[sunnykerr]

Barack Obama Thread - He'll rename the tenth month of the year ''Barack-tober.''
Caroline Kennedy qualified for senate seat?
Birth of Octuplets in California Raises Ethical Questions
Republicans elect first black national party chairman
Riots erupt in Oakland after slain father laid to rest
Edwards Admits Affair
Sen. Edward Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

Banner by 4N6 DNA

Republicans Stop Senate Vote on Spending Bill WASHINGTON - Republican senators on Thursday thwarted Democratic leaders' efforts to pass a heavily debated $410 billion bill that would fund most government operations this year. The bill has been blasted by Sen. John McCain and others for including about 8,000 "earmarks" for pet projects. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is one vote short of the 60 votes needed to advance the measure toward a final vote. The Nevada Democrat has now decided to allow Republicans more opportunities to change their votes next Monday. Because of the impasse, the government will run out of money for most of its operations on Friday. Reid said Thursday night that both the House and the Senate will now have to pass a stopgap spending bill by Friday night. Battle over earmarks Republicans say the sprawling bill is too costly and loaded with pet projects. Those earmarks have drawn the ire of conservatives who equate pet projects with wasteful, unnecessary spending — even though many Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers seek them out. The Senate appeared poised Thursday to send President Barack Obama a huge spending bill that awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The $410 billion spending bill, spanning 1,122 pages, has an extraordinary reach, wrapping nine spending bills together to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Once considered a relatively bipartisan measure, the measure has come under attack from Republicans — and a handful of Democrats — who say it is filled with wasteful pork barrel projects. The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Obama's economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash. And, to the embarrassment of Obama — who promised during last year's campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barreling ways — the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee. McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's opponent last year, called the measure "a swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending" and again criticized the president for pledging to sign the measure despite his earlier promises on earmarks. "It doesn't sound like he's willing to use his veto pen to back up his vow," McCain said. Earmarks run gamut The earmarks run the gamut. There's $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo., $238,000 to fund a deep-sea voyaging program for native Hawaiian youth, agricultural research projects, and grants to local police departments, among many others. While earmarks have come under attack from conservative watchdog groups and cable television commentators, lawmakers in both parties seek them, arguing they best know the needs of their states and home districts. Under a long-standing tradition, Republicans get about 40 percent of them since they are the minority party. Several lawmakers took to the floor during the week to defend their projects, including Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who backed $1.7 million for pig odor research. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., promised $3.8 million to preserve and redevelop part of old Tiger Stadium to help revitalize a distressed area of Detroit. In another matter, by a 52-42 vote, Democrats cleared the way for the Obama administration to reverse rules issued late in the Bush administration reverse that says greenhouse gases cannot be restricted in an effort to protect polar bears from global warming. Another Bush administration rule that reduced the input of federal scientists in endangered species decisions can also be quickly overturned without a lengthy rulemaking process. The measure also reverses Bush administration policies that tightened rules on Cuba travel and allowed Mexican trucking firms broad access to U.S. highways. A program popular with Republicans that gives $7,500 private school scholarships to District of Columbia students as an alternative to the city's troubled public schools is in danger of being shut down next year. Big increase for infants, poor The big increases — among them a 21 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent hike for housing vouchers for the poor — represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with President George W. Bush over money for domestic programs. Democrats abandoned the budget process last year, opting against veto battles with Bush and instead gambling that Obama would win the election and sign the massive bill into law. Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system. Congress also awarded itself a 10 percent increase in its own budget, bringing it to $4.4 billion. But the House inserted a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1. The State Department and foreign aid accounts would receive a 12 percent boost. Separately, the House on Thursday rejected an effort by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., to launch an ethics committee investigation into possible connections between campaign contributions made by the PMA Group and special projects designated in the spending bill that benefit clients of the firm. The vote to table, or kill, Flake's resolution was 222-181.

Republicans stop Senate vote on spending bill - - MSNBC.com

Sheesh! No wonder CNN's running a story on whether or not Obama's taking on too much too soon. If the Democrats can't behave, that's not saying much to the follow-through the President will be able to have!

[ceilirose]

Taxpayers for Common Sense

Here's a site that lists the "biggest earmarkers" by state. Yes I understand some of this stuff is wasteful. But the Republicans who are leading the charge seem to benefit more than other states. Menendez, the Democratic Senator from NJ, doesn't want the bill to pass because it lightens the restrictions against Cuba.

It's pure politics and if the government shuts down tomorrow these men and women are going to have more problems with their constituents than wasteful pork - as they call it. My guess is that after everyone huffs and puffs about it a compromise will be reached. McCain will still be angry. In fact very angry but life will go on.

Also Gov. Jindal spoke lightly of volcano monitoring last week but if you live close to a volcano you are considered. They are around the US West, Alaska and Hawaii. I'm not sure he'd like funds to be decreased for hurricane warning methods.

On another note - Karl Rove will finally appear before Congress to discuss his "role" in the firing of US attorneys and whether he had a role in the bribery conviction of a former Alabama Governor.

Rove Set to Testify About Alabama Governor - Washington Post Investigations

[Callace]

I really dont see what is so wrong with earmarking? If Government is gonna spend a lot of money, isnt it an advantage to have a clear idea of what it is they are going to spend it on??

[Maybe_Tomorrow]

Has anyone read about the meeting between Brown and Obama? I'm a little bit worried about the Britain/US friendship, it seems the British media are turning on Obama a bit, they seem set on lessening the alliance.

[Callace]

Really? that's strange. He is such a popular guy all over Europe. (But then britons always were a bit strange in such regands)

[vc318]

Democrats abandoned the budget process last year, opting against veto battles with Bush and instead gambling that Obama would win the election and sign the massive bill into law.

Wow, that was a big assumption on their part.

I'd just like to see things get moving. You get a little sick and tired hearing about the high unemployment rate and massive housing slump every...single...day.

[sunnykerr]

Unemployment Hits 25-Year High Jobless rate hits 8.1% in February as a record-high 12.5 million people are unemployed. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy continued to hemorrhage jobs in February, bringing total job losses over the last six months to more than 3.3 million, and taking the unemployment rate to its highest level in 25 years. The government reported Friday that employers slashed 651,000 jobs in February, down from a revised loss of 655,000 jobs in January. December's loss was also revised higher to a loss of 681,000 jobs, a 59-year high for losses in one month. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 650,000 jobs in February. "The economy is headed south with a vengeance," said Kurt Karl, head of economic research for the U.S. unit of insurer Swiss Re. The unemployment rate rose to 8.1% from 7.6% in January. It was the highest reading since December 1983 and higher than economists' projections of 7.9%. Most workers who have jobs today are not old enough to have worked in a labor market this bad, while 13% of workers weren't even alive the last time unemployment was at this level. The survey of households found 12.5 million people are now unemployed, the most since records started being kept in 1940. The U.S. economy has now lost 4.4 million jobs since the start of 2008. To put that in perspective, that's about equal to the total number of jobs in each of the following states -- Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina -- at the end of 2007. "It's a dismal report. We thought we'd have another month like this, and I think we have a couple of more coming," said Tig Gilliam, chief executive of Adecco Group North America, a unit of the world's largest employment firm. "We've got a lot of layoffs being announced that haven't been implemented." Gilliam said he expects the unemployment rate to rise to 9% within the next few months. Other economists echoed Gilliam's view that the battered labor market has yet to hit bottom. John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia, pointed to the weekly initial jobless claims, which are still above 600,000 a week, and the large increase in the number of people working part time when they'd prefer full-time work as signs of more job losses to come. "I'd love to believe this is the worst, but I suspect we'll continue to lose jobs for months to come," he said. "All we can hope is that the pace would slow down." The Obama administration issued a statement saying that the jobs report and overall economic problems are the reasons why it moved quickly to get an economic stimulus package passed by Congress last month. "There's no doubt that we have a long way to go to get this economy moving again, and the jobs numbers are one more reminder of that," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One. But some economists questioned whether the stimulus package will be able to do much to address job losses in the near term. "The stimulus won't have immediate effect on job creation even though some planned layoffs could be cancelled," said Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University Channel Islands. He said most of the job growth that the $787 billion in government spending will create won't be seen until 2010. Underemployment rate keeps rising as well The number of workers with part-time jobs who either can't find full-time positions or have had their hours cut jumped by 787,000 in February to 8.6 million. Counting those part-time workers, along with discouraged job seekers no longer counted as unemployed by the government, the so-called underemployment rate hit 14.8% in February, up from 13.9% in January. This was the fifth straight record high for that reading, which has been calculated since 1994. Silvia said the cut in total hours worked and the jump in those now working only part-time are both signs that the overall economy will continue to slow. He said many people with part-time jobs are not earning enough to pay their bills. That will probably lead to more cuts in consumer spending, which in turn will lead to more drops in revenue for businesses and more layoffs. The job losses were widespread, with manufacturing and construction companies, as well as business and professional services firms all losing more than 100,000 workers. The report also showed that businesses in more three-quarters of the sectors in the economy reduced the number of jobs in the last month. Over the last three months, 83.2% percent of industries have lost workers, a record high for that reading. "What started in construction and manufacturing and financial services has spread to every industry," said Gilliam.

Unemployment hits 25-year high - Mar. 6, 2009

[vc318]

Kind of sad but when you would pull up to that fast-food window, you used to expect a young teen taking your order. Now it's your middle-aged neighbor down the street. And we used to worry about the kiddies preparing our food. Yikes. I'm still uncertain how much this stimulus plan is going to really boost job growth but I guess it's something.

[sunnykerr]

Well, inevitably, things have to get worse before they get better. New projects and shifts in policy can't begin to yield results immediately, especially since the politicians don't seem to be able to restrain themselves from administrative shenanigans.

Either way, it seems clear that full-time jobs are being lost left and right and that a lot more people have had to rely on part-time work, which is probably not what anyone had in mind as their career path whiel they were growing up.

In a way, it's good to see that most people are still taking charge of their lives as much as they can in these difficult times. We've been handed a severe blow, but the will is clearly still there.

[Callace]

That sucks!! But can somebody explain to me what this phrase means in this context:

"The economy is headed south with a vengeance," said Kurt Karl, head of economic research for the U.S. unit of insurer Swiss Re.

It doesnt make sense in the way I have seen it used before. (or, in some weird way it does, but...)

This item might fit better for the economy thread though, since you are discussing unemployment issues there right now?

[vc318]

^ No, it's a good point to bring up. Some economists rather be real with the issue at hand while others would rather think that everything is just fine or that things will rectify itself.

[Callace]

I dont entirely understand how that connects to my post, but I agree with the statement. modern economy seems to have been developing a theory that as long as they do nothing to handle things, everything will be taken care of on it's own. that the market's "invisible hand" will come in and control everything if only all visible hands are drawn away

[Maybe_Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by callace (View Post) Really? that's strange. He is such a popular guy all over Europe. (But then britons always were a bit strange in such regands)

I think it's because they view Obamas treatment of Brown as disrespectful. That's what i'm gathering from some of their papers and even some American political blogs. He's new to the position though and i really didn't expect him to know what was good protocol when meeting important world leaders the first time he did it.

[Callace]

yeah, that is a good point But I really hope they are not that sensitive. Give the guy some right to commit beginners errors!!

[sunnykerr]

It's hard not to be extra sensitive because it's his first time out, when you think about it. Because people are bound to interpret whatever he says and does as an indicator of how his administration will act.

And he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. So anything he does is bound to be digested and re-digested by everyone and their brother. Because everything he does will have an impact on the world. And, let's face it, the guy before him did NOT have a good impact on the world. So people are gonna put Obama under a microscope. It may not be fair, but it is inevitable.