CHICAGO – U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu joined Mayor Rahm Emanuel at an event in Chicago today to announce that the city is joining the Obama Administration’s Better Buildings Challenge, part of the initiative launched last year by President Obama to catalyze investment in commercial and industrial building energy upgrades and support new jobs across the country. As a partner in this national initiative, Chicago is committing to reduce energy use by 20 percent across nearly 24 million square feet of public and private building space within the next five years. The Better Buildings Challenge supports the Obama Administration's blueprint for an economy built to last, reducing energy costs in buildings – which last year consumed more than 40 percent of all the energy used by the U.S. economy – while boosting American competitiveness in the global clean energy race.
“Investments in energy efficiency are making the American economy more competitive by creating jobs, growing industries, reducing energy bills for families and businesses, and protecting our air and water,” said Secretary Chu. “By joining the Better Buildings Challenge, Chicago is not only leading by example, but is also better positioning the city in the global economy by saving millions in energy costs.”
At the event in Chicago, Secretary Chu and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made the announcement and highlighted the building owners in downtown Chicago that are stepping up to meet the Better Buildings Challenge. Chicago plans to upgrade 10 million square feet of City-owned buildings and nearly 14 million square feet of privately owned buildings that have partnered with the City. The City of Chicago and its partners will share their most successful energy-saving strategies and solutions so that others can follow.
The energy to operate the buildings in which we work, shop, and study costs the U.S. approximately $200 billion annually. By taking steps to be energy-efficient, buildings and manufacturing plants nationwide can reduce their energy use by more than 20 percent. The goal of the Obama Administration’s Better Buildings Challenge is to encourage building upgrades that will make America’s buildings 20 percent more energy efficient over the next decade, reducing energy costs for American businesses and local governments by more than $40 billion.
The Better Buildings Challenge is a national leadership initiative launched by President Obama in December 2011 that calls on chief executive officers, university presidents, and state and local leaders to reduce their portfolio-wide energy use by 20 percent by 2020 and to share the results of their energy reduction strategies. To date, the more than 60 organizations partnering with the Energy Department for the Better Buildings Challenge have committed to improve the energy efficiency of more than 1.6 billion square feet of building space, in addition to reducing energy waste across more than 300 manufacturing facilities and committing nearly $2 billion in energy efficiency financing. For more information please visit the BetterBuildings Challenge website.
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/
Although the president of the United States is called in the world's media "the world's most powerful man", this is not something to happen in America. According to the constitution and the separation of the Legislative and the Executive branches, they are literally two separate bodies. The American form of government was founded on the key principle of checks and balances. By separating powers between the president and Congress, the founding fathers hoped that each would control and check the power of the other. However, there has always been a kind of conflict between these two US powers. This piece of writing seeks to find the main sources of these conflicts using historical cases of US president and Congress conflicts.
One of the most important conflicts between the US President and the Congress is when a war happened. If we think of the Korean War and go back to the historical reports and documents, we can easily get that the declaration of war on the North Korea was not permitted by the US Congress. According to the US Constitution the president can declare war on a country as Commander-in-Chief but before sending troops the Congress must approve it. In 1950, President Harry Truman saw communist North Korea's invasion of South Korea as a threat to the US but it was not a congressional vote that brought the U.S. into the Korean War. It was a United Nations resolution that condemned North Korea's invasion of South Korea. This is what President Truman used in his decision to send troops to Korea. In this case the Congress not only exercised its power to declare war, but also it did not vote for the president's decision to declare war on North Korea.
In another part of the American history, when Richard Nixon became the president of the United States he said that the North Vietnam was using neighboring Cambodia as a safe place for its troops. Then Nixon ordered an invasion of that country. In an April 30, 1970 TV speech, he said that the US had respected Cambodia's neutrality. That was a lie. The president had ordered secret bombings of that country for several months. Now he announced that sending in U.S. troops was necessary to win the war against North Vietnam. This time the Congress rebelled against the president's actions using its constitutional power. The congress had not been consulted about either the Cambodia bombings or the decision to send in troops. In December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance introducing troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisers to Cambodia. In June 1973, Congress set August 15, 1974, as the date for the end of all funding for combat activities in Southeast Asia. In April 1975 the last U.S. troops left Cambodia and Vietnam.
Another example of US Congress and president conflict could be the US president support for the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were the enemies of the Sandinista revolutionaries who had overthrown Anastasia Somoza, a brutal dictator in the Central American nation of Nicaragua. President Ronald Reagan started supplying weapons and training to the Contras. A disapproving Congress passed legislation barring this support in December 1982. The president said that interfered with his authority to conduct foreign affairs. Legislators argued that the president acted unconstitutionally if he involved the country in a war, even if the soldiers were not American.
President Bush announced in January 2007 that he was sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. He said that he knew Congress could vote against it, "but I've made my decision and we're going forward." The president has said repeatedly, that he is "the decider" on issues of war. While, according the US Constitution the president needs the Congress approval on issues of war. During a hearing on congressional war powers, Senator Spector, said that he would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the only decider. The decider is a shared responsibility.
There have been many other conflicts between the two branches of power in the United States, the president and the Congress, during the American history. But the main question that comes to mind is that why these kinds of conflicts have always existed during the American history? Usually the majority of the Congress is made up of the party opposed to one of the president. However, in cases which both the president and the Congress were from the same party, conflicts existed. Although it has some effects, we can conclude that the origin of these conflicts very much of the party affiliation.
