Venezuela or USA? Getting Hard to Tell

Mandate for Socialism

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez says a referendum victory that removed limits on his re-election is a mandate to intensify his socialist agenda for decades to come. Opponents warn of an impending dictatorship.

Both sides had called the outcome of Sunday's vote key to the future of this South American country, split down the middle between those who worship the president for redistributing Venezuela's oil riches and those who see him as a power-hungry autocrat.

"Those who voted "yes" today voted for socialism, for revolution," Chavez thundered to thousands of ecstatic supporters jamming the streets around the presidential palace. Fireworks lit up the Caracas skyline, and one man walked though the crowd carrying a painting of Chavez that read: "Forever."

Josefa Dugarte stared at the crowd from the stoop of her apartment building with look of dismay.

"These people don't realize what they have done," she muttered.

With 94 percent of the vote counted, official results showed the amendment passing 54 percent to 46 percent, an irreversible trend, and opposition leaders accepted the results. Tibisay Lucena, president of National Electoral Council, said turnout was 67 percent.

The constitutional overhaul allows all public officials to run for re-election as many times as they want, removing barriers to a Chavez candidacy in the next presidential elections in 2012 and beyond.

Click here to read rest of entry >>

Funny How Just a Few Weeks Ago Democrats Were Complaining That the Executive Branch had too Much Power Under Bush

GOP Threatens Legal Action Against Obama for Plan to Oversee 2010 Census

House Republican leaders said Thursday they're ready to go to court against President Obama if he doesn't scuttle his plan to move the census into the purview of the Oval Office, saying it's an unconstitutional abuse of power.

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., also called on Obama to withdraw his nominee to head the Commerce Department, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, if Obama didn't have the confidence in him to lead the Census Bureau. Gregg has been a long time opponent of increased funding to the bureau.

Under Obama's plan, the director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who has yet to be named, would report to White House senior management in addition to the Commerce Department, which oversees the bureau.

A Senate committee has scheduled a hearing next month on the potential change. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are also pushing for an investigation.

GOP leaders sent Obama a letter to the White House on Wednesday demanding a reversal of the plan.

"If the president doesn't acquiesce to our letter, then we will seek the courts," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said at a news conference Thursday.

"Ultimately I don't think there's any question among federal courts about whether or not this is a personal power of the presidency or whether or not executive privilege would be waived if he started doing functions like this," Issa said.

A spokesman for Issa told FOXNews.com that the lawmaker wouldn't initiate a lawsuit but would lend his support to any individual or group that did.

At the news conference Thursday, House Republican leaders announced the formation of a census task force to keep an eye on developments. Republicans displayed a large placard with a 2006 quote from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that read, "If you think redistricting is always partisan and political which it is...it's going to be on steroids this time."

Census numbers determine everything from government pay-outs to how many people represent each state in Congress. Past censuses have sparked fights over issues as varied as how to ensure remote population groups are counted accurately to how such terms as "poverty" are defined.

The controversy began when Obama nominated Gregg to head the Commerce Department.

Gregg once voted for a broader budget measure that would have abolished the agency, and he opposed increased funding for the 2000 census. Gregg's record raised concerns about his commitment to an accurate census count, a priority for minority groups that have historically been undercounted.

Gregg's nomination initially pleased Republicans because he has opposed increased funding to the census and once supported abolishing the agency. But now they have begun to question his silence.

"If President Obama doesn't trust Sen. Gregg to oversee a fair and accurate census, he should withdraw the nomination," said GOP conference chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind.

The White House sought to soothe those concerns in a statement late last week reassuring that the census director would "work closely with White House senior management."

That in turn sparked an uproar from Republicans, who accused the White House of injecting partisan politics into the census and seeking to cut out agency professionals in favor of political operatives.

The White House issued a statement Wednesday, emphasizing Obama's commitment to a "complete and accurate count through a process that is free from politicization" even while seeking to explain that no real change was being made to the census director's chain of command.

"As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the census director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the president's desk," said the statement from White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who has pushed legislation to create an independent census agency, complained about the move by House Republicans, saying their "answer is to have a press conference and create a tempest over the Census Bureau, even before the president has had a chance to unpack his bags."

FOX News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

Funny How Democrats Never Ask for a Fiarness Doctrine in News Print

Democratic lawmakers are considering pushing to revive the Fairness Doctrine to help increase the number of liberal shows on the airwaves.

