GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal calls Obama's plan irresponsible

There they go agian, complaining and criticising without actually adding any constructiveness to the equasion. Ok, we heard you bobby - but give us an alternative, give us a nother way to solve the problem at hand rather then just giving out about the atempts being made.

Republican leaders continued their attacks on President Barack Obama's handling of the economy Tuesday, calling it irresponsible and certain to increase taxes and federal debt.

Responding in advance to Obama's televised speech to a joint session of Congress, top Republicans said the president relies too heavily on spending, and not enough on tax cuts, to try to revive the gasping economy. They said they want to work with Obama, and sometimes blamed congressional Democrats more than him. But their criticisms were sharp and plentiful.

"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party's official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, "increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt."

"It's irresponsible," said Jindal, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2012.

The tone of the Republicans' response was in keeping with their nearly unanimous opposition to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, which was backed by only three Republicans in the Senate and none in the House. Some Democrats and independents think the Republicans are blundering and misreading most Americans' sentiments about the need for massive government action to help the economy.

In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, about three-fourths said Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and almost as many faulted the response of Republican officials, which was seen as politically motivated.

Despite such findings, GOP lawmakers say they believe they will be proven right in the long run.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that Republicans want to help Obama find "responsible solutions to the challenges facing our nation, but thus far congressional leaders in the president's own party have stood in the way."

Boehner, Jindal and other Republicans repeatedly accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, but the Obama-backed stimulus package has extensive tax cuts.

Jindal acknowledged that to some degree, Republicans deserved the drubbing they took in the last two national elections.

"Our party got away from its principles," he said. "You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington." But that is changing, he said.

Taking advantage of his moment in the national spotlight, Jindal publicized a Web link Tuesday () allowing respondents to receive early excerpts of his planned televised response, and to donate to his political organization. Jindal also collected their e-mail and postal addresses, which could prove handy in a presidential race

McCain questions Obama about helicopter at summit

Ofcourse the man needs new Helicopters. Pimped ones with 22" alloys and a descent sound system too. McCain is only complaining cause he didn't get to pick the color. I'm sure there are many other military spendings that can and should be reviewd, but as soon as a black man wants 28 new helicopters white america gets scared and puts the brakes on. Tell them they are for killing arabs and nobody will care..

President Barack Obama never had a helicopter, which he says might explain why he's perfectly happy with the current White House fleet and doesn't need a more costly one. At the conclusion of a fiscal summit Monday, Obama faced questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, including his former presidential rival, Sen. John McCain.

McCain bemoaned cost overruns in military procurement. The new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. — now over budget at $11.2 billion — will cost more than Air Force One.

Obama said the helicopter he has now seems adequate, adding that he never had a helicopter before and "maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

Obama said he has already talked to Defense Secretary Robert Gates about reviewing the program and its ballooning costs.

"It is an example of the procurement process gone amok, and we're going to have to fix it," Obama said.

The Navy — which is in charge of overseeing the helicopter program — reported to Congress in January that its price tag had nearly doubled. That notification triggered a formal process mandating the program be re-certified as a national security requirement by senior Pentagon leadership.

The Navy waited nearly a year before formally disclosing the information to lawmakers as it sought to find ways to keep the program within budget. Those efforts failed.

Gates already has warned of tough cuts in the upcoming fiscal 2010 budget as the Pentagon faces the pressure of paying for two wars during a recession.

Lockheed Martin spokesman Troy Scully said in a statement, "We are committed to the program's success and are confident we can deliver the required number of helicopters compliant with the specifications that emerge from the ongoing review."

A Navy spokesman could not be immediately reached for comment Monday evening.

The helicopter, which will be outfitted with communications equipment, anti-missile defenses and hardened hulls, is dubbed Marine One whenever the president is on board. The aircraft is expected to be similar to Air Force One, unlike the 30-year-old helicopters they would replace.

Shares of Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin fell $3.88, or 5 percent, to $73.87 Monday.