Historically, Republican presidents have always had more success in dealing with a Democrat dominated Congress than a Democrat president with a Republican dominated Congress. Democrat presidents have had real problems with Democrat dominated Congress. Therefore a simple same-party majority between the president and Congress does not guarantee that the president will see his recommendations accepted. This would show that the ideologies held by American politicians are not simply linked to one party. Cross-party support for a certain issue can and does happen.
But what are the sources of these conflicts? I think several factors can cause conflict in US system of separated institutions sharing power. Among them are constitutional ambiguities, different constituencies, varying terms of office, divided party control of the different branches, and fluctuating support of a president or the Congress.
It has been declared openly and with conviction to the whole world that Iran is a hater of Israel and has intentions to destroy her. In 2005, Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, addressed the United Nations and blustered that the "occupying regime (referring to Israel) must be wiped off the map." He declared that the "disgraceful stain" (Israel again) must be eliminated. (1)
On September 23, 2008 Ahmadinejad (2) again addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations and declared Zionists to be murderers and criminals. He would later predict to the L.A. Times that the state of Israel is like an airplane experiencing engine trouble and plunging to destruction. "This will benefit everyone," he said. In subsequent statements he has referred to Israel as a "germ of corruption (that) will be wiped off," (3) as a "cancer that spreads through the body", (4) and as a "kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it." (5)
In addition to the inflammatory verbiage, The United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency has validated that Iran is attempting to make an atomic bomb to be fitted onto a missile capable of reaching Israel. Should Ahmadinijad succeed in developing such a weapon, would he use it? The question is not whether he would use it, the question is why are there so many nations critical of Israel defending herself? Why is there such a clamoring for a nation the size of New Jersey to continue to give more and more of her territory to their neighboring Arabs who own massive amounts of land? Why are western nations scowling at Israel for contemplating taking out Iran's nuclear facilities when they all know that one nuclear hit on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv would pretty much mean annihilation.
The late Yasser Arafat once stated on Palestinian radio, "We will make the lives of the infidels hell - millions of martyrs marching on Jerusalem." Who can explain such vehement hatred against a fledgling country? Who in their right mind would deny Israel's right to defend themselves against such evil? Why do so many nations struggle to choose sides on this issue? Is the vast amount of oil provided by the Arab countries so alluring that we lose our sense of true justice? Who in their right mind would support a country or terrorist group who would sacrifice their own children to satisfy their hatred? Former Prime Minister Golda Meir said, ""There won't be peace in the Middle East until Yasser Arafat learns to love Palestinian children more than he hates the Jews."
Why is there so much apathy toward the only democratic country in the Middle East struggling to maintain her very existence? It is obvious by now that President Obama is no lover of Israel. At the G-20 summit earlier this year he and President Sarkozy of France didn't know they were being picked up on an open mic. "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar." Sarkozy said. Obama replied, "You're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."
And so, how is it that Obama 'deals' with Netanyahu? Before answering that question please keep in mind that Obama has access to reams of sensitive and secret information that the rest of us are not privy to. He knows better than any the evil intent of Israel's enemies. And yet, he expects Israel to surrender itself more and more to the people who are planning their destruction. It seems Israel is the one always expected to make concessions. Obama and his ilk are making the same mistake British Prime Minister Chamberlain made with Hitler prior to WWII. He is following a policy of appeasement that can only end in chaotic destruction. As Winston Churchill once said, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."
What a mystery! Is Obama so much of an empty suit that he fails to understand the history of these countries of the Middle East? Does he not appreciate the miracle of Israel's existence? Does not the sole democratic nation in the region deserve our full support? Instead, Obama seems to sympathize with third world countries run by malevolent and brutal dictators. Why is Obama willing to threaten Israel's right to exist as a state in order to promote the Palestinian hankering for a state? Does Obama not have a sense of how many Americans, both Jewish and Christian, he alienates because of his apathy toward Israel and his support of Israel's genocidal enemies?
Oh that the haters of Israel would contemplate the sound of God's voice found in Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless you (Israel), and whoever curses you (Israel) I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you (Israel)." (6)
Kevin Probst lives in Columbus, Georgia. He is a teacher of History and Apologetics at a private high school. He submits articles pertaining to theology, apologetics, Christian living and American culture. If you have an interest in those ideas please visit his website at: http://www.kpprobst.blogspot.com/ and offer your opinions or join the conversation.
Where is the hope and change that President Barack Obama promised America during his Presidential Campaign in 2008? It is true that he inherited a flailing economy and two wars, but he was elected on a message that he could turn things around, bring Americans together, and steer our country back to prosperity. It has been almost three years since the 2008 election and the American economy is growing at an anemic rate of 1.2%, unemployment is at 9.1%, and the housing market has seen a record number of foreclosures due to people being out of work. What started out as a message of hope has turned into a reality of despair and uncertainty. It is evident that there is a leadership deficit in the White House as Barack Obama continues to blame the Bush Administration and world-wide events for his failures instead of looking at his own policies and ideology. Is the office of President of the United States too big for one person as many experts have argued, or do we just have the wrong person doing the job?
There is a man running for President in 2012 that has the ability, the attitude, and the aptitude to lead our country to greatness once again, and that man is Herman Cain. Since entering the race, Cain has brought an energy and charisma that many of his Republican competitors lack. His candidness, articulate message, and a talent for debating have captured the imagination of conservative and Tea Party voters alike. Enough so, that he has been in either first or second place in several national and straw polls, and is considered a top tier candidate. The centerpiece of his campaign is his nine-nine-nine plan which stands for a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Herman Cain's nine-nine-nine plan also gets rid of all tax loopholes and almost all tax deduction in an attempt to get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers. Although his plan may not be perfect in the eyes of some, it's a good place to start and has also been a great way for Herman Cain to market his candidacy.
