Obama Administration Announces Clean Coal Research Awards for Universities Across the Country

Obama Administration Announces Clean Coal Research Awards for Universities Across the Country | Department of Energy Skip to main content Energy.gov Find information about your town or city. Search form Search Energy.gov Public ServicesTax Credits, Rebates & SavingsHomesVehiclesBuilding DesignManufacturingNational Security & SafetyEnergy EconomyFunding OpportunitiesState & Local GovernmentScience & InnovationScience & TechnologyScience EducationInnovationEnergy SourcesEnergy UsageEnergy EfficiencyMissionNews & BlogMaps & DataAbout UsFor Staff & ContractorsOfficesAll OfficesProgram OfficesStaff OfficesLabs & Technology CentersField SitesPower Marketing AdministrationOther Agencies You are hereHome Obama Administration Announces Clean Coal Research Awards for Universities Across the Country June 6, 2012 - 12:18pm Addthis News Media Contact(202) 586-4940

WASHINGTON, D.C.— As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above approach to American energy, the Energy Department announced that nine universities have won awards for research projects that will continue to support innovation and development of clean coal technologies. The awards, which will leverage student-led teams across the country as they continue research and development of new technologies and materials that will advance clean coal energy production, are part of the Administration’s focus on ensuring we can rely on a broad range of energy sources as we move towards a clean energy economy.

“Advancing the development of clean coal technologies is an important part of President Obama’s strategy to develop every source of American energy and ensure the United States leads the world in the global clean energy race and continues to take advantage of domestic resources here at home,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.  “These university research projects will help build on extensive progressive made by this Administration to promote innovative technologies that help make coal-fired energy cleaner and more cost-competitive, while training the next generation of scientists and engineers in cutting-edge clean coal technologies.”

The projects announced today at the nine universities will each receive approximately $300,000 to spur the next generation of trained scientists and engineers from universities across the nation to focus on the development of high-temperature, high-pressure corrosion-resistant alloys, protective coatings, and structural materials for advanced coal-fired power plants and gas turbines. Research projects will also develop new processes and computational design methods to develop these materials, improve efficiency and reduce the costs of cleaner power generation systems. The Energy Department’s $2.7 million investment will be leveraged with additional funds from the universities to support $3.1 million in total projects.

Today’s awards are part of a more than $5 billion investment strategy by the Obama Administration in clean coal technologies and R&D. This strategy, which has attracted over $10 billion in additional private capital investment, is designed to accelerate commercial deployment of clean coal technologies – particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS) – and to position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

Thanks in part to this strategy, the United States is currently leading the world in CCS technologies. In fact, last week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, in its semi-annual “Race to First” ranking of the world’s most advanced large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, announced that the United States was in first place. Topping the list was a project led by Pennsylvania-based Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. – an effort spurred by investments made by the Energy Department in 2010. 

This announcement shows growing momentum for CCS in the U.S. For example, earlier this year, CPS Energy of San Antonio – the largest municipally owned utility in the United States – signed the first agreement in the country to purchase low-carbon power from a commercial-scale coal-based power plant with carbon capture.  The Midland-Odessa- based project – the Texas Clean Energy Project – will be the cleanest coal power plant in the world when it becomes operational in 2015.

In addition, the Energy Department is leveraging investments in clean coal technologies to study and demonstrate ways to continue improving the economics of clean coal projects through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects.  With EOR, companies can use captured carbon to help develop marginal oil wells and further increase domestic oil production.

President Obama’s sustained all-out, all-of-the-above commitment to American energy also includes the safe and responsible production of our oil and natural gas alongside the development of clean, renewable American energy resources. Today, American oil production is at the highest level in eight years, and last year the U.S. relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. And over the past few years, renewable energy use has nearly doubled, with the U.S. reclaiming the position as the world’s leading investor in clean energy in 2011.

The projects selected for awards include:

Brown University (Providence, R.I.)Dartmouth College (Hanover, N.H.)Indiana University, in partnership with Purdue University and Praxair Surface Technologies (Indianapolis, Ind.)Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio)Southern Illinois University (Carbondale, Ill.)Texas Engineering Experiment Station (College Station, Texas)University of North Texas (Denton, Texas), in partnership with University of Idaho (Moscow, Idaho)University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tenn.)University of Toledo (Toledo, Ohio)

Complete project descriptions can be found HERE.

Addthis Related Articles U.S. and Italy Sign Agreement to Collaborate on Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies DOE Announces Restructured FutureGen Approach to Demonstrate CCS Technology at Multiple Clean Coal Plants Adding “Utilization” to Carbon Capture and Storage What We Do For You Energy EconomyEnergy Economy InnovationInnovation Nuclear Security & SafetyNuclear Security & Safety Energy.gov Careers & InternshipsContact UsEmail Updates Popular Topics SavingsHeating & CoolingIndustrial Heating & CoolingSolarHome WeatherizationAppliances & ElectronicsAbout this siteWeb PoliciesPrivacyNo Fear ActInformation QualityOpen GovEnergy DepartmentBudget & PerformanceDirectives, Delegations & RequirementsFOIAInspector GeneralPrivacy ProgramSmall BusinessFederal GovernmentThe White HouseUSA.gov

1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington DC 20585
202-586-5000

Time for Obama to Butt Out of Obamacare

Talk about chutzpah. The same chief executive who refused to provide a speck of guidance to one branch of government in crafting his signature legislation is now threatening another branch of government not to overturn it.

Does President Obama believe in the separation of powers? You wouldn't know it from his intemperate comments Monday on the legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is now deliberating. Just days after skeptical justices subjected administration lawyers and their opponents to a historic six hours of questioning, and just as the judges were retreating to contemplate the competing claims in private, Obama stood up in the Rose Garden and loudly warned the nine "unelected" rubes that they'd better get this one right.

Obama declared that overturning his health care law would be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary"-which is funny, because that's what a lot of people have been saying about his health care law.

What with his haranguing of the justices over their Citizens United decision and his veiled threats over Obamacare, we haven't had a president interfere this much with the Supreme Court since FDR. (Apparently Obama's intimidation tactics aren't strong enough for Representative James Clyburn, who wants the president to campaign against the Supreme Court this fall.)

Can anyone recall an instance of one faction of the Supreme Court instructing a sitting president which laws to veto? How about a Congressional caucus telling the Chief Justice which cases to turn down?

One federal appeals court is so rattled by Obama's posturing that it is requiring his Justice Department to submit a brief by Thursday noon outlining whether and when it believes the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn federal legislation.