Canada Welcomes Obama On First Foreign Trip

I think America has a lot to learn from Canada. And I think Obama is the man who would listen and learn. Anyways Norhern American relations could sure do with some improvments and I reckon Barack will make it happen.

President Barack Obama tried to calm fears about American protectionism and assure Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he wants to grow trade between the two nations during his first foreign trip as president, reports the AP.

Obama says he told the Canadian leader during talks in Ottawa that there is nothing in the stimulus package that would run counter to that goal.

Obama had caused some nervousness in Canada by pledging during the presidential campaign to renegotiate NAFTA, the trade agreement linking the U.S., Canada and Mexico, to get better labor and environmental standards.

Both leaders said Thursday that as economies around the world face challenges, it's important for the U.S. and others to resist calls for protectionism.


President Barack Obama touched down in Ottawa, Canada this morning for his first foreign visit as commander-in-chief.

The day-long trip is jampacked. So far, Obama has met with Canada's Governor-General, Michäelle Jean and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In a longer lunch meeting later today, Obama will discuss a variety of issues including climate change, the Afghanistan War and trade with the leader of our northern neighbor, according to the Winnipeg Sun.

Obama made a quick entrance to Parliament Hill and failed to greet the crowd of more than 500 Canadians who gathered to catch a glimpse of the new president and prime minister, a Globe and Mail blog vented.

The two men waved ever so briefly to the assembled group from behind a newly-installed pexiglass. That's it. That's all. You can go home now.

Obama hopes to reconcile with Canada on the environmental issue, specifically, and repair the damage done by the Bush administration, the Globe and Mail reported.

A day earlier, Mr. Harper said Mr. Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions.

In Mr. Obama's first foreign trip as President, the two leaders are expected to task officials with exploring North American co-operation on energy and the environment - which Mr. Harper's government hopes will be the first step to a broader pact.

The Washington Post reports that trade will be a major focus of the discussions today as well, especially in light of the "Buy American" clause in the newly passed Stimulus Plan that has ruffled some feathers in Canada.

A top Obama aide said this week that the president's main message to Harper will be to reassure Canadians that the United States intends to maintain a robust trading relationship with its neighbor.

"This is no time to -- for anybody to give the impression that somehow we are interested in less rather than more trade," said Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. "And that's what -- that's the message that he'll underscore."

Obama will also have a longer meeting with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to discuss border issues, Afghanistan and the environment, reported Canada TV.

"I don't think you advise the president of the United States, you defend Canadian interests and the key Canadian interest that I see is the border," Ignatieff said. "It's becoming a choke chain for both our economies and we have to work together to reduce the barriers between the United States and Canada."
The Globe and Mail reports that Ignatieff, who would like to be seen as a contender for the prime minister position, will benefit the most from Obama's visit because he will win valuable media time during his meeting with President Obama.

Every leader of the Opposition wants to be seen as a prime-minister-in-waiting. A presidential visit helps immensely, particularly for a leader who's still introducing himself to Canadians.

"It puts him on an equal level, at least in a visual sense, with an American president, and therefore makes him look like a stand-in for the head of government, so people can literally begin to visualize this person as prime minister," said Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo.

Economic Stimulus package headed for House vote on Friday

Almost there, but is this the answer to all our prayers? What happens next? All these nay sayers who are against the bill keep telling us it is bad for the taxpayers and bad for future taxpayers, but how? Elaborate please! and no comments about Barack Obama not being a natural born American citizen please.

$790 billion economic stimulus plan delayed

Reluctant to call it quits, key lawmakers bargained into overtime Thursday on the $790 billion economic stimulus legislation before reaching final agreement more than 24 hours after first announcing a deal.

Lingering controversy over school-modernization money and a scaled-back tax break for businesses forced a delay in final votes on the legislation.

But by nightfall, with Democratic leaders eager for final passage by the weekend, all issues were reported settled. House leaders announced a vote for Friday, with the Senate to follow later in the day or over the weekend.

Republicans, lined up to vote against the bill, piled on the scorn. "This is not the smart approach," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. "The taxpayers of today and tomorrow will be left to clean up the mess."