What distinguishes Herman Cain from Barack Obama most is his pedigree in both academia and the private sector. Cain graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics from Morehouse College and has a Masters degree in computer science from Perdue. He worked for the U.S. Navy as a civilian ballistics analyst before entering the private sector. Herman Cain was a regional director for Burger King turning his region from the least profitable to the most profitable in three years. He then took the reins of Godfather's Pizza, turning an enterprise that was all but dead into a profitable company. Having come from a poor background, Herman Cain learned what it is to live the American Dream and, unlike Barack Obama, understands that it is the private sector and entrepreneurs, not government, that drive the American economy.
The only similarity between Herman Cain and Barack Obama is that message of hope, but Herman Cain has the plan and ideology to make prosperity real again. His pro growth solution is a refreshing change from the same old class warfare rhetoric that puts one American against another. It's time to get government out of the way and let the risk takers and job makers get the American economy back on track. Herman Cain will be a President that can do just that.
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/
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/.
The following is strictly hypothetical. It is not based on any hard core evidence or findings or investigations. It is strictly conjecture.
But it is logical conjecture, based on the coming together of a large set of circumstances. These circumstances could be strictly coincidental or just another instance of Obama administration cronyism and political maneuvering for political gain, not the best interests of the nation.
Let's start with Warren Buffet. We know that over the past month or so, he has come out strongly in support of President Obama's irrational fixation with increasing the tax burden of the wealthy in this country, claiming that on a percentage basis, he pays less in Federal income taxes than members of his staff.
This obviously has added some degree of credibility to the President's call for higher taxes in the midst of a recession with some voters. Never mind that this is a lame economic policy to pursue while on the brink of another recession and even if it was implemented, it would have an infinitesimally small impact on the nation's financial situation.
Also, within the past month, late August, Warren Buffet announced that his company would invest $5 billion in Bank Of America. There was universal consensus in the press that this was a sweet financial deal for Buffet, given the terms of the deal, as highlighted in a New York Times article on August 25, 2011:
Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, will get special preferred stock for its $5 billion investment. This special stock will pay a guaranteed annual 6% dividend, a great/impossible return in these difficult economic times for most individual Americans and companies. This 6% is guaranteed forever, until Bank Of America goes out of business, or until Bank of America decides to buy back the shares at a 5% premium. If Bank Of America does go out of business, Buffet's company would be first in line in any bankruptcy proceedings, ahead of all other creditors, in retrieving part of its investment back. Berkshire Hathaway also received warrants for 700 million common shares of Bank Of America stock at $7.14 per share, good for the next ten years. I believe this means that anytime in the next ten years, Buffet's company can buy up to 700 million common shares of Bank of America for $7.14 even if the market price of the price of these common shares are substantially higher. For example, if the stock price is $14.14 in two years, Buffet can buy 700 million shares at only $7.14 and instantly be almost $5 billion ahead on his investment, exclusive of the 6% annual dividend. In fact, an online article from a local Charlotte, North Carolina business journal, the hometown of Bank Of America, estimated that if Bank of America stayed in business for three years and attained a stock price level that it had as recently as 2010, then Buffet's $5 billion investment would grow to $9.9 billion in three years. This comes out to an annualized return of just over 25%, not too bad in these dire economic times.
Obviously a sweetheart deal for Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway company.
But why would Bank Of America do such a deal? Probably because Bank of America is not doing well financially, again as reported in the New York Times article cited above and other news sources:
Bank Of America's common stock price was down over 30% just in the month before this deal was done, is down more than 50% in 2010, and down almost two thirds since 2010. The bank is under intense investigations over its foreclosure practices. Its mortgage division has run up billions of dollars in legal fees and defaults on all mortgages are not expected to let up anytime soon. The whole mortgage mess was the main reason behind the bank's $8.8 billion loss in its financials in the second quarter of this year. The financial losses have caused bank management to focus on selling assets such as some of its international credit card divisions and to downsizing its workforce, including 3,500 job cuts it announced in late August.
This is obviously a company under duress. However, an investment from an investor as widely respected and followed as Buffet adds a tremendous amount of credibility to Bank Of America's public assertions that it is moving in the right direction and that it will survive as a viable financial institution going forward. Short term, the strategy seemed to work in late August as the stock price initially jumped 25% and then settled down to an 8% increase. This move also juiced other financial stocks.
Thus, in the short term, Bank Of America got a positive jolt of confidence and share price increase by Buffet's investment.
Now, where does President Obama fit in? Obviously, the only thing that this President is currently focused on is how to get himself re-elected in November, 2012, the rest of the nation's problems being only a secondary priority. Imagine what would happen if Bank of America continued to free fall financially, so much so that its collapse was imminent:
As the largest, or one of the largest banks in the nation, and world, depending on how you measure, a collapse of Bank Of America would have catastrophic economic implications, no doubt throwing the country and the world into another deep recession. Its collapse would bring into doubt the viability and stability of all financial institutions. This situation would surely freeze up credit markets, making business expansion and growth next to impossible. No business expansion means stagnant or deteriorating unemployment rates and increasing mortgage defaults. The effectiveness of one of Obama's big legislative victories, the Dodd-Franks financial reform law, would be called into doubt if such a catastrophic bank crisis could arise within a year or so of the legislation being passed. Citizens, and voters, would have no appetite for another round of bank bailouts even though too big to fail has become even a bigger problem under Obama's watch.
In other words, the economy would be imploding just months before the Presidential elections, certainly dooming his overarching need to get re-elected.