In his address Monday, Obama blithely threw around the term "judicial activism," suggesting that the Supreme Court justices would be guilty of practicing it if they overturned Obamacare. But judicial activism doesn't mean "making decisions the other side doesn't like."

The justices' sworn oath is to uphold the Constitution. Conservative complaints of judicial activism refer to cases in which justices override the Constitution while upholding or striking down laws that suit their political preferences.

Conservatives have focused obsessively on the constitutionality of the law since Day 1, in particular the propriety of requiring people to enter commercial contracts against their will by purchasing health insurance in the private market.

Judicial activists, including Obamacare supporters, ignore the constitutionality of laws, unless they are forced by their opponents to concoct phony, sophistic defenses invoking the Constitution, in which they typically claim that whatever it is they're proposing-banning guns, preventing violence against women-is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.

When was the last time you heard a Republican legislator respond, when asked about the constitutionality of a law he had proposed, "Are you serious?" as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when queried about Obamacare? How about a Republican announcing, as Illinois Democrat and former Congressman Phil Hare did at an Obamacare townhall meeting, "I don't worry about the Constitution"?

(The left needs to get its story straight on whether the Supreme Court may ever consider the constitutionality of legislation. Liberal Dahlia Lithwick, for example, claims that Congress can pass anything it wants, whether constitutional or not, because the Supreme Court will assess its constitutionality and strike it down if need be. This was two years ago, back when blinkered Democrats didn't think there was any chance the Supreme Court would hear the case against Obamacare, much less overrule it. On the other hand, fellow Slate writer Jamal Greene recently argued that the Supreme Court should eschew its constitutional function and let Obamacare stand, because two branches of government have already weighed in.)

In case the "unprecedented" and "judicial activist" arguments weren't convincing, Obama also crowed that the law had been passed by "a strong majority" of Congress-by which he meant a sputtering, cobbled-together Frankenstein's monster of reluctant coalitions that had to be bribed, deceived, and threatened into compliance. (The 2010 Republican midterm election landslide, though-that was nothing special!)

Meanwhile we've learned that the American public is solidly on the conservative justices' side, with 72% endorsing the notion that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. This includes over 50% of Republicans, Independents, Democrats, voters who oppose the law, and voters who support the law. How's that for "a strong majority"?

Obama's chance to offer input on his namesake legislation has long since passed. It's time for him to get out of the way and accept the court's-and the public's-verdict on the disastrous legislation he recklessly set in motion.

View article source

How Come President Obama Can Misrepresent in the State of the Union?

As with anything, the facts will set you free, and the poppycock will pile higher and higher until you are smothered in it. Now then, today, I'd like to discuss the State of the Onion, yes, Union, but to me it's all been a really bad joke, so I use Onion in this case, and refer to the speech as more like comedy or charades if you will. Okay so, let's talk shall we?

There was an interesting article on the ABC News website on January 25, 2012 titled; " Fact or Fiction Number 1 - The Booming Economy: Obama's Jobs Story," by Huma Khan, Elizabeth Hartfield, Matt Negrin, Chris Good, Amy Bingham, Jeunee Simon, Greg Krieg, Meg Fowler and Sarah Parnass report: "Did the economy crater before President Obama's inauguration, then rebound once his policies took effect?" The article stated:

"It seems unlikely that the president would utter inaccurate jobs numbers during his State of the Union address, but while we wait for official White House citation, the president made at least one claim that for now looks iffy. The transcript: states."

Now then, this article caught my eye as it was being discussed on the CFO Magazine blog and website as well. Consider if you will that you are a large corporation which makes a "forward looking statement" which you know not to be entirely correct, but it's close and if you use trickery you can pull it off, then you misrepresent the past accounting as well. Okay so, we all know what will happen - class action lawsuits galore from "minority shareholder" investors (minority shareholders is a legal business term, look it up, it has nothing to do with minorities or skin color) and the SEC will knock on your door the day after such a conference call, interview, or printed annual report.

What a bunch of hypocrisy we have here. If the President of the United States does this in front of congress, and televised to the whole nation and world, it's okay? How is it okay, may I ask? If someone lies to Congress in a testimony, they throw their butts in jail? We have an integrity problem in Washington DC and it needs to stop.

Now then, the good thing about this is that that you can't fool all the people all the time, and now people are on to all this teleprompter showboating. Still, there are folks who believe it all, enough of them in fact to really throw a loop in our system, as these people still vote, and actually believe some of this spewed nonsense and class warfare rhetoric, misrepresentation of truth, and falsification of facts - clouding it all in enuendos, and carefully worded sentences misleading the public.

If this were a business man or someone testifying to congress they'd go to jail for it, yet the president stands before the US Congress, US Citizens, and is televised to the world and somehow that's deemed okay because it's just politics - amazing I say, simply amazing.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View article source

President Obama Says the Republicans Want Business With No Rules - That's a False Charge

The other day, I was listening to one of President Obama's stump speeches as he jet set around the country in Air Force One soliciting campaign contributions for his 2012 run against the Republicans that have the higher approval ratings. President Obama said something very interesting when it came to over-regulation, and the cries from the business community.

He said that; "Republicans want business with no rules!" That is simply false, that is not true, and all of the small businesses, and the corporate executives that I know, and I know quite a few, just want a fair shake, and they are;

Tired of the duplication of rules and regulations at every level of government
Tired of the double jeopardy of lawsuits from private sector and government
Tired of Consumer Extortion
Tired of Competing with Foreign Firms that Don't Follow the Rules
Tired of Crony Capitalism, Unbalanced Playing Fields, and Government Picking the Winners

It is really unfortunate that we have a President of the United States who has never run a business, and perhaps never even run a lemonade stand for all I know. You can go into any small business in your town, talk to the owner, and verify what I've said here in this article. You can ask them to see all of their licenses, permits, and registrations. Most small businesses have no less than 20 pieces of paper showing that they are legitimately allowed to run their type of business on that premises.

Many folks that have never run a business don't understand, they think running a business is easy and all you have to do is get a business license. But that's not really true, you need all sorts of other licenses, and you have to pay all kinds of fees, taxes, and the harassment, well, it really never stops. Further, on any given week you might be visited by several regulators from various agencies at the city, county, state, and federal level.

In fact, it's amazing the amount of micromanagement the government does, and all the enforcement that goes on. The federal government is perhaps the most arrogant of all, because they believe their rules trump every other jurisdiction, and they act as they have the power to shut you down on the spot. The way the legal system works in this country, they actually do. Still, we are a nation that believes in capitalism and free enterprise, including the right to free contract. It is amazing how the federal government has infiltrated its way into every single transaction that we do.