"Approval of the bill will allow companies grow again"
President Barack Obama delivered what has become a daily call for congressional action, this time from the industrial heartland. With approval of the bill, he said in Peoria, Ill., companies "may be able to start growing again. Rather than cutting jobs, they may be able to create them again."

He spoke at Caterpillar Inc., the heavy machinery giant that has announced 22,000 layoffs. The president has said in recent days the company has promised to rescind some of them once the stimulus passes, but Chief Executive Jim Owens said there probably would be more layoffs before that can occur.

At the Capitol and in an atmosphere of uncertainty, provisions were coming to light that had not been included in the original bills that passed the House or Senate -- or that differed markedly from earlier versions, or that appeared to brush up against claims of the bill's supporters that no pet projects known as "earmarks" were included.

$3.2 billion tax break for GM
One last-minute addition was a $3.2 billion tax break for General Motors Corp. that would allow the ailing auto giant to use current losses to claim refunds for taxes paid when times were good. GM got a $13.4 billion federal bailout late last year -- and is expected to receive more in 2009 -- and argued that without the provision, its government-financed turnaround plan could force the company to pay higher taxes.

The legislation does not mention GM specifically, but the company has been lobbying hard for the provision for months, with help from Michigan's representatives in Congress. "We wanted to make sure that the restructuring wasn't counteracted," said Rep. Sander M. Levin, D-Mich., a supporter of the provision.

It was not immediately clear why the provision had not been included in the bill that cleared the House several weeks ago.

Negotiators sweetened another tax break at the last minute, doubling to $1.6 billion a provision that would benefit businesses that buy their own debt at a discount. It was a major priority of business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued it would help firms and banks clear debt from their balance sheets and begin to hire workers and lend money to customers. The business group announced its support of the bill, despite the heavy opposition from its customary Republican allies in Congress.

Another late addition was a quadrupling to $8 billion, at the behest of Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of money to construct high-speed rail lines. Reid's office issued a statement noting that a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas rail could get a big chunk of the money.

While heavily lobbied, such provisions were largely around the edges of a bill that supporters said would save or create 3.5 million jobs and that Obama has made a centerpiece of his economic recovery plan.

Increased unemployment benefits and food stamps
The bill includes billions of dollars for victims of the recession in the form of increased unemployment benefits and food stamps, subsidies to defray the cost of laid-off workers who want to continue their private health insurance and expanded government-financed coverage for the poor.

Billions more would head off deep cuts in services by the states, many of which face deficits of their own because of the recession.

The bill also included Obama's signature tax cut, although on a slightly reduced scale. It will mean a $400 break for most individual workers and $800 for couples, including those who do not earn enough to pay income taxes.

Democratic leaders had originally hoped to vote on the bill on Thursday, then announced it would be Friday. There was no schedule for the Senate vote.

There was no evidence that the bill's passage was in jeopardy, although Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose vote is critical to Senate approval, issued a statement at midday that said she was "continuing to press for changes" that would broaden a tax break that was drafted to apply only to certain small businesses. The provision allows firms operating at a loss to claim refunds for taxes paid when times were profitable, and negotiators agreed during the day to let more companies qualify.

Snowe's office released the statement at about the same time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told a reporter that bargaining was finished.

Pelosi herself was involved in a continuing disagreement over the use of federal funds for school modernization -- the issue that caused her to withhold support from the compromise on Wednesday for more than two hours after key senators had announced it.

Due to the insistence of Senate Republican moderates, an attempt to create a new federal program for school construction was scrapped in final negotiations. As a compromise, money from a $40 billion fund for local schools could be used for school repairs.

But Democrats wanted assurances that the states would allocate the money according to need, rather than at a governor's sole discretion, leading to renewed negotiations.

Netanyahu, Livni declare win in Israeli election

I dont know much about the diffrent parties other then one being more right wing then the other. Will it make any diffrence to the palestine problem - Israel will always see itself as the victim, the country surrounded by arab enemys and will do anything to protect itself. And all with the backing of the US. Im not trying to legitemize hamas in any way, but .. but I don't know what I'm trying to say. Good Luck.

JERUSALEM – Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and hard-line rival Benjamin Netanyahu both claimed victory Tuesday in Israel's parliamentary election, but official results showed a race so close it could be decided by a third candidate — a rising power among the hawks.

Right-wing parties — including Netanyahu's Likud Party — appear to have won a clear majority of 65 seats in the 120-seat parliament, which would give Netanyahu the upper hand in forming the next government.

However, with 99 percent of the votes counted, Livni's centrist Kadima Party had 28 seats, while Likud had 27. Those results could change by a seat or two — enough to alter the outcome — when soldiers' votes are tallied Thursday evening.

The winner of the election wasn't clear in part because Livni could try to form a coalition with hawkish parties. It appeared ultranationalist Avigdor Lieberman, who based his campaign on denying citizenship to Israeli Arabs he considers disloyal, could single-handedly determine the country's next leader with his decision of whom to join.

He declared after the vote that he spoken to both Livni and Netanyahu and told them he could be persuaded to join either one, but he added that he wanted a "nationalist right-wing government."

Whoever comes out on top, the political wrangling was likely to drag on for weeks, and with it the fate of international Mideast peace efforts.

A win by Livni, who favors giving up land to make room for a Palestinian state, would boost President Barack Obama's goal of pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

A government led by Netanyahu, who opposes concessions to the Palestinians, could put Israel and the U.S. on a collision course. Netanyahu says he would allow West Bank settlements to expand and is seen as likely to contemplate military action against Iran.
"With God's help, I will lead the next government," Netanyahu told a raucous crowd of cheering supporters chanting his nickname, Bibi. "The national camp, led by the Likud, has won a clear advantage."

Soon after, Livni took the stage before a crowd of flag-waving supporters and flashed a V for victory sign. "Today the people chose Kadima. ... We will form the next government led by Kadima."

Even if Livni could overcome the formidable obstacles and become Israel's second female prime minister after Golda Meir, she would almost certainly be hindered by right-wing coalition partners opposed to her vision of giving up land in exchange for a peace deal with the Palestinians.

The election was called after she failed to put together a ruling coalition when scandal-plagued Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he was stepping down last fall.
Nevertheless, applause, cheers and whistling erupted at Kadima headquarters in Tel Aviv as television stations began reporting their exit polls, with supporters jumping up and down and giving each other high-fives and hugs.

In his speech, Netanyahu told his supporters that he was proud of the gains by his hard-line party. He called for a broad-based coalition, but said he would first turn to his "natural partners in the national camp," a reference to other hard-liners opposed to peace concessions.
The partial results marked a dramatic slide for Netanyahu, who had held a solid lead in opinion polls heading into the election.

Israelis vote for parties, not individuals. Since no party won a parliamentary majority, the leader of one of the major parties must try to put together a coalition with other factions — a process that can take up to six weeks.

In coming days, President Shimon Peres will ask a candidate to try to put together a government. Peres, who hails from Kadima and served for decades in the dovish Labor Party, could lean toward Livni as opposed to Netanyahu — who once defeated Peres in the 1996 election — as the candiate most capable of forming a government. But if a parliamentary majority tells him it favors Netanyahu, he will have to pick the Likud leader.
If Livni's projected victory holds, it is likely due to a strong showing by Lieberman, who appears to have taken a sizable chunk of votes that would have otherwise gone to Netanyahu.
The partial results gave Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu Party 16 seats, placing it in third place behind Kadima and Likud — and ahead of Labor, the party that ruled Israel for decades. That gives Lieberman a key role in coalition building.

Lieberman said his party's strong showing means he holds the key to forming the new Israeli government. Lieberman could serve in a Livni government because he is not a classic hawk who rejects any compromise with the Palestinians. Like Livni, he favors giving up parts of the West Bank. Lieberman and Livni converge on other issues that could for a basis for cooperation.
"It is up to Lieberman who will form the next coalition," said Menachem Hofnung, a professor of political science at Hebrew University. "Lieberman has emerged as the kingmaker. He is the winner of these elections, and it depends on who he sides with over the next few weeks as to who will be prime minister."