Thus, is it all coincidental or is it, in fact, all related? From a conspiracy perspective, was there a mutual beneficial society troika (troika - any group of three persons, nations, etc., acting equally in unison to exert influence, control, or the like) formed between Buffet-Obama-Bank Of America:
Obama has to prevent Bank of America from going under at all costs from an election year perspective. He calls Bank of America's leaders and says he can get them both a cash infusion and a credibility infusion but it has to be made worthwhile, financially, for that investor to come forward. He then calls Warren Buffet up and says he can get Buffet a sweetheart deal down at Bank Of America, a deal that would guarantee a sweet annual rate of return, would hold the promise to make billions more, and would minimize his downsize risk by moving Buffet's company to the head of the line of creditors in case of a bank default. In return for some easy, low risk money, Buffet needs to do a little politicking for the President's irrational "tax the rich more" platform and maybe host a few re-election fund raising dinners with Buffet's rich friends. Everybody involved in the troika is a winner. Buffet gets a great financial deal, Bank of America gets at least some temporary relief, financially and confidence wise, and the President averts an economic disaster and gets some PR help on his tax plan.
Just a conspiracy theory but not a far fetched conspiracy theory, based on the Obama administration's past relationships with other corporations to further the President's personal political needs at the expense of the taxpayer:
- Most people should be familiar with the disaster that is Solyndra, the California solar panel company that went out of business and took over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money with it. This money came out of the President's economic stimulus program, a program that legally required the U.S. taxpayer be first in line to recover assets and money if a company which received stimulus funds went out of business.
However, it now appears that the Obama administration moved a private investor in Solyndra ahead of the U.S. taxpayer in bankruptcy arrangements. This private investor has been a big contributor and fund raiser for Obama in the past. Conspiracy or coincidence?
- LightSquared is a communications company that wants to build out a satellite wireless communications system. However, there is concern that its technology will have a severe interference impact on civilian and military GPS signals. Thus, Congress scheduled hearings to determine if this was the case and whether the LightSquared effort should be blocked.
A Pentagon general was set to testify in front of a Congressional committee and was to testify that yes, indeed, LightSquared's technology would interfere with Defense Department communications. However, it is alleged, and the General testified to the fact, that the White House tried to get the General to falsely testify that military communications would not be impaired. Turns out that the owner of LightSquared was also a big donator and fund raiser of President Obama's past elections efforts. Conspiracy or coincidence?
- According to a September 23, 2011 article from Politico, in early October, Tom Carnahan will host a $25,000 per person fundraiser for the President's re-election campaign. The Carnahan family has long been a Democratic Party power in the state of Missouri. The article also explains that Carnahan is the owner of an energy development firm, Wind Capital Group, which has received a $107 million Federal tax credit from the Obama administration to develop a wind power facility in Missouri.
Even if no quid pro quo was involved, the appearance of conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict of interest. It just smells bad that someone who gets free Federal tax treatment turns around to host fund raisers for the administration that granted the tax credit. Just a smelly affair. Conspiracy or coincidence, or in this case, a severe conflict of interest?
- And finally, our favorite conspiracy or coincidence company, General Electric. Jeffery Immelt, the Chairman of General Electric always seems to be with the President. He is the chairman of the President's economic council and gives the President credibility that he is a friend of business. Immelt has been a big fund raiser and contributor to previous Obama campaigns.
However, General Electric gets benefits also. The President has not moved to change the tax laws that specifically benefit GE, which allowed the company to generate billions in profits, pay no Federal income taxes, and receive a multi-billion dollar Federal income tax credit in 2010. When GE received TARP funds a few years ago, the program that was supposed to bail out financial firms, GE executives did not have to abide by executive pay restrictions like all other TARP recipient firms.
If it has not already, it would not be a surprise of GE's wind turbine division received some kind of favorable tax treatment, to the American taxpayer's detriment, from the Obama administration in the future. Conspiracy or coincidence?
Even if there are no conspiracies involved, the whole situation just smells. The relationship between politicians, elections, and Federal taxpayer money is way too entangled to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Three changes to our political processes are needed to minimize these conflicts of interest int he future:
- We need to reduce Federal government spending by 10% a year for the next five years. This would reduce our debilitating national debt and reduce the amount of money floating around that politicians can misdirect to their favorite re-election supporters, at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.
- Second, we need to prohibit anyone or any organization from contributing to an election campaign unless it is an individual American. No more corporations, PACs, or unions contributing to politicians' campaigns in hope of getting taxpayer wealth, in whatever form possible, in return.
- Finally, we need to impose term limits on all Federal politicians. Most of these shenanigans occur when a politician wants to get re-elected. By restricting them to one term and on term only, much of the conspiracy, coincidence, and conflicts of interest would disappear, helping to purify the original intend of our election system.
Conspiracy or coincidence? It would make for a good political thriller but it makes for a lousy way to run a country and a government.
Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," which is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com/ and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in America can be joined at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/.
Last week the nation tuned into President's Obama's much hyped job creation speech to see if there would be any worthy ideas to try and break the constant high unemployment rate int he country. Would he be bold and innovative or would it be the same basic, tired political tactics that have been tried and have usually failed to live up to expectations?
The following discussion will compare what the President should have said and what he actually said. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that from a boldness, innovation, and courage perspective, the President came up well short of the goal line.
1) Infrastructure
As expected, the President did state that he wanted money and funding for infrastructure jobs to fix roads, bridges, dams, schools, etc. that were in need of repair, something many Americans expected and were supportive of. However, the President's proposal came up short in two areas.
First, infrastructure spending and work done via the economic stimulus bill was woefully inefficient. According to various Associated Press investigations, thousands and thousands of government contracts were granted without competitive bidding. Half of the bridges that were repaired under the stimulus program were not in need of repairs. Powerful individual politicians in Congress snatched their share of the stimulus money and directed it to their voters regardless of whether of not the spending was actually fixing a real problem.