A political battle is brewing over control of the radio airwaves as Democrats consider pushing for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcast stations to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

"I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told liberal radio host Bill Press last week. She said she expects hearings soon on reviving the policy, which was introduced in 1949 and abolished in 1987.

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is and has been an executive at several liberal radio talk groups.

But Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said radio programming should be based on what brings in listeners and advertisers.

"I can't think of anything worse than to have government in a position to dictate the content of information going over public radio," said Inhofe, a Republican. "The whole idea is that it has to be market driven. We have a lot of progressive or liberal radio shows but nobody listens to them and every time one tries to get on, they are not successful."

Inhofe and other critics believe those pushing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- nicknamed the Hush Rush Doctrine -- want to diminish the influence of Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts. Supporters insist that's not the case.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told Press Wednesday that the Fairness Doctrine is needed not to remove any conservative voices, but to ensure that there are a few liberal shows on the air.

During the presidential campaign, a spokesman said Barack Obama did not favor reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But his White House spokesman has since left the door open.

"I pledge to you to study up on the 'Fairness Doctrine' so that, one day, I might give you a more fulsome answer," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Inhofe says Democrats and liberal advocacy groups aren't going to let the matter drop.

"They are committed to make this happen," he said. "We got to be ready."

Inhofe introduced a bill this year to prevent reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but he said he has not gotten a single Democrat to co-sponsor it.

FOX News' Molly Henneberg contributed to this report.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

Yeah, but since Obama did it and not Bush, it's merely Change We Can Believe In...

OBAMA "PRE-SELECTS" REPORTERS FOR QUESTIONS AT PRESS CONFERENCE

The good folks at the Wall Street Journal editorial page had this to say about Mr. Obama's heavily choreographed press conference this week:

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?"

The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out.

Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness. We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites.

Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time.

The original editorial can be found here.




Click here to read rest of entry >>

How Did TASS Report the Story?

Analysis: Obama Appeals to Liberal Media in First Prime Time Press Conference
President Obama reached out to non-traditional and left-wing media in his first prime time press conference at the White House.

He seated a left-wing radio host in the coveted front row. He called on a liberal blogger from the Huffington Post. He even brought far-left columnist Helen Thomas out of the wilderness and let her ruminate about "so-called terrorists."

Clearly, President Obama was making a point of showing deference to the Left at his first prime-time press conference, which was broadcast to millions from the stately East Room of the White House on Monday.

Longtime members of the White House press corps who are accustomed to sitting in the front row of presidential press conferences were surprised to find their prime real estate occupied by Ed Schulz, a strident liberal who hosts a nationally syndicated radio program originally based in Fargo, N.D., but of late broadcasting from the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

During last year's presidential campaign, Schultz warmed up the audience for Obama at a Democratic fundraiser in Fargo by denouncing Republican opponent John McCain as a "warmonger." When Obama took the podium, he thanked Schulz and called him "the voice of progressive radio," although the campaign was later pressured into distancing itself from Schultz's inflammatory remarks.

Critics also accused Schultz of carrying water for Obama during the candidate's presidential primary battle against fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. During one TV appearance, Schultz went after Clinton's husband in order to defend Obama.

"Bill Clinton is lying about Barack Obama's record," he said. "He lied 10 years ago about Monica Lewinsky and he's lying about a very viable candidate and somebody who could really bring change to this country."

On Monday, Schultz was seated next to Thomas, who was once the doyenne of the White House press corps. During President George W. Bush's tenure, Thomas went from correspondent to columnist, thereby losing her front row perch in East Room press conferences. In her speeches, Thomas has branded Bush the "worst president in American history."

On Monday, Obama returned Thomas to the front row and made her one of 13 people given the opportunity to question him.

"All right, Helen -- this is my inaugural moment here," Obama said with exaggerated reverence. "I'm really excited."

Thomas asked a rambling question about "maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists."

Obama also called on Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, a hard-left Web site that has never before been recognized by a president. Stein asked whether Obama would pursue "prosecution of Bush administration officials."

Critics pointed out that Bush never showcased right-wing bloggers or columnists at press conferences. And he certainly never allowed right-wing radio hosts to sit in the front row.

"What if Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh were up front at Bush's press conferences in the East Room?" asks media critic Michael Calderone of Politico.