If we truly want jobs back in America, we are going to have to lighten the load on our small business community with regards to all the regulations. Since President Obama has been in office the regulations have increased, not decreased. And Congress, the regulatory agencies, and even the president himself through executive orders have done nothing more than stifle free enterprise and commerce. Excuse me for saying so, but that's just totally unacceptable.

It additionally, the arrogance of President Obama to make such a statement and to label the Republicans as wanting to allow businesses to run with no rules whatsoever is absolute poppycock and utter hokum. Of course, it makes sense that a socialist leaning president would use such a populist message, and class warfare categorization to promote his own personal agenda and political career. But as I said; it's simply unacceptable. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new highly-charged and provocative series of eBooks on Future Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View article source

Annie Could Humble President Obama, and Republicans, Too

There's no place like New York City at Christmas time. The city is alive with the holiday season, the stores, the shops, the hotels, and the restaurants are beautifully decorated.

There's an air of optimism in New York City at this time of the year. A simple walk through Central Park or along Fifth Avenue can be magical.

Anyone who experiences the sing along with the Salvation Army Band at "21", or takes in a Broadway holiday show, comes away with Christmas memories for a lifetime.

Christmas in New York is a one of a kind encounter.

I came to understand this a few years ago, and still recall with great passion the Broadway musical Annie, starring 1977 Tony nominee Andrea McArdle, in the lead, as orphan "Annie."

The depression-era musical is about optimism and hope. It tells the story of billionaire Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks who invites an orphan (Annie) to come to his Mansion for the Christmas holidays, and she quickly steals his heart. The play is about not giving up hope, and looking forward to tomorrow, despite the hard times of today.

The gap between the rich and poor, the have and have-nots, is a large symbol in Annie, and the answer to that chasm can be found in the play's uplifting signature song of eternal optimism, "Tomorrow."

There are parallels to Annie, and what we are experiencing today. As during the Great Depression, millions have lost their jobs, and their homes, and there seems to be no end in sight.

The country however has not lost hope, and sent a message to President Barrack Obama in the mid-term congressional elections. They do not like the direction he is taking the country, and voters are anxiously waiting to see how he responds.

The first test will be the congressional decision on income tax rates. A meeting is scheduled tomorrow at the White House between the President and congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the matter.

Voters have made it plain, they don't want tax increases on anyone; instead, they want government off their backs, and to spend less taxpayer money.

So far, President Obama continues on a theme of pitting the haves against the have-nots, but what is missing from his message is optimism and hope, or the idea that we are all in this together.

He seems focused on a message of "payback," that somehow those on the high end of the economic scale have received a break other folks have not, and instead of wanting to pull us together, he wants to punish those who are well off by raising their taxes (although he won't come out and say it like that).

There has been some talk of a compromise, but the issue is far from settled, and we are now heading into a new year with no idea what next year's tax rates will be.

Never mind that voters made themselves clear a few weeks ago. They do not want tax rates increased on anyone; for fear that it will result in a more difficult economic recovery, and a prolonged period of high unemployment.

In the musical Annie, Daddy Warbucks eventually takes Annie to Washington D.C. where she asks to meet with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although Warbucks and the President do not agree politically, she brings them together, and begins to sing "Tomorrow," only to be quickly hushed from doing so by members of the President's Cabinet.

President Roosevelt intercedes, saying he wants the government to be optimistic during hard times, and he commands everyone, including Warbucks, and the Cabinet, to sing along with Annie.

No one expects President Obama to "sing along" with Republicans, but as in Annie, the country desperately wants a message of optimism and hope from this White House, too.

Annie saw the best sides of everyone, and despite a "Hard Knock Life," she held out for a better "Tomorrow." Her message humbled President Roosevelt, and the billionaire Warbucks, too, and the country ultimately benefited.

Hopefully, President Obama will see things the same way.

Robb Austin is a former newspaper reporter and elected Member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and has successfully run numerous Congressional campaigns. Learn more at http://robbaustin.com/.

View article source

Who Will Defeat Obama In 2012? Greece

Even if a miracle occurs and the unemployment rate in the US drops below 8%, the Greeks are still coming to spoil the President's wishes.

What all the pundits and white house strategists are missing is that the Presidential chances of Barack Obama in 2012 are tied to an unlikely and compromising source, Greece.

How is that?

Just like all Republican' candidates in 2008 were inevitably tied to Lehmann Brothers and the following financial crisis, and they didn't know it at the time, any Democratic candidate chances in 2012 - including the President's - is tied to Greece - the Lehman trigger of 2012 - and they don't know it yet. And it is not a position that any Democratic candidate (even the President) would want to be in.

We subscribe to the harsh reality that Greece's prospects of defaulting are not a matter of If, but a matter of When, and that this"when" has a 92% probability of being before November of 2012. We don't say this capriciously, or out of a hat, we are simply reading what one year credit-default swaps are trading at signaling a 92% prediction of a Greece default.

If that is true, it is ironic that the type of economic crisis that helped elect Obama in 2008 will now help to defeat him - the coming Greek default and a financial and economic crisis in the Euro-zone. Let's see first what are the chances of this event taking place:

We subscribe to the harsh reality that Greece's prospects

of defaulting are not a matter of If, but a matter of When

There are three inevitable trends that make Greece's task of avoiding default - meaning bankruptcy - a mission impossible.

- First, target deficits and budget cuts required from Greece to get Euro-zone approval for bailout money are not being met - and cannot be met without serious civil unrest and a government shakeout.

- Second, the number of private debt holders participation in the necessary debt restructuring programs is less than required by the terms of the bailout.

- And third, there is growing opposition by the strong Euro-zone economies of Germany, Britain, and Holland to provide bailout money without strict collateral control - collateral that does not exist to the amounts necessary. It is also unlikely that Germany - the strong economy of Europe - would risk worsening its own debt situation and economic growth by trying to save the un-savable. Contrary to American perception, Germany's own debt position is not all that healthy - with a ratio of public debt to GDP of 83%. The limits of German largesse are obvious.

It is easily seen that the first and second problems are fundamentally rooted to economic reality and are inevitable, and therefore, unavoidable. Only the third issue - the growing opposition from Germany, England, and Holland to provide a blank check - can be politically manipulated; but the trend of popular support is not in their favor, and is bound to get worst with time.

Andrew Lilico of The Telegraph has compiled a list of what happens when the inevitable arrives. A short view of it is:

- Every bank in Greece will instantly go insolvent.

- The Greek government will nationalize every bank in the country.