Millions of dollars from the stimulus plan were granted to companies that owed hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes. No where in the President's jobs speech do we get firm assurances that these atrocities have been recognized and will not happen again. He states that the money will be properly spent but we were promised that in the economic stimulus bill. The only way to insure that this potential pot of money is well spent is to give the decision on what projects are done to the states via a block grant of money, taking Congress out of the decision process altogether.
Second, the President does not show any detail on how to pay for this increment Federal spending. He says he will unveil a plan within a week or so. Thus, his performance on this topic is an incomplete. He gave no indication of specifics like reducing the Federal payroll back to 2008 levels, terminating unwanted and unneeded military projects such as the Osprey, terminating corporate welfare programs, ending agriculture subsidies, and directing high speed rail line funding to shorter term infrastructure needs.
Grade: Incomplete given the unnamed ways to fund this infrastructure spending that will be forth coming. However, worries about whether this will be another waste of money spent on things that do not need to be fixed, given the economic stimulus program, and the fact that the President has not taken Congress out of the decision making loop, continue to exist.
2) Obama Care
According to many credible opinion polls, the majority of Americans realize that Obama Care is an unfolding disaster. It will screw up existing health care insurance for tens of millions of Americans that already have coverage, it will significantly add to the deficit, it has created a large amount of tax and business uncertainty into the employment crisis in this country, and will not address the root causes of our escalating health care costs. Nowhere in his speech did he address this problem.
The President did make reference to the fact that we need to somehow reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs going forward in order to protect the long term solvency of both programs. He wisely wants to phase in any changes over time to ease the transition. However, he gave no indication of how he thinks we should do this, he gave no indication he has a plan to do this, and gave indication when this would be done.
Overall grade - D-. Obama Care is one of the biggest drags on the economy and unemployment today and he ignored it. The only reason he did not get an F here is that he may finally be realizing the need to reform Medicare and Medicaid, even if he does not have a plan on how to do that.
3) Tax Holiday For Overseas Profits
Some economists suggested that the President should announce that there should be a one time tax holiday for American companies that have stashed billions of dollars of their profits overseas because it is cheaper to leave those earning overseas than to bring them back to the country and get hit with a 35% tax hit. This tax holiday should be a one time deal that would be followed up immediately with a dedicated overhaul of the tax system.
The reasoning is that it would be better to have that corporate cash sloshing around in the United States than sitting off in some foreign banks even if it was not taxed. The short term problem is jobs, not taxing overseas profits. However, in order to not train companies to wait for the next tax holiday, this would be a one time deal followed immediately by comprehensive tax reform. The President did not address this opportunity to get dollars flowing back into the country and economy.
Overall grade - F
4) Regulation - many businesses have suggested that the President terminate all Federal regulations that do not impact the health and safety of our citizens or the environment and he agreed with this in his speech. He addressed this issue, claiming that his administration had identified over 500 regulatory reforms that will free up billions of dollars over the next few years.
However, he provided no specifics or big deals such as termination of the unneeded and cumbersome Sarbannes-Oxley legislation. The President's case would have been stronger if he had provided some concrete examples of what his administration has already done to ease the regulation overload.
He also did not address the overtly oppressive Federal government interference into individual business operations, specifically the overbearing and likely politically motivated harassment of Boeing and Gibson Guitars. This unnecessary type of government interference diverts companies' resources from business and job expansion.
Overall grade - B-. This could change if he does not follow through with the promises he made.
5) Energy
He made no reference at all to using the energy industry, and using oil and gas company resources, to expand our internal energy capacity and development. Since the country does not have an overall, longer term strategic energy plan and policy, fossil fuels will still be the major component of our energy mix for a long time.
Given that fact, it makes sense to not keep sending our wealth overseas to other energy providers when we could develop our own energy resources, again, using oil company money, not taxpayer money. Ending any Gulf drilling moratoriums, building the Canadian crude oil pipeline, opening up drilling in the Arctic, etc. would create good, long term, needed jobs in our domestic energy industry.
Coupling that with a major initiative to develop alternative energy sources and an overarching energy strategy would cover both our long term and short term energy needs while creating a ton of jobs. The President missed this opportunity completely.
Overall grade - F
6) Education
As a country, we need a number of short term and long term changes in the nation's approach to education and its impact on jobs. First, given that the Federal government has dozens of independent organizations that provide severely fragmented job training services, these dozens of job training entities should be consolidated into a single, more efficient and more effective Federal job training organization, placed in the Health and Human Services Department.
This single organization would be a one stop shopping for citizens looking for training support and be a conduit between job seekers and those hiring. It would be more efficient than having the dozens of organizations that we currently have.
Long term, need an initiative that would identify the root causes of our failing public schools and put together a comprehensive plan for fixing our education processes so that we stop under educating our kids relative to the rest of the world. A similar plan was laid out under the Reagan administration in 1983 but the American political class ignored those findings. As a result, our kids are not being educated as well as kids in dozens of other countries around the world.
Unfortunately, the President completely missed the needs in this category also. He made two references to education in his speech. First, he wants money to fix up 35,000 schools across the country. Second, he wants money to hire more teachers. However, if the country does not fix our failed public education processes, if we do not adopt curriculums to the current, fast paced world, if we do not improve teacher training and evaluation, etc., all the President's plans will do is have us continue to under educate our kids. Only now we will under educate them with more of the same kind of teachers in nicer buildings.