During Bush's press conferences, reporters aggressively tried to ask numerous follow-up questions. But on Monday night, aside from Thomas and Major Garrett of FOX News, most reporters refrained from asking follow-ups, even when their initial questions went largely unanswered.

"The reporters' questions were direct, succinct and restrained, with none of the showmanship that has sometimes marked past news conferences," media critic Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post wrote approvingly. "The journalists stopped short of confrontation, as though they were sobered by the gravity of the financial crisis."

Bill Sammon is the Washington, D.C., deputy managing editor of FOX News Channel.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

Conn. Elections Enforcement Commission Eyes Coulter

NY Daily News reports that Connecticut officials are investigating a charge by anti-Coulter blogger Dan Borchers, that the blond bomber illegally voted in Connecticut while a resident of New York.

Coulter's response: Borchers is a stalker.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

First the quality of Walter Reed, then the efficiency of Katrina. Now SCHIP. Tomorrow: The Gov't Can Declare Grandma "Too Old" for Hip Surgery...

The 4 1/2 Month Wait for an MRI

Nadeem Esmail writes in today's Wall Street Journal that observation of the much-touted Canadian healthcare system should cause us all to be wary of Mr. Obama's and Ms. Pelosi's goal of inching us toward such a system. Read about it here.

[end]




Click here to read rest of entry >>

Obama/Emanuel Execute Land Grab with Census

It was OK for the Census to be overssen by the Commerce Department when Democrat Bill Richardson was going to be Commerce Secretary but things changed within hours when Republican Judd Gregg was tapped for the post. As Joe Stalin once noted "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Utah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.

The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

FOX News' Bill Sammon and Shannon Bream contributed to this report.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

Since It Worked in Iraq Let's Not Do It

Obama Putting Brakes on Surge in Afghanistan

President Obama has demanded that defense chiefs review their strategy in Afghanistan before going ahead with a troop surge, the Sunday Times reported.

There is concern among senior Democrats that the military is preparing to send up to 30,000 extra troops without a coherent plan or exit strategy.

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Defense Secretary Robert Gates postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the U.S. joint chiefs of staff last month in "the tank," the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: "What's the endgame?" and did not receive a convincing answer.

Obama promised an extra 7,000-10,000 troops during the election campaign but the military has inflated its demands. Leading Democrats fear Afghanistan could become Obama's "Vietnam quagmire."

Click here to read the full story from the Sunday Times.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

OBAMA TIME

Obama's Tardiness Sets Him Apart From Bush
Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has struggled to arrive on time to events and news conferences.

WASHINGTON -- There's a new time zone in the nation's capital: Obama Time.

Barely two weeks into his presidency, Barack Obama has made a clean break from George W. Bush in several high-profile moves, including reversing a number of the 43rd president's policies.

He's also reversed an unwritten but much-noticed Bush policy: Be on time, all the time.

Obama has been routinely late to events and news conferences, including the ones at which he reversed Bush's orders. This has led to an already familiar refrain from the Obama camp: "He's running late."

The president was nearly 30 minutes late Wednesday for the ceremony at which he signed a bill to expand children's health care. He was 10 minutes late Thursday to a memo signing at the Energy Department.

Even before the inauguration, Obama wasn't a punctual sort; he arrived late to a Jan. 8 news conference on the economy that was aired live by broadcast and cable networks.

When it comes to following the clock, Obama closely resembles Bill Clinton, who was famously late to events when he was president. By contrast, Bush despised being late and punctual to a fault. He set the tone early in his presidency -- he arrived at the Capitol five minutes early for his inauguration.

"To me, being tardy, it's got to be one of two things," said presidential historian Doug Wead, who advised both Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush. "Bad organization that can be corrected, or it's arrogance. It sounds to me like this is arrogance."

Mark Lindsay, a Democratic consultant and former senior White House adviser to Bill Clinton, disagreed, explaining that Clinton was late sometimes because he was making accommodations for logistics or average citizens.

"I would make the opposite observation," Lindsay said. "I would say that taking time to accommodate your schedule to regular citizens is not an act of arrogance. It's an act of humility."

Lindsay, who was the assistant to Clinton for management and administration, said Bush was not known for having the same level of engagement with regular people.

Allan Lichtman, a political history professor at American University, had a different explanation for Clinton's tardiness.

"President Clinton was always late because he wasn't very disciplined in general," he said. "This was a man who marched to the beat of his own drummer, who liked to talk, liked intellectual discussions, had his finger in every pie."