- Greece will re-denominate all its debt into "New Drachmas".

It is unlikely that Greece can meet its debt obligations for 14 months before declaring a suspension of payments. The Greek scenario will be followed by Ireland and Portugal, and Italy - with Spain in the waiting list. These events will break up the Euro as we know it today and unleash a full blown European financial crisis that will spread to the United States. The inevitable recession in Europe will prolong the US Recession and will increase the probabilities of a depression.

The chances of this scenario developing during 2012 are as high as we indicated above on the probabilities of Greece declaring a suspension of payments, and are inextricably tied to the probabilities that President Obama would not be re-elected under these conditions.

There is only one thing left for the President to do - make a speech in the Greek Parliament proposing to finance a "Greek Stimulus Plan", a "Greek Jobs Plan" and "raise the Greek debt ceiling".

Or run for the exits before somebody yells "fire"!

View article source

The Obama Administration Says They Will Create Jobs - I Have a Better Idea

It seems to me that the American people are being brainwashed by the media into thinking that the government, the Federal Reserve, and the Obama Administration are the only ones who can bring jobs back to America. That is absolutely blasterdash and poppycock. You see, it is not government that creates jobs, it is the private sector. Now then, I'd like to discuss this with you for a moment, in case you think you might disagree based on what you've heard in the media or the Teleprompter Routines spoken by the commander-in-chief.

President Obama would have us believe that the Obama Administration has a bullet proof plan to create jobs and reduce unemployment. Well, I have a better idea for the Administration, so let me explain. Rather than having the Obama Administration create jobs for us, and create new industries for America, maybe they might reduce regulations, delete ObamaCare, and call off the regulatory attack dogs so that we can have back all the industries they either hijacked or inadvertently destroyed?

There was a great little article and statement in the Wall Street Journal on August 18, 2011 in the Notable and Quotable Section which was a repeat of a speech by Warren Buffet's son Howard Buffet who had quoted a piece from the December 1956 issue of the "Freeman" and stated the challenges of the government grabbing hold of production rather than allowing the free-market to do it's magic. "Oh how history repeats," I say.

The reality is our nation has worked well because we believed in free markets, we believed in capitalism, and we demanded our liberty and freedom. That includes the right to choose, the right to pursue happiness, the right to free contract, and it comes with it the responsibility and the unfortunate reality that you can't have true success without failure. If we start believing that only the government can provide jobs, they will grab a hold of the money flows, capital flows, and production of our free-market system.

Now then, if the federal government cannot even mind its own affairs, live within its means, or balance its budget then how one Earth can we expect them to guarantee us that they can provide us jobs with some special plan that they concocted? They've never been able to do it before, they can't even handle their own affairs, and they keep running out of money because they have to borrow 40% of every dollar they spend. They spend 45% of everything they put out in the administration of those services.

The last thing we want them to do is meddle in the affairs of businessmen and women in the free-market system. The Obama Administration cannot provide jobs for America, it doesn't know how, it would be utterly ridiculous for us to ditch what works in the free-market, for some sort of hope and change that America will be better off as a socialist nation, with its industries nationalized. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 24,500 articles by August 24th or 25th will be difficult because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off now..

View article source

Proposing pay freeze, Obama aims to seize initiative on economy - Los Angeles Times

 President Obama aimed to undercut Republicans, who had been preparing their own proposal to cut federal pay next year. (Pool Photo, Getty Images / November 29, 2010)
President Obama's proposal on Monday to freeze federal workers' pay was an unexpected announcement that represented the first in a series of White House moves to seize the initiative from Republicans on the economy.
The preemptive move was timed to precede a White House meeting Tuesday with congressional leaders on the subject of expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts, and came just days before a final report from Obama's fiscal commission on how to shrink the federal deficit.
"The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice," Obama said from the White House. "And that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government."
By proposing the two-year freeze, Obama sought to stake his own claim to the argument that government must make tough decisions. A senior administration official said Obama's proposal is part of a larger plan to draw Republicans into an overdue conversation about deficits.
The move would save about $5 billion over two years, the White House said — a substantial sum, though a mere sliver of the $1.3-trillion federal deficit.
Republicans gained dozens of seats in the House and Senate in part by targeting what they characterized as out-of-control federal spending.
Federal workers became a favorite campaign target of Republicans, who argued that the Washington payroll had swelled as private workers nationwide suffered job losses during the recession. Republicans have pressed for even steeper cuts to federal workers' pay.
"As the recent election made clear, Americans are fed up with a government that spends too much, borrows too much and grows too much," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the incoming House majority leader. "With so many Americans tightening their belts, Washington must do the same."
But Obama, by echoing a GOP theme in an effort to undercut Republicans, has angered many of his allies who complained that by cutting federal workers' pay, Obama was giving up something for nothing.
"No one is served by our government participating in a 'race to the bottom' in wages," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. "The president talked about the need for shared sacrifice, but there's nothing shared about Wall Street and CEOs making record profits and bonuses while working people bear the brunt."
The freeze, which would not apply to military personnel or postal workers, would affect about 2 million employees. Congressional approval would be needed for the proposal to take effect.
Excluding military and postal workers, there are about 250,000 federal employees in the Washington area and 150,000 in California, which has the highest concentration outside Washington, according to Office of Personnel Management figures.
Republicans, who had been preparing their own plan to slash federal pay and the workforce next year, said the proposal was long overdue. But some of the president's allies chided him for taking a symbolic step that they said would do little to affect the trajectory of federal spending, but would harm household budgets.
Congress reconvenes this week for a lame-duck session to confront a series of crucial deadlines. The Bush-era tax cuts lapse at the end of the year, and unemployment benefits will be cut off starting Wednesday, leaving up to 2 million jobless Americans without aid through the holidays.
Lawmakers are at a stalemate over the tax cuts. Republicans want to extend them to all households, including those with incomes above $250,000 annually, despite the $700-billion additional cost.
In Tuesday's meeting with congressional leaders, Obama will continue to push for making permanent only the tax cuts on those households earning below $250,000 annually.
"We simply cannot afford to borrow $700 billion to extend the tax cuts of those who make $1 million or $1 billion a year, or make in excess of $250,000 a year," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said. "We can't have an honest discussion about our debts and our deficits without understanding what those decisions mean in the short term and in the long term."
The pay cut proposal, along with Obama's embrace of earmark reform — another Republican priority to limit the special projects lawmakers designate for their home states, which is scheduled for a Senate vote Tuesday — is the kind of budget-cutting that deficit hawks see as more style than substance.
"Whether in earmark reform or freezing the pay of federal workers, the debate hasn't moved on to the big issues that need to be confronted," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, which advocates deficit reduction.
Even Obama's allies on Capitol Hill reacted with concern. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the House majority leader, delicately critiqued the president's proposal.
"Because meaningful deficit reduction cannot be achieved through a piecemeal approach to trimming federal spending, I am hopeful that the administration will propose a comprehensive and serious program for deficit reduction that recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach," he said.
The president froze salaries for all senior White House officials upon taking office. In last year's budget, he proposed extending that freeze to other top political appointees.
In the White House meeting on tax cuts, aides say they are not expecting agreement, but rather view the session as the first of several meetings on the subject.
In a telling change to the schedule, the get-together originally scheduled as a dinner is now set to be a more abbreviated business meeting in the morning.
"One of the most important things the president can do is send a message to the American people that he will not be the obstacle to bipartisan politics," said William Galston, a former Clinton administration official who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He wins by taking the first step."
lisa.mascaro@latimes.com
cparsons@latimes.com
View the original article here