This is a typical solution from the political class. It is based on their inability to understand root causes of problems Having a nicer school building will not make for a better educated work force. Hiring the same types of teachers will not improve the learning process. We need fundamental changes to education to compete in the world economy.
None of the President's plans address this more serious problem. He just wants to hire some painters and electricians to make things look nice. The basic product, bad education results, will not change and will not positively affect job creation.
Overall grade - F
7) Taxes
Many assumed the President would ask for an extension of the tax changes made last fall, i.e. the extension of the Bush tax cuts be extended for two years in order to introduce some more certainty into the tax planning of individuals and companies. From his speech it looks like he wants to extend it for another year. Not bad, but two years would have been better and provided the economy with more certainty.
In addition, the President asked for more tax changes, especially for small business. These include providing tax credits for newly hired employees and forgoing the payroll tax for a year to give businesses more cash. However, while these are positive steps, they are open for abuse (e.g. what would stop a business from firing all of its employees on Friday, hiring them back on Monday and claiming the tax credits ) and will further deplete the dwindling Social Security funding.
Their effectiveness is also worthy of doubting. Many economists have looked at similar tax programs in the past and found that unless there is a clear path to an improving economy and improving sales, a business will not likely take on new employees and assume that risk if there are still all types of uncertainty in the mix (e.g. next year's elections, Obama Care, over regulation, etc.)
The other tax area the President touched on his is unhealthy fixation with taxing the rich. The numbers prove that while taxing the rich more might be a healthy political move for some voters, the financial impact on the economy, government tax levels, and the national debt is extremely small. The President made some embarrassingly incorrect statements regarding taxing the rich in his speech that are worth reviewing:
"Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary." Likely a true statement since Buffet probably draws a smaller salary than his secretary. However, the President never brings up that fact that Buffet does not pay himself millions of dollars every year in salary, getting his money via legally approved other ways that minimize his tax burden. To not mention this fact is deceptive at best, a lie at worst.
"I (Obama) believe that the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that (pay more in taxes) if it helps grow the economy." A number of problems with this tired, cliched statement. First, the President never cites a source or research that supports this statement. He states it as fact but no data supporting its truth is ever presented.
Second, if these people are so anxious to pay more in taxes, why don't they? The U.S. Treasury Department has had a program for many years that easily allows Americans to pay more than they owe in taxes to pay down the national debt. If these people were willing to pay more, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. The fact that this program gets very little money donated to it every year reinforces the doubt that the President's statement is right.
Third, if they do want to pay more in taxes, why didn't the President challenge them to contribute to the infrastructure program he is proposing? We could name bridges and streets and dams after them as as a side benefit.
Finally, the President implies that if only these people paid more in taxes, the economy would grow significantly. Certainly not a true statement if you examine the numbers. Another Obama statement bordering on deception.
The bottom line is we need a much simplified and much fairer tax code. A tax code where the rich pay their fair share and those Americans that use the income tax process as a money maker, i.e. 45% of Americans pay no Federal income taxes, also pay their fair share. However, beyond general statements about reforming the tax code, the President's provided no details, plans, or timetable on how to do that.
Which is a shame since such a plan would remove a large amount of uncertainty and wasted economic time complying with our complex tax code. This would have freed up money, time, resources, and energies to expand our economy and hire new workers.
Overall grade - D-
8) National Debt - many organizations, including the President's own debt reduction commission, have identified many ways to take trillions and trillions of wasted dollars out of our national debt. The President at least gave lip service to this need and claims to have an aggressive plan ready within the week. We shall see.
Grade - Incomplete
9) Unemployment Benefits
Many economists suggested that the President start finding a way to get out of the unemployment benefit business since every major study conducted in this area, including one done by the new head of his economic advisor team, says that providing long term unemployment benefits contributes to chronic long term unemployment The President stated in his speech that he wants to extend long term unemployment benefits, the exact opposite of what all economic studies say is wise.
Overall grade - F, based on the results of the studies cited above, the fact that as we keep extending benefits, unemployment gets stronger, and the fact that there are jobs out there. Just go to Craigslist, Snag A Job's website or other employment websites and search for all jobs in a zip code and see the hundreds or thousands of vacant jobs that come back.
Jobs are out there, they may not be great jobs, they may not be in someone's field but here has to be a creative way of melding unemployment benefits with the existing vacant job piles around the country so that everyone wins. In the President's speech, status quo wins and that is a failure.
10) Trade treaties.
The President was expected to press for the passage of trade treaties that have already been negotiated and he did.
Overall grade - A
Overall, across all components, this speech gets no better than a D minus in boldness, originality, in-depth understanding of our root causes to our problems, and needed specifics on how to move forward. His tax ideas are standard and very tactical, with histories of varying degrees of success. His call for tax reform was hollow. His ignoring of the devastating effects of Obama Care on hiring and uncertainty is unforgivable.
His strategy for paying for this increased spending is vague and yet to be unveiled or to be determined. His removal of unnecessary regulations was tepid at best. He missed big strategic opportunities to free up uncertainty in the private sector by ignoring the wastefulness of Sarbannes-Oxley, failing to address the opportunities in the domestic energy field, and fixing our short term and long term education process. He missed a big time opportunity to declare a one time tax holiday to get off shore corporate earnings back into our economy and linking that to overall tax reform.
If these are such great ideas, which they are not, why haven't we moved on them previously? Could it be that we have and the results has been a steady dose of 9% unemployment? There was not a creative, ingenious, or bold idea in the lot.
His speech reinforces the belief that the President is like most other politicians, they do not know how to think strategically. All of their thought processes and plans are usually very short term and tactical, rarely addressing the underlying problems. Cash For Clunkers. Cash For Caulkers. One time rebate for first time home buyers. A scattering of small business tax credits but no overall tax reform that encourages business growth. Fix up the schools and make them look pretty without long term education reform. All failed concepts, all short term, doomed tactics.