There are two kinds of presidents, Lichtman said: "Foxes and hedgehogs."

"Foxes know a little about everything. They have their fingers in every pie. ... Hedgehogs only know a few things and know it well and leave the details to others. Clinton was a classic fox. Bush was a classic hedgehog."

And Obama? He appears to be a fox, too, Lichtman said.

Obama was habitually late to events on the campaign trail and to meetings as a U.S. senator. In fact, there's a montage on YouTube of him offering apologies for missing testimony and presentations because of his late arrivals to meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He even apologized in advance for asking questions that might be repetitive.

The president's tardiness already appears to have spread to others in his administration. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has been routinely late for daily news briefings, sometimes by more than an hour.

Wead warned that habitual tardiness can be misinterpreted, citing the Cingular dropped-call ads that show how communication breakdown can lead to awkward moments in a New York minute. And he said being late could cost Obama politically.

"When Obama's popularity slips, some people on Capitol Hill will not wait for him, and that will result in diminished political power," he said.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

What is that other name for a cat (no, not feline)?

Sources: Charges to Be Dropped Against USS Cole Bombing Suspect
The legal move by the Hon. Susan J. Crawford would bring all Guantanamo cases into compliance with President Barack Obama's executive order to halt court proceedings at the Navy detention center in Cuba.

The senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay is expected to drop charges Friday against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing, FOX News has confirmed.

The legal move by the Hon. Susan J. Crawford would bring all Guantanamo cases into compliance with President Barack Obama's executive order to halt court proceedings at the Navy detention center in Cuba.

Judge James Pohl had refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the Cole attack in Yemen.

A senior Obama administration official told The Associated Press that the charges against al-Nashiri will be dismissed without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later in another venue, possibly a military court martial or criminal court.

It also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.

Retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold, who was commander of the USS Cole when it was attacked in Yemeni waters in 2000, told FOX News that he was invited to the White House on Friday for a special meeting with Obama.

Lippold decried Obama's request to delay all pending trials at Guantanamo. But he told FOX News he "will go with an open mind and wait to see and hear what President Obama has to offer."

FOX News' Catherine Herridge and the Associated Press contributed to this report.




Click here to read rest of entry >>

Okay, you have to get past the strange permanent tan, but can anyone reasonably argue with Dick Armey's logic here?

Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek

Says Dick Armey, former economics professor and former GOP majority leader of the House of Representatives in today's Wall Street Journal:

"In the long run, we are all dead," John Maynard Keynes once quipped. An influential British economist, Keynes used the line to dodge the problematic long-term implications of his policy proposals. His analysis of the Great Depression redefined economics in the 1930s and asserted that increased government spending during a downturn could revive the economy.

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats (very few of whom likely have read Keynes's 1936 book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money") have dug up the dead economist's convenient justification for deficit spending in defense of their bloated stimulus legislation. But none ask the most important question: Was Keynes right?

According to Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek, a contemporary of Keynes and perhaps his greatest critic, Keynes "was guided by one central idea . . . that general employment was always positively correlated with the aggregate demand for consumer goods." Keynes argued that government should intervene in the economy to maintain aggregate demand and full employment, with the goal of smoothing out business cycles. During recessions, he asserted, government should borrow money and spend it.

Keynes's thinking was a decisive departure from classical economics, because arbitrary "macro" constructs like aggregate demand had no basis in the microeconomic science of human action. As Hayek observed, "some of the most orthodox disciples of Keynes appear consistently to have thrown overboard all the traditional theory of price determination and of distribution, all that used to be the backbone of economic theory, and in consequence, in my opinion, to have ceased to understand any economics."

Classical economists up to that time had emphasized a balanced budget and government restraint as the primary goals of fiscal policy. The simplistic notion that "aggregate demand" drove investment and employment threw all of that out the window, but it had one particular convenience for policy makers. Government spending is, according to Keynes's construct, a key component in determining aggregate demand, so more spending, even to resod the Capitol Mall or distribute free contraception, drives the economy in the short run.

Read the rest of Armey's piece here.

Click here to read rest of entry >>

Change Che Guevara Could Believe In

Obama to Limit Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
Administration plans to limit pay to $500,000 a year for executives of bailed-out companies in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to limit pay to $500,000 a year for executives of government-assisted financial institutions in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street, a senior administration official said Tuesday.