Biden: Palin Formidable, but Couldn't Beat Obama - CBS News

November 19, 2010 10:57 AM  Sarah Palin has used the weeks since the Nov. 2 election to declare that she is indeed considering a run for president in 2012 and that she believes she could defeat President Obama.
In television appearances Thursday and Friday, Vice President Joe Biden pushed back - at least a little - saying that he believes Palin has a good chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 but that Mr. Obama "would be in good shape" to beat her in the general election.
"My mom used to have an expression - 'Be careful what you wish for, Joe, you may get it.' So I never underestimate anyone," Biden told CNN's Larry King Thursday. "But I think, in that race, it would be a clear, clear choice for the country to make, and I believe President Obama would be in very good shape."
It's not clear what the White House had to gain from responding to two years ahead of the next election, but Biden made a point of repeatedly stressing that Palin is not to be underestimated, even though he believes Mr. Obama would win.

Biden echoed the same theme during a Friday appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Tags:Joe Biden ,Barack Obama ,Sarah Palin Topics:Campaign 2012 ,Obama Administration
View the original article here

Senate Democrats vent anger with Barack Obama - Politico

Senate Democrats — including typically mild-mannered Bill Nelson of Florida — lit into President Barack Obama during an unusually tense air-clearing caucus session on Thursday, senators and staffers told POLITICO.

Nelson told colleagues Obama’s unpopularity has become a serious liability for Democrats in his state and blamed the president for creating a toxic political environment for Democrats nationwide, according to two Democrats familiar with his remarks.

Continue Reading “It was a raucous caucus,” said one Democratic senator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because closed-door sessions are not supposed to be discussed with outsiders.

Nelson declined to respond when asked about the incident Thursday night, saying he was in a hurry to leave the Capitol to catch a flight. His spokesman didn’t return a request for comment.

In interviews after the marathon three-hour meeting, several senators and senior aides told POLITICO that Nelson was just one of several senators to express anger at White House missteps — and air deep concerns about their own political fates if Obama and the Democratic Party leadership can’t turn things around by 2012.

Added one veteran senator: “It was the most frank exchange of views I’ve ever seen.”

Several senators expressed the opinion that Obama needed to show more passion, while party liberals renewed their complaint that Obama should abandon the pretense of bipartisanship in the face of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s intransigence and what they consider the Kentucky Republican’s blatantly political tactics aimed at making Obama a one-term president.

Others said Democratic leaders need to clearly spell out what they believe are the motivations behind the Republicans' positions: that they are beholden to special interests, who bankroll their campaigns.

If Democrats keep losing the message war, they worry, they will be wiped out in 2012.

“There was a lot of passion in that room,” one senator said. “The reason is because the public is with us on our policies, but they’re not getting the message.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had met with Obama at the White House earlier in the day, calmly presided over the gripe session, sources say, allowing members to have their say.

Reid, who barely survived a challenge from tea party favorite Sharron Angle, has already taken steps to improve his own messaging operation, tapping New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to run the communications and policy operations of the Democratic Caucus in the next Congress.

With 21 Democrats and two independents facing reelection in 2012, Reid and the White House will be forced to deal with skittish Democrats eager to see a sharpened political operation.

But the complaints are not new. Over the past year, Senate Democrats have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama’s policy priorities, especially his determination to ram through a health care bill against the objections of party conservatives like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). The caucus’s left wing, including Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, have argued the opposite point: that Obama’s timidity has led to the defection of liberals and young people turned off by Obama compromises on the public option and economic stimulus.

Thursday’s confrontation reminded some of a February 2010 showdown between Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod after the president’s question-and-answer session with senators. An irate Franken, witnesses told POLITICO at the time, dressed down Axelrod and the White House for failing to provide a clearer sense of direction on health reform and other large legislative initiatives.

View the original article here

Obama pushes Senate to approve START treaty now, not later - Los Angeles Times

President Obama on Thursday called the new START treaty with Russia a "national security imperative," ramping up pressure on the Senate to ratify it during the lame-duck session.

Obama joined a meeting in the White House hosted by Vice President Biden that included former secretaries of State and Defense and the chair and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to make his case.

He said it was a "gamble" to put off a Senate vote, as some Republicans have asked for, calling the treaty a "cornerstone of our relationship with Russia."

"This is not a matter that can be delayed," Obama said. "This is not about politics."

Sen. Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, said earlier this week that he did not think a vote on the treaty could be supported "given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization" of U.S. nuclear weapons systems.

Obama said Thursday that he was prepared "to go the extra mile" to address those concerns, adding that the treaty has been vetted with 18 hearings, multiple briefings and support from military leadership.

"The stakes for American national security are clear, and they are high," he said. "We can't jeopardize the progress that we've made in securing vulnerable nuclear materials, or in maintaining a strong sanctions regime against Iran."

Asked if he thought he could find the 67 votes in the Senate needed to ratify the treaty, Obama said he was confident.

"Keep in mind that every president since Ronald Reagan has presented an arms treaty with Russia and been able to get ratification," he said.

Sen. John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, said earlier Thursday that Republicans "ought to be unbelievably happy with what the president has offered."

"In my judgment, this treaty ought to be able to win with significant votes," Kerry said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "We have to cross the divide here, and this is the first step to prove to the American people that we can work together and get something done."

mmemoli@tribune.com

View the original article here

Obama: Better off as a lame duck? - USA Today

A couple of pollsters have an odd suggestion for President Obama, if he wants to get something done with the new, more Republican Congress.

Announce he won't run for re-election.

Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell write in The Washington Post:

If the president goes down the re-election road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose

Schoen polled for former President Bill Clinton. Caddell worked for President Jimmy Carter, but has since been more of a political independent.

We rather doubt their analysis, however -- it's hard to see how Obama gains any leverage over congressional Republicans or Democrats by making himself a lame duck.

Read more »

There will be many books about the Obama administration in the years ahead, and we can't help but wonder if one of them will be the president's diary.

The evidence that Obama keeps a diary is in Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside The Obama White House, which is scheduled to be on the shelves tomorrow.

"Sometimes, I keep notes, I keep a diary, and I was looking over some old volumes that I had written," Obama told author Richard Wolffe, according to an account in Politico.

Wolffe writes:

There was often speculation that a writer like Obama would keep extensive journals of his own unlikely journey from the Illinois state senate to the presidency ... But the speculation was never confirmed, and Obama's aides appeared to know little about what their boss was writing, if anything.

No doubt such diary entries would form the basis of a future autobiography, just as his Chicago journals were the foundation for his memoir, 'Dreams from My Father.' But they also suggested something about Obama's self-reflective moments. They were the result of a methodical harvesting of other people's ideas and words: a conscious effort to weave his own thoughts and experiences into some kind of literary compendium. They also served to reinforce his self-image, as a self-disciplined, strategic mind that could find solutions to emotional challenges.

Read more »

When President Obama and the Republicans meet this week to discuss the George W. Bush tax cuts, he will have a question for them about extensions for the wealthy.

"If they feel very strongly about it, then I want to get a sense of how they intend to pay for it," Obama told reporters yesterday as Air Force One made its way back from Asia.

Obama supports extending the tax cuts for the middle class, but raises a deficit objection for Americans who make more than $200,000 a year, and couples who make more than $250,000.

"I believe it is a mistake for us to borrow $700 billion to make tax cuts permanent for millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "It won't significantly boost the economy, and it's hugely expensive. So we can't afford it."

The lame duck Congress needs to resolve the issue soon: The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.

Read more »

After his 10-day trip through Asia, President Obama turns to what might be his biggest foreign policy challenge: The war in Afghanistan.

Obama flies at the end of this week to Lisbon, Portugal, for a NATO summit devoted to Afghanistan. The weekend meeting will feature a new administration plan to shift more responsibility to the Afghans over the next 18-to-24 months, and to end all U.S. combat operations by 2014.

The new 2014 date that Obama administration officials have begun to float would be a goal of the gradual withdrawal process that Obama wants to begin in July of 2011.

The NATO summit comes as Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai -- who has often been at odds with the Obama administration -- says he wants a lower profile American presence as soon as possible.

"The time has come to reduce military operations," Karzai told The Washington Post. "The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan ... to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life."

Read more »

In the wake of a bad election, President Obama says he is returning to "first principles," including bipartisanship, dealing with wasteful federal spending, and explaining his actions better to the American people.

"I spent the first two years trying to get policy right based on my best judgment about how we were going to deal with the short-term crisis and how we were going to retool to compete in this new global economy," Obama told reporters aboard Air Force One, flying back Sunday from his Asia trip.

Speaking nearly two weeks after an election in which his Democratic Party lost control of the U.S. House, Obama added:

In that obsessive focus on policy, I neglected some things that matter a lot to people, and rightly so: maintaining a bipartisan tone in Washington; dealing with practices like earmarks that are wasteful at a time where everybody else is tightening their belts; making sure that the policy decisions that I made were fully debated with the American people and that I was getting out of Washington and spending more time shaping public opinion and being in a conversation with the American people about why I was making the choices I was making.

So I think, moving forward, I'm going to redouble my efforts to go back to some of those first principles. And the fact that we are out of crisis -- although still, obviously, in a difficult time -- I think will give me the capacity to do that.

Read more »

President Obama talks this week with Republicans about extending the George W. Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and White House adviser David Axelrod began laying down some markers on the Sunday talk shows.

Axelrod said Obama opposes the "permanent" extension of those tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, and couples who make more than $250,000 -- but a temporary extension may be up for discussion.

"The bottom line is he wants to sit down and talk about this," Axelrod said on NBC's Meet The Press.

Obama meets with congressional leaders from both parties Thursday at the White House.

Read more »

In case you were wondering if President Obama will seek re-election: Top adviser David Axelrod confirmed today he will leave the White House in the first half of next year to start organizing Obama's 2012 campaign.

"Sometime in the spring, late winter, early spring, I'll be going back -- coming back here -- to Chicago and beginning to work on that project," Axelrod told Fox News Sunday today.

Axelrod,who did the interview from his hometown of the Chicago, has often discussed going back to the Windy City to start the president's re-election bid, associates have said. The veteran political consultant ran Obama's successful 2008 presidential campaign.

Read more »

 

There's been a lot of talk about extending the George W. Bush tax cuts before the end of the year, but President Obama has identified another big goal for the upcoming lame duck session of Congress: The pending Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

"I reiterated my commitment to get the START Treaty done during the lame duck session, and I've communicated to Congress that it is a top priority," Obama said after a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Japan, wrapping up his 10-day Asia trip.

Some Senate Republicans have balked at the proposed treaty, saying it could undercut U.S. missile defense plans.

Obama and aides figure they have a better chance of ratification of the treaty in the lame duck Senate; the new Senate that opens next year will have six more Republicans.

Read more »

President Obama is winging his way back to Washington, but not before receiving some spiritual nourishment in Japan.

Obama visited the 44-foot-high Great Buddha statue of Kamakura, returning to a spot he visited when he was 6 years old.

"The first time I was here, I was this big," Obama said, putting his hand up to his waist.

The copper Buddha statue, constructed in 1252, weighs 93 tons, and is seated in the lotus position, meditating. The statue is a sacred site.

"It is wonderful to return to this great treasure of Japanese culture," Obama wrote in the guest book. "Its beauty has stayed with me for many years."

Read more »

View the original article here

Obama Turns to Russian Diplomacy as Asia Trip Ends - ABC News

President Barack Obama, capping a far-flung trip of mixed results, said Saturday the United States is "here to stay" as a force in Asia and pivoted to Russian diplomacy as a nuclear treaty hung in the balance.

In his final hours in Japan, Obama was meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as the White House scrambled to round up votes for ratification of a nuclear arms pact that the two leaders signed in April. The administration was offering to add billions of dollars for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to woo Republican support.

Obama was finishing an Asia trip so widespread — from the growing democracies of India and Indonesia to the summit-hosting allies of South Korea and Japan — that Air Force One was headed all the way around the globe. Amid the skeptical press coverage of all Obama didn't get done, the White House worked its own message, saying Obama had planted Asia at the center of his foreign policy, helped lead a fresh global economic strategy and reached billions of Asians with his words.

The president's weekend work at APEC had a quieter, winding-down tone as even his aides joked about the trip's length.

Obama told business leaders that the United States would unapologetically and fiercely compete to get jobs to America, where near double-digit unemployment has sapped public spirits and cost Democrats mightily in this month's midterm elections. He sought to assure Asia-Pacific nations that their success would not come at each other's expense.

"We stand ready to lead again," Obama declared. The comments came in the context of a narrative, vehemently denied by the White House, that Obama had lost some international clout as U.S. voters had shifted more power to Republicans.

A comfortable-looking Obama met with the leaders of Japan and Australia, inviting them both to visit him next year, and he took part in APEC's consensus-centered meetings on the expansion of trade. He was to wrap his trip with the Medvedev meeting, closing summit business and a visit to an iconic Great Buddha statue he had visited as boy.

View the original article here

Obama: Extend tax cuts for middle class, not the wealthy - USA Today

President Obama said today his top priority is to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans, and he will talk with Republicans next week about what to do with the tax rates for wealthier Americans.

"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it," Obama told reporters at the G-20 summit in Seoul, South Korea. "And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution."

He added: "I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul. My job is to negotiate back in Washington with Republican and Democratic leaders."

The tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and are the top priority of the lame duck Congress that meets next week.

Obama said the Bush tax cuts should lapse for individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and couples who make more than $250,000.

Republicans, including incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, say no one's taxes should be increased in a bad economy, and that many wealthy people also create jobs.

Obama and aides have said they oppose a "permanent" extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, suggesting he may be open to a temporary extension.

That possibility has angered some of Obama's liberal supporters.

"The White House and congressional leaders need to say we are scheduling one vote, one vote only, and that vote is on renewing the middle class tax cuts," said Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "And if Republicans want to oppose tax cuts for 98% of Americans, we dare them to and will pummel them politically if they do. That's how you fight and put Republicans on defense."

In Seoul, Obama said his top goal is "to make sure that taxes don't go up for middle-class families" next year, "not only because they need relief after having gone through a horrendous recession, but also because it would be bad for the economy."

Obama also said tax cut extensions for the wealthy would exacerbate the nation's budget deficit problems:

I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit.

So there may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues. I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul on those issues. But I've made very clear what my priorities are.

(Posted by David Jackson)

View the original article here

Obama: Pelosi is & outstanding partner' - USA Today

It was just a matter of time before a reporter asked President Obama this question on the Asia trip: "Do you feel that the election has weakened you on the global stage?"

No, Obama told CNN's Dan Lothian.

Wrapping up the G-20 economic summit, the president added:

I think what we've seen over the last several days as we've traveled through Asia is that people are eager to work with America, eager to engage with America on economic issues, on security issues, on a whole range of mutual interests.

And that's especially true in Asia, where we see such enormous potential. This is the fastest-growing part of the world. And we've got to be here and we've got to work.

And I'm absolutely confident that my administration over the next two years is going to continue to make progress in ensuring that the United States has a presence here not just for the next couple of years but for decades to come.

(Posted by David Jackson)

President Obama didn't formally endorse Nancy Pelosi's bid to remain House Democratic leader today, but he sure did say nice things about the outgoing Speaker.

"I think Speaker Pelosi has been an outstanding partner for me," Obama told reporters today in South Korea.

He did not address reports that some Democrats -- who saw their party lose at least 60 House seats in last week's elections -- are leery of seeing Pelosi stay in leadership. Republicans who take control of the House early next year made Pelosi's stewardship a major issue in many congressional races (using the phrase 'Fire Pelosi').

At a G-20 news conference in Seoul, our friend Jake Tapper of ABC News asked Obama if the Democrats "would benefit from new blood, new leadership" in Congress.

Read more »

President Obama said today his top priority is to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans, and he will talk with Republicans next week about what to do with the tax rates for wealthier Americans.

"I continue to believe that extending permanently the upper-income tax cuts would be a mistake and that we can't afford it," Obama told reporters at the G-20 summit in Seoul, South Korea. "And my hope is, is that somewhere in between there we can find some sort of solution."

He added: "I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul. My job is to negotiate back in Washington with Republican and Democratic leaders."

The tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and are the top priority of the lame duck Congress that meets next week.

Read more »

President Obama said today that the global economy is on "the path to recovery," though he assailed one of the world's largest economies -- China -- for what he called currency manipulation.

"All of us need to avoid actions that perpetuate imbalances and give countries an undue advantage over one another," Obama said at the end of the G-20 summit in Seoul, South Korea.

After speaking with reporters, Obama left for Japan, the last stop on his 10-day Asia trip.

The world risks more economic problems if countries don't do more to end unfair trade practices and currency manipulation, and he singled out China. He said Beijing "spends enormous amounts of money" to keep its currency artificially low, and called it an "irritant" to the United States and other nations.

Read more »

As President Obama meets with global colleagues at the G-20 summit in Seoul, South Korea, he is taking heat for the Fed's decision to pump $600 billion into the American economy -- from Germany's finance minister to Sarah Palin.

As writer Judy Bachrach reports in World Affairs, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega likened the Fed policy to "throwing money out of a helicopter."

And German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble said the policy is no better than Chinese efforts to keep its currency artificially low: "What the U.S. accuses China of doing, the USA is doing by different means."

Palin, meanwhile, wonders if Obama is trying to encourage inflation. "A little inflation goes a long way towards driving down the value of the enormous national debt Obama has run up," she wrote on her Facebook page.

For his part, Obama pointed out the Federal Reserve Board is an independent body, and "doesn't take orders from the White House.'

Read more »

Former president George W. Bush is all over television and radio, promoting his memoir Decision Points.

Enjoy it -- or revile it -- while you can.

Bush, who laid low for most of President Obama's first 22 months in office, has told interviewers he will return beneath the radar when his book tour ends. Don't expect him to be a public presence in the manner of such other former White House occupants as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

"I have peace in my heart, I truly do, and I have zero desire to try to battle for reputation," Bush told USA TODAY's Judy Keen. "One of the sacrifices one makes when you run and win the presidency is you lose your anonymity forever. I'm trying to regain my anonymity."

Read more »

On Veterans Day, The Oval would like to extend a thank you to all our veterans, and the families of those whose sons and daughters gave their lives for the United States.

We'd also like to present a tribute courtesy of actor Montgomery Clift, who, as Pvt. Robert E. Lee Prewitt, plays Taps for his friend Pvt. Angelo Maggio (Frank Sinatra) in the 1953 film classic From Here To Eternity.

Our friends at NPR, meanwhile, have an interesting history of Taps, which apparently began during the Civil War:

"The origin of taps is a little fuzzy, but there's one version that is generally accepted as the official story. It came from a Civil War bugler who was the first person to play the go-to-sleep tune for Union troops.

Read more »

President Obama and Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao discussed the value of Chinese currency today, amid a report that China will let its yuan appreciate in value in exchange for more power with the International Monetary Fund.

Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs told Bloomberg Television that the U.S. and China are discussing a "grand bargain" on the currency issue; Obama and other U.S. officials have said China enjoys an unfair trade advantage because it keeps the value of its currency artificially low.

Reports Bloomberg:

China's yuan, known as the renminbi, reached the strongest level against the dollar since 1993 ahead of a Group of 20 leaders meeting this week in Seoul. The gain came after the IMF's executive board approved a plan that would make China the third-strongest member in the organization, a position described by the fund's chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn as allowing Beijing to take more "responsibility" in the global economy.

"People forget, but the currency has risen by 3 percent since the summer and has risen nearly 25 percent over five years," said O'Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset, in an interview on Bloomberg Television. It's not a "fluke" that China is given a bigger share at the Washington-based IMF, and "that's part of the grand bargain," he said.

Read more »

When President Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy -- on Dec. 1, almost a year ago -- he said July of 2011 would be the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal from the war that began in 2001.

The "beginning."

When the end date might be has been a source of intense debate, but now Obama administration officials are tossing out a new possibility: 2014.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen said this week that Afghanistan should be ready to defend itself by 2014.

"As a target at this point that makes sense," Mullen told reporters during a trip to Australia, though he added that "we're clearly not there yet."

Afghanistan is Topic A when Obama attends a NATO summit later this month in Lisbon, Portugal.

Read more »

The White House continues to send out signals that it will consider an extension of all the George W. Bush tax cuts -- including ones for the wealthy, perhaps on a temporary basis.

White House adviser David Axelrod told The Huffington Post that extending all the cuts would at least benefit the middle class, and that the Obama administration must deal with newly emboldened Republicans who won last week's elections.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

(White House officials warn that the HuffPo headline -- "White House gives in on Bush tax cuts" -- is overdrawn; no decisions have been made. Obama sits down next week with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, and tax cut extensions are high on the agenda.)

Read more »

View the original article here

Obama lauds Indonesia for religious tolerance, democratic reform - Christian Science Monitor

Jakarta, Indonesia

President Obama woke early on Wednesday to a clear Jakarta sky and hundreds of onlookers straining to get a glimpse or a photo of the man some consider an adopted son. Traffic backed up for miles around him, as commuters waited for Mr. Obama to make his first stop of the day at the expansive, white-domed Istiqlal Mosque, one of Southeast Asia’s largest.

Skip to next paragraph

The mosque, whose name means independence, sits next to a Catholic church, a symbol of the diversity and religious pluralism Muslim-majority Indonesia seeks to promote. The country’s national motto, “unity in diversity,” is the foundation of its example to the world, said Obama, speaking before a crowd of nearly 6,500 at Jakarta’s University of Indonesia.

Rather than label Indonesia a Muslim-majority democracy, as some analysts feared, Obama focused his speech on development, democracy, and religious tolerance. And to show his connection with his former hometown, he sprinkled his delivery with cultural references.

IN PICTURES: Obama's Asia trip

He also used the speech as another opportunity build bridges with the Muslim world.

“He reminded his audience of the importance of the cultural approach in strengthening the relationship between the US and Muslim world,” says Aleksius Jemadu, a professor of international politics at Universitas Pelita Harapan. “So it’s clear there is a shift in the foreign policy of the US from security to a more personal approach.”

Only briefly did Obama draw a connection between US involvement abroad and his administration’s efforts to improve the economy at home.

“America has a stake in an Indonesia that is growing,” he said, one that is “shaping the global economy.” But more importantly, “America has a stake in the success of the Indonesian people.”

Those stakes will play out in a newly signed comprehensive partnership that focuses on three key themes: security; economic development; and socio-cultural cooperation, such as support for educational exchanges.

Obama said a US-Indonesia partnership was founded on shared values, such as freedom, tolerance, and respect for human rights, and would also include issues ranging from entrepreneurship to clean energy to science and technology.

Some of those initiatives have already gone into action. In July, visiting US Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the lifting of a 12-year ban on funding for the Kopassus special forces, who were accused of gross human rights abuses in the 1990s. The Peace Corps has returned to Indonesia after political turmoil drove them from the country in 1965, and Washington has promised around $165 million over the next five years to increase educational exchanges.

Many of those partnerships resulted from Obama’s call in Cairo last year for a new beginning between the United States and Muslim communities.

Bilateral talks between Obama and his Indonesian counterpart Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did go deeper behind closed doors, which is where many believe tough issues, such as human rights, should remain. Other analysts say Obama had fewer deliverables to outline in Indonesian than he did in India, which is why he remained mum on economic cooperation.

The economic lynchpin to the president’s trip will come in South Korea, where Obama will meet other regional leaders on the sidelines of the G20. Indonesia will be there as well, cementing its place as the only Southeast Asian nation among the world’s top economies.

Despite most Indonesians' happiness at having the US president revisit his former hometown, some analysts say Obama's personal reflection and cultural references felt artificial.

“By entertaining us, using Indonesian words, saying he’s part of Indonesia, it sweeps over the more important issues,” says Noor Huda Ismail, a former hardline Islamist who founded and heads the Jakarta-based Institute for International Peacebuilding. “What tolerance is he talking about? Only the elite will enjoy the benefits of that tolerance.”

Mr. Huda referred specifically to the discrimination facing a minority Islamic group called the Ahmadiyah. In recent months Islamic extremists have attacked their homes and mosques, and the religious affairs minister has called on the group to disband for failing to acknowledge Muhammad as the last prophet, in keeping with the majority Muslim faith.

Obama’s brief nod to the equality achieved across a country that encompasses 17,000 islands also rang hollow for some.

“People say the situation is good for us in Papua, but it’s not,” says Markus Haluk, head of a group pushing for autonomy in Papua, a resource-rich province on the far eastern reaches of Indonesia. “We have no freedom, no liberty, genocide is a fact of life for us.”

IN PICTURES: Obama's Asia trip

View the original article here