Netanyahu, who was prime minister a decade ago, portrayed himself as the candidate best equipped to deal with the threats Israel faces — Hamas militants in Gaza, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and behind them an Iranian regime that Israel believes is developing nuclear weapons.
He has derided the outgoing government's peace talks as a waste of time, and said relations with the Palestinians should be limited to developing their battered economy.
Livni, who has led Israel's peace talks the past year, has pledged to continue the negotiations with the moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank. At the same time, she advocates a tough line against the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, and was one of the architects against a bruising Israeli military offensive in Gaza last month.
At Likud headquarters, activists dismissed Kadima's edge and predicted Netanyahu would be tapped to form the next government.
"I am certain that Netanyahu will be the next prime minister," said Likud lawmaker Gilad Erdan. "Netanyahu has a clear advantage because the right-wing parties have a larger bloc. The test is not which party gets the most votes, but which candidate has the best chance to form a coalition, and that person is Benjamin Netanyahu."

Kadima lawmaker Haim Ramon predicted the party would lead the next government.
"We are the only party that can approach both the right wing and the left," he told Channel 2 TV. But he acknowledged the results would make it difficult for anyone to govern.

Israel's Palestinian peace partners in the West Bank said the next Israeli government would have to stop building settlements in the West Bank before talks could resume.
"We now have clear conditions for whoever heads the Israeli government," said Rafiq Husseini, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "The conditions for negotiations to resume begin with the immediate halt of settlement activities."

Peace talks have not included the Gaza Strip's Hamas rulers, who do not recognize Israel's right to exist and recently were the target of a devastating Israeli military offensive.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the election results don't make a difference in the lives of Palestinians because Israel "is still working to eliminate the Palestinian existence.
"Anyone who thinks that new faces might bring change is mistaken," Barhoum said, before the exit polls were released.

$3 trillion - Obama, Federal reserve and Senate attack

That sure is a lot of money, will it fix the problem. I would like to hear your comments on this one. I do like the very american comment in the last paragraph though: "The goal of this program is to make it easier for consumers to buy cars" -When the economy is faltering the enviroment goes out the window - Let them buy cars! problem solved...

WASHINGTON – On a single day filled with staggering sums, the Obama administration, Federal Reserve and Senate attacked the deepening economic crisis Tuesday with actions that could throw as much as $3 trillion more in government and private funds into the fight against frozen credit markets and rising joblessness.

"It's gone deep. It's gotten worse," President Barack Obama said of the recession at a campaign-style appearance in Fort Myers, Fla., where unemployment has reached double digits. "The situation we face could not be more serious."
If any more emphasis were needed, Wall Street investors sent stocks plunging, objecting that new rescue details from the government were too sparse. The Dow Jones industrials dropped 382 points.

The president spoke shortly after Senate passage of an $838 billion emergency economic stimulus bill cleared the way for talks with the House on a final compromise. In a display of urgency, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel traveled to the Capitol for meetings that stretched into the night with Democratic leaders as well as moderate senators whose views — and votes — will be key to any deal.

Separately, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner outlined plans for spending much of the $350 billion in financial bailout money recently cleared by Congress, and the Federal Reserve announced it would commit up to $1 trillion to make loans more widely available to consumers.
Taken together, the events marked at least a political watershed if not an economic turning point — the day the three-week old administration and its congressional allies assumed full control of the struggle against the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The vote was 61-37 in the Senate to pass the stimulus, with moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania joining Democrats in support.

Even before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Obama at the White House to go over the task ahead.
The Democratic leaders have long pledged to have legislation on Obama's desk by mid-month, and some Democrats said there was an informal target of Wednesday for agreement on a bill that would likely wind up in the range of $800 billion.
The political urgency bumped up against other obstacles, though.
The House measure includes roughly $70 billion more spending than the Senate's, but it lacks Senate-approved tax breaks totaling more than $100 billion for new car buyers, home purchasers and upper middle income families.