Obama plans to announce the new limits with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at the White House on Wednesday.

"If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," President Barack Obama said in an interview with "NBC Nightly News".

An administration official familiar with the new restrictions said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.

The president and members of Congress have been weighing various proposals to restrict chief executives' compensation as one of the conditions of receiving help under the $700 billion financial bailout fund.

Banks and other financial institutions that receive capital infusions, but are considered healthy, could waive the $500,000 salary cap and the stock restrictions. But they would have to disclose the compensation and submit the pay plan to shareholders for a nonbinding vote.

The administration will also propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, the official said.

The proposals include:

-- Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash-out.

-- Requiring "say on pay" nonbinding shareholder resolutions.

-- A Treasury sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.

Top officials at companies that have received money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program already face some compensation limits. But elected officials want to place more caps, a sentiment reinforced in recent days by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in the midst of the economic downturn in 2008.

"I do know this: We can't just say, 'Please, please,"' said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back.

The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.

Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermined performance-based pay.

Obama, in an interview with CNN Tuesday, insisted that the restrictions would not amount to excessive government intrusion.

"There are mechanisms in place to make sure that institutions that are taking taxpayer money are not using that money for excessive executive compensation," he said. "It's not a government takeover. Private enterprise will still be taking place. But people will be accountable and responsible. And that's what we have to restore in the financial system generally."

And some Republicans, angered by company decisions to pay bonuses and buy airplanes, have few qualms about restrictions, especially if they are temporary.

"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican in the Senate Banking Committee.

"But where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal."

The administration's compensation announcement will precede its more comprehensive plans for how to spend the remaining $350 billion in the TARP program. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Obama's economic team have been revamping the framework of the program and are expected to announce the changes next week.

Officials are considering a government-run "bad bank" that would take on the bad debts and investments of financial institutions. In addition, the Treasury could seek help from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to provide banks with guarantees against losses on assets backed by residential and commercial real estate loans.

On Tuesday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Banking Committee with close ties to Wall Street, warned against the "bad bank" idea saying it could be too expensive and the government would have a difficult time setting a value on the assets. He instead endorsed guaranteeing bad assets at a value lower than what banks have on the books.
Click here to read rest of entry >>

Pay No Attention to that Warm Man in the Oval Office

Obama Getting Heat for Turning Up the Oval Office Thermostat.
President Obama is facing criticism for keeping his office warm enough to "grow orchids" in -- after he called on Americans to protect the environment and turn down their thermostats.

President Obama lectured voters during the campaign about the need to make sacrifices for the environment. But now it's warm and toasty in the White House -- so much so that aides have likened it to a tropical hot house -- and Obama is under fire for turning up the heat.

Obama made climate change a staple of his stump speech last year, calling on Americans to lower their energy use and set a model for the rest of the world in combating climate change.

During a campaign event in Oregon in May, Obama said we have to "lead by example." "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," he said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

But for the first few weeks of his presidency, that's precisely what has happened in the White House.

On the first day of his presidency, Obama allowed staffers to venture into the Oval Office without wearing coat and tie, which had been obligatory under President Bush. Fashion observers called it a new age of business casual at the White House.

Obama's aides had a simpler explanation. Though he's spent more than 20 years in Chicago, the president was born in Hawaii. And so he "likes it warm" in the Oval Office, said Chief of Staff David Axelrod. "You could grow orchids in there," he told the New York Times.

But while it's perpetual summer in the Oval Office, the rest of the country has been trudging through a tough winter. Ice storms have cut power to millions in the Midwest and South.

With few orchids growing in the heartland, critics are saying that Obama -- who urged individual sacrifice in an inaugural address that called for a "new era of responsibility" -- hasn't been willing to bear the cold with the rest of the country.

"It's stunning hypocrisy," said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of two books critical of global warming activists. "Obama spins the dial up, takes off his coat and seeks to mandate that we turn the dial down," he said.

Obama could take a lesson from one of his predecessors, critics say.

During the gasoline shortage of the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter famously donned a cardigan and turned down the thermostat in the White House. He urged the nation to do the same during a notably chilly fireside chat he gave from his cooled-off home -- a symbolic gesture intended to move other Americans to go easy on the country's depleted stores of energy.

Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institute, said that presidential roles and security measures will necessarily prevent Obama from being completely green.

"No one can justify from an energy-efficiency standpoint riding in a bulletproof car, but as president of the United States I think we need to protect his security," he said. "Symbolically it's important, but I wouldn't read too much into it."

