seeking ways to restore their unemployment insurance trust funds, which cover claims; 26 states have had to borrow a total of more than $30 billion from the federal government to pay claims.

Hawaii will be hit the hardest by automatic hikes in unemployment taxes. Its tax rate will increase 600 percent this year, upping the average worker's unemployment compensation tax from $90 in 2009 to $1,070 this year. Gov. Linda Jingle is trying to limit the impact of the tax hikes by proposing legislation to keep them from going into effect fully. State officials across the country are concerned that the heavy tax burden triggered by prolonged joblessness will make it difficult for companies to begin hiring again.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Jenny Sanford: Staying True to a Man Who Never Existed?

Lynne Adrine — 2010-02-09T05:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Woman Up

In the midst of digging out from this epic snow, the weekend gave me repeated exposure to Jenny Sanford's book, "Staying True." After listening to her interview on NPR Monday morning and watching her two-part interview on "Good Morning America," I think the title is apt, although maybe not in the way Ms. Sanford intended.

I feel like I'm watching Jenny Sanford perform emotional and mental jujitsu as she tries to reconcile the man she thought she married with the politician who held that incredibly self-indulgent news conference last year. The man who publicly declared his love for his "soul mate" mistress and then called his betrayed wife to ask her critique of his performance.

From the excerpts I've read, the Mark Sanford of the infamous news conference was revealing himself to her long before he entered politics, and even before they married. Jenny Sanford provides numerous examples of her husband's thoughtless, selfish behavior. To wit: Her first visit to his family in South Carolina, where he left her to drive alone on a dangerous road in a stick-shift car she did not know how to operate. And much more tellingly, his insistence at removing the word "faithful" from their wedding vows.

In these and other instances in the book, Jenny Sanford finds a way to rationalize her husband's behavior, making each act sync with the man she believed herself to be married to, and stifling her own disappointments. Yet, instinctively, she must recognize the shock value of these transgressions, or else she would not have included them in the book.

In her interviews, Ms. Sanford made repeated references to the pressures of political life and how those pressures took Mark away from his core values, the man he "really is." I wonder if Jenny Sanford yet realizes the man Mark Sanford "really is." With four boys to raise, children who already are collateral damage in the public maelstrom of their father's behavior, maybe Jenny Sanford's position is understandable. But I hope her own understanding of her husband and of herself goes much deeper.

Lynne Adrine, a former senior producer with ABC News, currently works with the graduate broadcast journalism program at the Newhouse School of Communications at Syracuse University in New York.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Murtha Turned Against War, but Not Grab-While-You-Can Politics

Walter Shapiro — 2010-02-09T05:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, Scandal, Investigations, Budget, Terror, National Security, Congress, News Media, Ethics, Jobs

House Democratic titan John Murtha, who died Monday at 77 following complications from gallbladder surgery, was not a congressman cut out for an era of $1.3 trillion budget deficits. As a grab-while-you-can champion of earmarks, Murtha risked becoming a national symbol for old-fashioned congressional greed.

Representing since 1974 Johnstown and a time-warp slice of southwestern Pennsylvania - a forgotten blue-collar area where the good old days meant the 19^th century - Murtha was an unashamed practitioner of pork-barrel politics. A gruff retired Marine, Murtha believed that his hard-pressed district deserved any federal spending that fell through the cracks of the House Appropriations Committee. And as the long-time take-no-prisoners chairman of the subcommittee that oversees military spending, Murtha was able to make sure that Pennsylvania's 12^th district always got more than its rightful share.

No monument better immortalizes Murtha's largesse than the aptly named John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, an eerily empty facility (three commercial flights per day) which has received $200 million in federal funds in the past decade. On a per-flight basis, that would be the equivalent of pumping $160 billion (roughly the annual cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars) into Chicago's O'Hare Airport. To Murtha, it was a point of principle that the Constitution gave Congress the power of the purse. But it was hard to glimpse a high-minded principle in the way that he took so much of this constitutional power for himself.

If it were not for Iraq, Murtha probably would be mostly remembered by family, friends, congressional colleagues, military contractors, defense lobbyists and his constituents in the 12^th district. But Murtha was lovingly placed on a pedestal by the antiwar left and championed by Nancy Pelosi after he dramatically turned against the Iraq War in 2005.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Democrats Leave Health Care Behind for Jobs, Toyota, Gays in Military

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-09T05:00:00 00:00

Filed under: The Capitolist

With their 60-vote Senate majority officially kaput and their health care reform efforts stuck in limbo, Democrats in Congress will complete a pivot away from health reform Tuesday to begin work on a bill designed to chip away at the nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate.

But instead of going it alone, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in the process of working with senior Republicans, including Orin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, to craft the measure to win GOP support for it early on. Without a filibuster-proof majority, he doesn't have much choice.

"We want to work with the Republicans. And it appears to me on the jobs programs they want to work with us," Reid said last Thursday when he announced his plans to take up a jobs bill.

Reid had scant details then about the plan, but he did give the broad outlines of what Senate negotiators, including Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, have been working on.

"It's a plan that will create the right conditions for the private sector to hire more people," Reid said. "It's a plan for both our short-term recovery and our long-term prosperity. We believe we will do it in the right places."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments