By THE APE, on September 3rd, 2010
 Unemployed. Photo by Erix on flickr. The U.S. Labor Department announced Friday that nonfarm payrolls dropped by 54,000 and manufacturing shedding 25,000 jobs. In a separate survey the unemployment rate rose to 9.6%. With the U.S. economy shedding jobs for three straight months — at a time when hiring is traditionally higher than other parts of the year — worries are beginning mount about the possibility for a double-dip recession.
The numbers are likely to be on center stage in Washington, as policy makers are increasingly being pressured to find ways to spur economic growth. With the coming elections this November, incumbents cannot afford to appear to not be unresponsive to the economic woes — but that may be too late.
Republicans are becoming increasingly vocal about the economy, citing the need to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. Democrats are held in a bind, with moderates suggesting a full extension of tax cuts, liberals supporting an extension of tax cuts to the middle class, and many progressives demanding not only an end to the tax cuts but the need for further tax increases to pay for their bloating government agenda.
However, criticism does not stop at the Hill. Many are questioning the effectiveness of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s initiatives to help “fix” the economy. With interest rates at record lows and the Federal Reserve buying American debt, many are concerned that the Fed has used up all of its leverage over the economy and a further downturn will go undeterred by Federal Bank initiatives.
For employment to stay level and for the economy to expand, economists say that an increase of 100,000 jobs is needed to offset layoffs in an average economic cycle. The report released Friday showed that the private-sector’s addition of 67,000 jobs was not enough to offset cutbacks from the loss of temporary census jobs in the government.
With an increasing unemployment rate, many who would normally be looking forward to a long weekend away from work wish they had a long weekend they could work.
Further Reading:
Private Sector Adds 67,000 Jobs
Bernanke out of moves, critics say
Pence says Republican majority would move first to extend Bush tax cuts
By THE APE, on August 31st, 2010
 Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D - TX - 30) By Michael Servis, THE APE
U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D – TX – 30) has become the third African American, Democratic Congressman to make national headlines in August for ethics violations. Due to the push-back by the Congressional Black Caucus in the ethics probes of Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel, it is not likely that the Democratic Congress will push for yet another ethics probe of one of its black representatives.
The Dallas Morning News has brought national attention to Johnson this past week, reporting that she awarded eight prestigioius scholarships to her grandsons and her top aide’s children last year, and since 2005, she has awarded 23 scholarships that were in violation of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s rules for eligibility.
To put this in perspective, Johnson has had the authority to grant up to $10,000 in scholarships each year; she has broken down the funds into approximately ten scholarships each year. Last year, almost every scholarship she granted went to a family member or a staff member’s family.
Johnson has admitted that she had awarded her family college scholarships, claiming that she didn’t know that it was against the Foundation’s rules. She has also explained that there were not enough qualifying individuals who applied and she saw nothing wrong with giving the scholarships to her relatives, for whom she saw as most deserving of such awards.
However, after the story made national news, Johnson has changed her tune. After claiming ignorance and giving explanation to what is inexplicable, she is now stating that she will give the award money — of possibly more than $25,000 — back to the foundation by the end of the week.
It is apparent that Johnson has used her position to benefit family members and is in direct violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Although a Congressional investigation is not likely in the immediate term, some are calling for an investigation by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.
If the House of Representative’s ethics committee were to investigate, such an investigation would likely come after the Foundation’s inquiry. Because the Congressional Black Caucus has come out in defense of other members who are charged with more serious violations, it is unlikely that the Foundation will pursue an investigation of Johnson.
If Johnson follows through with reimbursing scholarship money to the Foundation — whether complete or partial — expect this case to be swept under the rug by the political establishment and buried by the national news media.
Further Reading:
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson says she’ll repay scholarship funds by week’s end
Watchdogs not sure Johnson will face ethics probe over scholarship scandal
By THE APE, on August 31st, 2010
 Russian Prime Minister and Soon-to-Be President... Again. Photo by Remy Steinegger, World Economic Forum on Wikimedia Commons Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has signaled that he plans to return to the presidency in 2012 and serve for six more years. Under Russia’s law, the president can only serve two consecutive terms. Additionally, the president has extensive powers, whereas the Prime Minister plays a more symbolic role.
However, it is clear that Putin’s hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev is nothing more than face and Putin still calls the shots. Although Russia portrays itself as a democracy on paper, Putin’s party has squashed its opposition and one party controls government — a party for which Putin is definitive, uncontested leader.
Don’t expect much to change when Putin reascends to the presidency. Russia will continue to consolidate power and further its imperialist policies toward former Soviet states.
Further Reading:
Putin hint will return to Kremlin in 2012
By THE APE, on August 30th, 2010
It is necessary to regulate traffic in order to optimize internet usage. Currently, internet service providers provide packages that offer several different priorities. Higher priority users pay a higher fee. Someone who uses the internet just to surf will not need or want the bandwidth and priority of someone running a website or a large corporation or a hospital. Under net neutrality, internet service providers would be stripped of there ability to discriminate, and the internet surfer would have the same priority as a hospital making life-and-death decisions. It will also dramatically increase the number of users using what was once a priority level of bandwidth. As a result, the internet will become bogged down.
Furthermore, the government wants to enforce cost controls so that everybody has equal access, and it wants to make internet service providers’ service lines community accessed in order to prevent them from becoming a monopoly — that is the argument anyways. The problem here is that internet service providers will no longer have the incentive, nor the resources, to continue investment and development of new infrastructure and technology. They will no longer be able to make a profit.
Without internet service providers regulating the internet privately, the government will naturally become the chief regulator. This is why you see organizations with an interest in pro-government — whether it be progressives wanting to quash free speech or fundamentalists wanting to have more power to destroy the porn industry — supporting net-neutrality.
The truth is that there isn’t a need for “net-neutrality.” The internet is working just fine, people are gaining access in record numbers and innovation is a constant. All of the rhetoric by progressives — ones of social justice — addresses a non-problem. But if they get their way, there will become a huge one.
Further Reading:
Tech at Night: Net Neutrality, FreedomWorks, Christian Coalition, RIAA, Copyright, Cybersecurity, Intel, McAfee
Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN
Verizon’s Tauke: Goog-Vz proposal would ‘fulfill’ Obama’s campaign promise
Wikipedia: Net neutrality
By THE APE, on August 30th, 2010
 New Mexico Gubernatorial Candidate Susana Martinez (R) One of the most watched governors’ races in the country by politicos is the gubernatorial election in New Mexico. In a new survey, Dona Ana County District Attorney Susana Martinez is leading Mexico Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, 45% – 39% respectively. This comes on the heals of an August 26, Rasmussen poll that gave Martinez a five point advantage over Denish, 48% – 43%.
The New Mexico gubernatorial race has been of great interest because it is seen as a test for Hispanic support in the Republican Party. With New Mexico having a heavy Hispanic population, a Martinez victory will have great symbolic implications nationwide. It comes at a crucial time, when Republicans are increasingly becoming vocal about securing the border and stepping up law enforcement efforts against illegal immigration. If Republicans are able to show they can still court Hispanics effectively, it could cause politicians on Capitol Hill to reevaluate the political impact of their positions on illegal immigration.
Beyond immigration issues, Martinez is also becoming part of a growing story with regard to the new wave of conservative women seeking political office.
Furthermore, the race is becoming a referendum on the Democratic Party and the Hispanic Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (D). Martinez has effectively tied her opponent Denish to his colleague in the governor’s office. New Mexicans have become increasingly dissatisfied with Richardson, whose approval ratings have dipped to 33%. If Martinez wins and is able to reform government and bring prosperity back to New Mexico, it could send a positive signal for American conservative philosophy to the fastest-growing voting block in the country.
Further Reading:
The Fix: Susana Martinez leads N.M. governors race
Election 2010: New Mexico Governor
By THE APE, on August 23rd, 2010
There has been a recent effort by big players in Republican politics to come to the support of establishment candidate Bill McCollum in the wake of allegations of fraudulent conduct by outsider Rick Scott, who had been leading in the polls.
Sunday, Mike Huckabee endorsed Bill McCollum:
“Huck PAC and I are proud to endorse Bill McCollum for governor of Florida. Bill McCollum first served our country and the people of Florida as an officer in the Navy JAG Corps, then as a member of Congress, and most recently as Florida’s Attorney General. A native Floridian, Bill not only understands the issues facing Florida but he has the experience needed to make real positive changes for the state.
“Bill’s top priorities reside at the core of true conservatism: creating jobs, strengthening Florida’s economy, cutting spending, lowering taxes and implementing significant tax reform. Bill opposes Obamacare – in fact, he is joined by 19 other states filing a lawsuit declaring penalizing individuals for failing to purchase insurance is unconstitutional.
“Bill shares our traditional values and is a pro-life, pro-family conservative that received a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee during his time in Congress. Bill is also an advocate for our Constitutional right to bear arms and will work tirelessly to stop any attempt to change that.
“Gladly, I’ve already cast my ballot for Bill McCollum and I hope you’ll join me in supporting him. Let’s make sure Bill McCollum is our next governor.”
Businessman Steve Forbes also came to the defense of McCollum in an op-editorial, questioning the possible corruption Scott.
Forbes: You Can’t Trust Rick Scott
Recently, Dick Morris also went out of his way to give support to McCollum in an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor, stating that Scott has no chance of winning the general election because of his unwillingness to discuss allegations of possible scandals.
With favored candidate Alex Sink (D) leading his Republican challengers in the latest polls and an independent candidate who has double digit support, the GOP has no room to screw up. A Scott win may likely hand Sink a victory.
Real Clear Politics Polling Data For Florida Governor’s Race
|
|
Obama’s “I Don’t Care” Speech
President Barack Obama -- possibly thinking about his last golf game?
By Michael Servis, THE APE
In his speech declaring an end to official combat missions in Iraq, Obama said Tuesday evening that he wishes to ‘turn the page,’ portraying a sentiment of demoralization and disapproval of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
He never mentioned the success of the mission and how such success will affect Iraq’s future. The only break from a monotonous, flat discussion was when he declared the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and he discussed all he has done to achieve his promise for withdrawal – although most of the withdrawal strategy had already been in place by the prior administration.
It was clear that victory and a vision for a grand foreign policy strategy was not on Barack Obama’s mind. No strategy for the future. No solution to the increasing threats to national and international security. Almost no mention of the importance of liberty and bringing freedom to countries across the world.
His grand foreign policy strategy is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But of course this is not a strategy, but a stated goal, which has not been given a deserving explanation. While refusing to acknowledge his own mistake in opposing the Iraq surge and its success, Obama announced the new efforts for a surge in Afghanistan. The overall strategy? To withdraw troops in 2011.
Obama’s flat speech never once resonated a strategy of hope, of a future, of American excellence. It was truly a pathetic display for a pathetic president. It was embarrassing.
To add insult to injury, President Obama turned a lackluster foreign policy speech into a rhetorical opportunity to reiterate economic lies he has perpetuated over the course of the past year. He preaches about a need to put millions of Americans back to work, something that should have been done a year and a half ago. Oh wait, he did preach the same words a year and a half ago. And what has America to show for it?
While he finally acknowledged the sincerity of President Bush when discussing operations in Iraq, Obama slams him by perpetuating the lies about the current state of the economy. Of course, instead of mentioning Bush’s name, Obama has changed his direct rhetoric to one of insinuation, stating that it was the policies of the “past decade” that have created the financial mess he is now not dealing with.
Obama sites the war spending and increase in debt to finance it as a cause for the record deficits and financial mess. However, what he doesn’t mention is that his failed stimulus, passed in his first month in office, cost as much as the wars of the last decade – and it has not been paid for either. Obama also discusses the need to unleash innovation into our economy, but his policies are preventing such innovation from being realized. He discusses the need to end our dependence on foreign oil, but he has put a moratorium on future drilling in the gulf and has blocked efforts for domestic energy exploration.
President Obama acknowledged the importance of America’s economic strength in developing a successful – but unspecified – foreign policy strategy. However, Obama himself has done nothing for improving the American economy. If such rhetoric were coming out of the mouth of President Bill Clinton, it may have actually had a hint of sincerity to it. However, for Obama to make such statements would be laughable if so many people were not suffering from his failures as president.
What made his speech insulting was his lack of sincerity and his lack of enthusiasm toward America’s future. Obama seemed agitated and annoyed, as if he was bothered that he had to give a speech on something he didn’t care about. Sorry to have interrupted your golfing career Mr. Obama. If you are not interested in America’s future – or at least not enough to muster up a bit of enthusiasm and actually take the time to articulate a vision for its future – then maybe you should have refrained from giving this speech; it would have at least saved us the insult.
Text to Full Speech