In a further obstacle, Collins and other Senate moderates — in both parties — signaled they will work to hold the cost of the final bill below $800 billion. That's less than the $820 billion in spending and tax cuts combined in the bill that cleared the House as well as the $838 billion legislation the Senate wrote.
Additionally, Obama has campaigned particularly energetically to include funds for school construction in the bill. At the insistence of Collins, the Senate measure omitted money for that purpose, and it wasn't clear whether she had eased her position on the presidential priority.
Whatever the cost of the final bill, it will add to the deficit, and that created another little-mentioned dilemma for the administration and Democrats.
Future spending bills on domestic programs or tax cuts will probably have a far more difficult time gaining the support necessary to pass without offsetting spending cuts or tax increases that would hold the deficit level.
Obama has campaigned energetically in recent days for passage of the stimulus bill, at the White House, on visits to other federal agencies, in his trip to Florida and a similar appearance Monday in a high-unemployment area of Indiana.

Reid depicted a president deeply involved in the compromise effort as well. He said Obama had "certain set ideas as to what he thinks should be done" but declined to elaborate.
The president set the context for the unfolding events Monday night at his first presidential news conference when he said, "With the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life."
Geithner outlined some of the details, although he and aides left numerous questions unanswered.
"We have to both jump-start job creation and private investment, and we must get credit flowing again to businesses and families," Geithner said at a news conference. He pledged to "fundamentally reshape" the financial industry bailout that began last fall under the Bush administration, and he announced that at least $50 billion would be spent helping homeowners facing foreclosure. He also said new steps would hold banks accountable for their use of bailout funds.

One element of the administration's approach calls for using as much as $100 billion in federal bailout funds to give banks, hedge funds or other investors the incentive to purchase so-called toxic assets carried on the books of other financial institutions. The goal is to return struggling banks to health so they can resume making loans, and an administration fact sheet said the amount of government and private funds combined will be "on an initial scale of up to $500 billion, with the potential to expand up to $1 trillion."
The Federal Reserve announced it would commit up to $1 trillion to purchase bonds or other assets backed by consumer loans. The Treasury will guarantee a portion of the Fed investment by putting up $100 billion, an increase from a $20 billion commitment that Bush administration had announced.

The goal of this program is to make it easier for consumers to buy cars or obtain student loans, small business loans or other types of credit that have dried up in recent months.
Geithner said $50 billion in bailout funds would be dedicated to an effort to prevent mortgage foreclosure of "owner-occupied middle class homes." Few details were provided.

‘No Stimulus Petition’ is blowing up as Obama faces full-court press

The two hottest searches on Google today are for Americans for Prosperity and No Stimulus Petition, which links you to the anti-Obama stimulus package movement and an online petition. Evidence enough that Barack Obama faces an uphill battle for the hearts and minds, as his White House has allowed the anti-stimulus package forces to define the legislation and the terms of battle. Classic framing theory, and surprising to see just how rookie the Obama Administration handled it.

One reason is likely that he won’t/can’t stand up publicly to the self-destructive House Democrats. Sure, less than 1 percent of the House bill was really pork. But it was pork that was indefensible, and at a total tab of more than 800 billion, it was pork that individually ran into the tens of millions of dollars.

Out in Real America, that kind of cash is still big money and can’t be p’shawed away so easily. For the past week, my email inbox has been stuffed with pointed, funny and (mostly) successful anti-stimulus propaganda: The Libertarian Party, “America’s third largest party tonight urged Senate Republicans and Democrats to scrap plans their joint plans for a $780 billion package of wealth transfers and expanded government spending;” the National Black Republicans, “The fierce urgency of pork;” and the new House Republican plan website that “details the smarter, simpler stimulus plan proposed by House Republicans that will create twice the jobs at half the price “

So as Obama preps for his Fort Myers dog-and-pony on Tuesday and a prime-time news conference tonight to try to take back the high ground in his first major legislative battle, here are 10 Talking Points for what he must say and commit to do:

1. Obama must admit that the House leadership screwed up and included some projects that it shouldn’t have, and that he is disappointed in his Democratic colleagues, that even in the toughest of times, they can’t break their habits.
   