The 800-square-foot Oval Office accounts for only a small part of the White House's overall area: at 55,000 square feet, the Georgian mansion is a public institution, and taxpayers cover the cost of powering a building that is part dwelling, part museum and the nerve center of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government.

The White House began going green during the 1990s, and reports from the Department of Energy show that innovations and changes have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy costs each year for the buildings that house White House staff.

Obama's White House declined to comment on the president's personal energy use, but did note that his stimulus package will continue the greening trend, paving the way for 75 percent of federal buildings to be modernized to increase their energy efficiency.

Yet in the sanctum sanctorum of executive power, Obama has kept it steamy -- literally. The entire White House complex is heated by steam radiators, part of an old energy system that continues to undergo renovations.

Critics say it's time for the president to put his coat -- or his cardigan -- back on.

Horner said the president should follow the demands he's made of the rest of the country and start "turning down the dial and putting on a sweater instead of [demanding] sacrifice he talks about for other people."

But some energy experts say Obama, who made energy efficiency a cornerstone of his campaign, needs to stay on message.

"He's got to make every American make a personal commitment" to decrease their own energy use and educate the country about the threat of climate change, he said. "The earlier the president can convey that message the better."
Click here to read rest of entry >>

January 2009 "Barack-Hillary Ratio"

In the Barack-Hillary tug of war for the media spotlight, there was an uptick in the quantity of New York Times coverage of President Obama during the month of January -- despite the coverage associated with Clinton's Senate confirmation and the New York statehouse saga in filling her Senate seat.

Click on the graphic at the top of this entry for a better view of the data.

Going forward, the Barack-Hillary Ratio will provide a leading indicator on Obama's hold on his presidency. Obama and Hillary are the two power centers of the Democratic Party. To the degree that Obama is in control, he should be holding onto his lead in New York Times mentions. If Hillary closes the gap, watch out for fireworks in the administration.

Click here for last month's inaugural item on the Barack-Hillary ratio, an exclusively monthly feature on The Rapier.

After enjoying a larger and larger share of the media spotlight in three straight months at the height of the campaign -- September - November 2009 -- Obama saw more attention shift to Clinton, in relative terms, in December 2009.

Last month, the lead shifted back to President Obama.

Click here for a timeline of critical events during the election.

The Rapier will update the Barack-Hillary Ratio monthly and will take a look at the wild card tangled up in all of this media coverage: Bill Clinton himself.

Methodology note:

Using The New York Times online "advanced search" feature, The Rapier tallied the number of mentions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for each month, from January 2006 through January 2009. For Obama, the tally included the number of mentions of "Barack Obama" and "Barack Hussein Obama" but did not count mentions alone of his first or last names. For Clinton, the tally included the number of mentions of "Hillary Clinton" and "Hillary Rodham Clinton" but did not count mentions alone of her first or last names.

The Rapier created the ratio by taking the number of Barack Obama mentions and dividing this number by the tally of Hillary Clinton mentions. The Rapier then took that ratio and subtracted 1. This created a value where negative numbers indicated a greater number of Hillary Clinton mentions. A positive number represents more Barack Obama mentions.

Raw data below. First column is the date searched. First number is the tally of Barack Obama mentions. Last number is the tally of Hillary Clinton mentions.

Jan-06 2, 52
Feb-06 7, 69
Mar-06 9, 84
Apr-06 7, 39
May-06 13, 79
Jun-06 5, 64
Jul-06 6, 52
Aug-06 2, 73
Sep-06 7, 70
Oct-06 23, 111
Nov-06 39, 94
Dec-06 47, 70
Jan-07 89, 118
Feb-07 113, 147
Mar-07 84, 113
Apr-07 112, 105
May-07 92, 112
Jun-07 82, 124
Jul-07 87, 119
Aug-07 76, 120
Sep-07 94, 174
Oct-07 94, 188
Nov-07 110, 206
Dec-07 164, 225
Jan-08 336, 429
Feb-08 450, 497
Mar-08 399, 410
Apr-08 361, 396
May-08 385, 365
Jun-08 408, 218
Jul-08 379, 90
Aug-08 433, 160
Sep-08 475, 115
Oct-08 603, 94
Nov-08 973, 176
Dec-08 658, 157
Jan-09 841, 170
Click here to read rest of entry >>