Besides not being strategic. the plans set out by the President do not remove the major road blocks of uncertainty in the economy and marketplace:
- Short term, gimmicky tax adjustments with unknown future implications and changes.
- A complex and unwieldy tax code.
- High national debt.
- High taxes at every level of government.
- Over regulation.
- Obama Care.
Until the political class fixes these problems, unemployment will still stay high and businesses will continue with their conservative "deer in the headlights" planning.
Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," which is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com/ and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in America can be joined at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/.
Texas Governor Rick Perry entered the race for the Republican nomination for President, and immediately became the front runner in polls, surpassing former front runner Mitt Romney. One reason for Perry's surge may be that he is perceived to be more conservative than Romney, but also, substantial numbers of registered voters in recent polls say that they would have a problem with a candidate for President who is a Mormon. Republican primary voters show a greater percentage who would be concerned about a Mormon candidate, and a new book asks, "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?"
This is reminiscent of the race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960. Kennedy was a Catholic and Nixon, a Quaker. Some feared that Kennedy would be beholden to the Pope, and Nixon--well, someone quipped that he might answer to another guy in a funny hat--the man on the Quaker Oats box!
With two Mormons currently running for President of the United States and prominent Mormon newsmakers like Glen Beck in the news, questions arise about just who the Mormons are and what they really believe. Sites where Mormons answer such questions, former Mormons interviewed, and the book on Romney serve as a source of some insight into Mormon beliefs--revealing that Mormons are more than Donnie and Marie Osmond, the only Mormons many Americans of my generation would recognize.
If Mormons are Christians as some claim, do they use the cross? They don't use the cross in their churches, wear the cross, or include it in any of their symbols of Christ. Some Mormons say that it symbolizes death, and they prefer other symbols affirming life. Christians see this as a back door way around the need of a Savior for fallen man and for the blood of the Lamb who washes away all sin. Mormons tilt to a works based "what we do" salvation, which is contrary to scripture. Fruits of your labors may be indicative of your commitment to Christ, but scripture is clear ---works do not save; only Jesus Christ saves. Mormon President Gordon Hinckley said that they do not choose to use a symbol of the dying Christ, but mean no offense to others. Some Mormons say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said to "take up your cross and follow Me."
Do Mormons use something resembling the blood of Christ for communion? They do not use anything but clear water for what they call the sacrament. They do not believe that they are actually partaking of the blood of Christ, but say that they honor His sacrifice. It is administered by teenage "priests" who bless the water and bread and even younger "deacons" who pass it out in long, formal ceremonies. Christians see this as a way around the need for the saving blood and sacrifice of Jesus, and complain of Mormon missionaries who come behind Christians in foreign missions to convert new Christians.
Do Mormons believe that they will become "gods" as in the oft quoted, "As He was, so are we. As He is, so shall we be?" They deny that they think they will be equal to God or replace God, but they believe they will evolve and become "god like." Some Mormons say that they disavow writings of their prophets on this subject, but others say that the belief is still prevalent that they will become gods with their own planets, just as they say God is now over this planet--a deal breaker for Christians.
Is Jesus God? They acknowledge Jesus as their Savior, but do not believe that Jesus is God the Father as mainstream Christians do, but rather a member of the Trinity, a separate being chosen to be the Savior of the world after Satan sought and did not get that role according to Mormon prophets (a deal breaker for Southern Christians who cite John: "In the beginning was The Word (Jesus Christ), and The Word was with God, and The Word was God"). This is denying scripture to Christians--for Jesus said He was God. When the Mormons say God, they do not mean Jesus.
Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers? They do, but they now say that we are all brothers created by God. They say we should ignore their prophets from the past who have written extensively on this from Joseph Smith on down. Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Spencer Kimball and many other revered Mormon prophets and presidents have written that Jesus was the first born and Satan the next "son of the morning." Mainstream Christians acknowledge Jesus as the only begotten son and Satan as a created being.
Do the writings of Joseph Smith and the Mormon prophets add to the Bible as scripture condemns? They acknowledge the "adding to" the Holy script of the Bible by the writings of Joseph Smith but defend it, and compare it to writings from Nicaea on the trinity some 400 years after Christ. They say that some Christians accept those. Adding to the Bible is another deal breaker and an example of the perceived cult aspect of the Mormons where one man, who did not walk with Christ or learn at His feet, expands or changes scripture--unlike the disciples of Jesus who were contemporary with Him, learned all from Him and adhered to His teachings. Smith's views are held to mysticism by Christians--something condemned by the Bible. A former Mormon said that he left the church because, "We were worshipping Smith, not Jesus."
Clearly, the lifestyle of Mormons is politically conservative and in sync with most Republican primary voters, but the question remains--can conservative kinsmanship trump religious differences? In Iowa where social conservatives are strong, the straw poll tilted to Christian conservatives like Michelle Bachman--reflecting the view that it is not the little c in conservative that defines many political voters, but the big C in Jesus Christ.
Still, conservative Christians desiring to defeat Barrack Obama might support anyone who they think could defeat him--so strong is the animus toward Obama, but carrying the Mormon banner is not helpful at the moment in the Republican primaries.
Those of a certain age will remember where they were 47 years ago today when they heard about the shots ringing out in Dallas. Subsequent assassinations of public figures did not quell the pain felt by the nation when President John F. Kennedy was killed, less than three years after entering office, at the age of 46.
Shortly after noon on November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was waving to the cheering crowd as his motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street when gunfire was heard.
The president slumped into the back seat of his open limousine with gaping wounds in his head and neck.
A third bullet tore through the chest and arm of Texas Governor John B. Connally, Jr, who was riding in the limo along with the Kennedys.
The car sped to nearby Parkland Hospital where the president, 46, was pronounced dead 30 minutes later.
The governor's wounds were severe but not fatal. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, seated next to her husband, was not injured.
Two hours after the shooting, police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald and charged him with murder.
Oswald, 24, a former Marine who once tried to defect to the Soviet Union and had been active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, was believed to have fired at least three shots at the presidential motorcade from a rifle as he stood in the book depository building where he was employed.
Just 99 minutes after the shooting, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States aboard Air Force One. Still wearing the stockings splattered with the blood of her murdered husband, Jackie Kennedy stood next to Johnson during the ceremony.
The plane bearing the new President and the body of the slain head of state then flew to Washington, D.C. Kennedy was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, saluted by a nation and his little boy.
Two days later, while in police custody, Oswald was killed by a local nightclub owner, Jack Ruby.
In later testimony, Ruby said he got "carried away" and killed Oswald in order to spare Mrs. Kennedy the pain of a trial. Ruby himself died in jail in 1967 while awaiting a second trial.
But the murder of Oswald - as well as the later release of the Warren Commission Report, which stated only one gunman was involved in the president's assassination, and an 8mm amateur film of the assassination taken by witness Abraham Zapruder - only stoked decades of talk about conspiracy in the death of JFK.
Forty-seven years later, the shots in Dallas can still be heard, the pain still lingers.
Bush acknowledged some failures during his eight years in the White House, including mistakes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
"I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor and walked out and said, 'I hear you. We understand and we're going to help the state and help the local governments with as much resources as needed," Bush said in an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that aired Monday night.
Bush says that he wrote his new memoir as a record for historians, but he declined to say how his time in office may be judged.
"I hope I'm judged a success, but I'm going to be dead, Matt, when they finally figure it out," Bush said.
Bush's approval rating dipped to a low of 23 percent in Oct. 2008, and as he prepared to leave office, 58 percent of Americans said he would go down in history as a below-average president. His approval rating also briefly reached an all time high of 92 percent following 9/11.
Our question to you today: How will history judge President George W. Bush?
President Obama said a Republican proposal to preserve the full array of Bush administration tax cuts for two more years presents a "basis for conversation" that could lead to a compromise as lawmakers prepare to meet next week for a high-stakes showdown over taxes.
But a senior House Republican on Sunday flatly rejected the option most favored by the White House: decoupling the Bush tax cuts that benefit the wealthy from the cuts that benefit the vast majority of Americans by extending each set of provisions for a different period of time.
"No, I am not for decoupling the rates," Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday." He echoed the GOP argument that such a move virtually would guarantee the eventual expiration of tax breaks in the upper brackets, where some of the most successful small businesses pay taxes.
"I am not for raising taxes in a recession, especially when it comes to the job creators that we need so desperately to start creating jobs again," Cantor said. "I am not for sending any signal to small businesses in this country that they're going to have their tax rates go up."
The comments highlighted the shifting political landscape in the wake of Republican gains in last week's midterm elections. Obama, who has argued that the nation cannot afford to keep the tax cuts for millionaires, has been adopting a conciliatory tone in recent days in hopes of reaching a deal with resurgent Republicans to prevent all the cuts from expiring on schedule - an outcome that would sharply increase IRS withholding in January for virtually every American taxpayer, including the middle-class families Obama has sworn to protect.
"My number one priority coming into this is making sure that middle-class families don't see their tax rates go up January 1st," Obama said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday.
Asked on the show about a proposal by House Republican leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) to cut spending back to 2008 levels and extend all the Bush tax cuts - even those that benefit the wealthy - for two years, Obama said: "I think that when we start getting specific like that, there's a basis for a conversation. . . . We can look at what the budget projections are. We can think about what the economy needs right now, given that it's still weak. And, hopefully, we can agree on a set of facts that leads to a compromise."
Republicans, meanwhile, have been less accommodating, with some suggesting that they could simply hold off until January, when they will control the House and hold a stronger hand in the Senate. That would set the stage for a more powerful push to permanently extend all the cuts - the preferred GOP alternative.
"They might blame GOP obstructionism. But, you know, people are going to start missing a lot of money in their weekly paychecks in January. And there's only going to be one person in the White House," said a Republican House aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe party thinking.
Permanently extending the full spectrum of Bush tax cuts would add nearly $4 trillion to deficits over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Obama's proposal to extend the cuts only on income of less than $250,000 a year would add more than $3 trillion to future deficits.
Eager to find a compromise short of full extension, administration officials began focusing more than a week ago on the concept of decoupling. Under the ideal scenario, House Democratic aides said, the middle-class cuts would be permanently extended, while the upper-income cuts would expire after just one or two years.
Senate Democrats also are considering tinkering with Obama's income threshold, with some pushing a plan to keep the tax cuts for families who earn up to $500,000 or even $1 million a year.
Congressional Republicans have been slow to embrace specific ideas but say they are keeping an open mind.
"I do sense some flexibility on the president's part, and we're happy to talk to him about it," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday on "Face the Nation."
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), who is in line to chair the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said in an interview: "I think we need to be open to having these conversations and see where they lead. It's very important to address this before the end of the year."
Subscribe to this Feed by Email
Chicago Joins Better Buildings Initiative Secretary Chu and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to Make Energy Efficiency Announcement City of Houston Joins Better Buildings Challenge, Partners with Energy Department to Reduce Energy Waste and Boost Efficiency 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 