   
2. After that, Obama must say that even if the Democrats are guilty of throwing the first punch, Republicans responding disproportionately by going nuclear. The rhetoric from the GOP has been transparently clear, that, for many of the Republican congressmen, this is about giving Obama a black eye and not about what’s best for the U.S. economy.
   
   
3. Then admit that it is a failure of your first two weeks in office that you didn’t enforce your voter mandate for change properly by bitch-slapping both sides.
   
   
4. Announce that the bill must shrink further. The public has gotten the message that borrowing all this money is going to screw up our country in about a decade. Hell, even the Congressional Budget Office is saying this. And cutting either the Senate plan or the House plan further is going to require you to cut some welfare-related spending, in food stamps and health care. (Florida alone is in line for more than $5.3 billion in such funds.) Yes, those monies would go directly into the economy, as poor people have no choice but to spend them right away. But voters aren’t going to buy borrowing lots of cash today to expand safety nets. It seems to make more sense to build infrastructure, which will always be there once built, vs. providing safety-net help, a more ephemeral expenditure.
   
   
5. Obama must reject the tax cut-happy Republican plans as being, at best, inefficient in achieving short-term economic stimulus. Yes, go ahead and bring up President Bush’s poorly thought out stimulus tax rebate last year that gave us all $600 or $1,200 or some amount in between or lower and that mostly found its way into saving accounts or paying down credit card debt without any impact in the broader economy.
   
   
6. Play up the personal tax cuts in the House package, a $500 per worker cut that would be paid out in lower withholding over a period of months. Yes, it’s not instant stimulus; but studies overwhelmingly show that when workers believe they will have more money going forward (rather than in a one-time check) they are more likely to spend additional dollars into the economy. So in simple language, Obama has to tell the peeps: A one-time rebate wastes our valuable borrowed money, and my plan will give you a little more for a longer time.
   
   
7. And then promise longer-term tax adjustment when the economy rebounds. No reason to bankrupt the nation even further now, but folks deserve a reward for buckling down during this period. (Jeffrey Sachs disagrees, saying that taxes in the future will have to rise.) The only way to do this kind of cut is to follow through on your promises to critically analyze government functions and right-size the federal government.
   
   
8. Tell your Democratic congressional leaders to beef up (just a little) tax breaks for small companies. The House plan had a pretty good cut but it could be better, and it would both stimulate the economy and NFIB Republicans happy.
   
   
9. Talk a lot about the hundreds of billions in bricks-and-mortar projects that will transform our communities and nations to prepare us for the century ahead. The roads. The better energy grid that will allow us to really use solar and wind technologies under development. The transit systems that will take pollution-spewing cars off the roads. Naysayers are branding such government spending as “socialism,” but Salon has a nice answer to that in this slideshow. The projects, and the science/engineering innovation that they will fuel, will pay both short-term and long-term dividends.
   
   
10. Did I mention to talk about the science and engineering for the infrastructure? This is our generation’s shot “at putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade.” The infrastructure spending isn’t just about cutting the backlog of planned state construction projects, although there is some of that; it is about a new future direction for the nation’s energy and transportation. And is anybody out there really happy either with energy or transportation?

Stimulus bill survives Senate test, moves ahead

I know there is a lot of people out there with opinons on this economic stimulus bill. Is it good? is it bad? Can it be improved? I cant see how it can be a bad thing, but please comment, tell me what you think and why.

An $838 billion economic stimulus bill backed by the White House survived a key test vote in the Senate Monday despite strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.

Monday's vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to advance the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.

The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.

Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.
As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.
"There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.
He said passage would mark "the first step on the long road to recovery."
Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week.
"This bill has the votes to pass. We know that," conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.
As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.
Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size — $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.
Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
At the same time, the differences are considerable.

The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes.
Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars.
Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats.
There are dozens of differences on spending.

The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic.
On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter.