Obama Newsroom

HONOLULU — Six recruiters were accused Thursday of luring 400 laborers from Thailand to the United States and forcing them to work, according to a federal indictment that the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history.

The indictment alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by four employees of labor recruiting company Global Horizons Manpower Inc. and two Thailand-based recruiters. It said the recruiters lured the workers with false promises of lucrative jobs, then confiscated their passports, failed to honor their employment contracts and threatened to deport them.

Once the Thai laborers arrived in the United States starting in May 2004, they were put to work and have since been sent to sites in states including Hawaii, Washington, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, according to attorneys and advocates.

Many laborers were initially taken to farms in Hawaii and Washington, where work conditions were the worst, said Chancee Martorell, executive director for the Los Angeles-based Thai Community Development Center, which represents 263 Thai workers who were brought to the U.S. by Global Horizons.

A woman who answered the phone at Global Horizons' Los Angeles office refused to take a message seeking comment Thursday.

The six defendants include Global Horizons President and CEO Mordechai Orian, 45; Director of International Relations Pranee Tubchumpol, 44; Hawaii regional supervisor Shane Germann, 41; and onsite field supervisor Sam Wongsesanit, 39. The Thailand recruiters were identified as Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai.

They face maximum sentences ranging from five years to 70 years in prison, according to the Department of Justice.

Orian wasn't home when the FBI attempted to arrest him in Los Angeles on Thursday, but his surrender is being negotiated, said FBI Special Agent Tom Simon. Orian's attorney, Alan Diamante, didn't return a phone message seeking comment.

Two were arrested Thursday morning in Los Angeles and Fargo, N.D., said Simon. Another Global Horizons employee was expected to turn himself in, and the United States will work with Thailand's government to apprehend the remaining two suspects.

"In the old days, they used to keep slaves in their places with whips and chains. Today it's done with economic threats and intimidation," Simon said.

Honolulu immigration attorney Melissa Vincenty said the indictment against Global Horizons is a major blow to labor trafficking nationwide.

"Global was the big fish in all of this. It's a pretty big case, with hundreds and hundreds of workers," said Vincenty, who represents 56 of the Thai laborers. "They're all over the United States."

Submit this article to The Obama News

OPPONENTS OF PROP23 IN CALIFORNIA FACE A DAUNTING NEW OPPONENT
San Francisco, September 2

Late Thursday night, those who support progress on climate & energy policy received bad news that we expected, but did not want to believe would actually happen.

The billionaire Koch brothers, one of clean energy's most effective national opponents and funders of the increasingly influential Tea Party, contributed their first $1 million in the fight to overturn California's climate and energy laws in this year's election. No doubt there is more to come. Reports on September 2nd also showed that Tesoro Oil Corp. contributed $1 million to bring the total that they, Valero Energy, and other out of state oil companies have given to win Proposition 23 to more than $8 million. That's more than most races for senate and governor in other states.

An impressive coalition of public health, environmental, and clean tech leaders has spent the last few months fighting against Proposition 23 in California, the statewide ballot initiative that will overturn a slew of climate and energy policies -- from the state's cap on carbon pollution to its 33% renewable energy requirement to building efficiency and low carbon fuel standards. The Clean Economy Network published a report in July, "Going Backwards", that combines with other studies to lay out the real threat to investments we have made and companies we have started.

Unfortunately, we have now reached the point where everyone must get into this fight in a real way or the other side's tens of millions of dollars will convince Californians to vote for Prop23. This is not theory. The oil and coal companies have won in Washington and now have opened a second front in California. Polling makes it absolutely clear that Californians are evenly divided on turning back progress for clean tech because of their anxieties about a continuing weak state economy.

And the Koch's, as a New Yorker article two weeks ago made clear, are avowed and aggressive opponents of anything that threatens their oil refining empire. Brothers Charles and David Koch own virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate whose annual revenues exceed a hundred billion dollars. They operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries also owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country.

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace has issued a report defining the company as a "kingpin of climate science denial." The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups.

So now, with 31 days until early voting starts on Prop23 in California and only 60 days until the election, talking needs to turn into action. That means if you live in the state, tell your friends and vote early. It also means raising the money to deliver our story to California's voters.

After losing in the U.S. Senate this summer, climate & energy supporters can't afford to have the clock turned back in California.

Those who think one state does not matter -- and who hold out hope that wavering Senators will find courage in a post-election "lame duck" session on energy -- do not understand that a loss in California will create momentum and political risk that none of these politicians will resist.

So here's the proposition: Take a stand. Here. Now.

We can say that our competitive spirit and innovation apply to public policy and politics in a way that moves things forward. We can tell the oil and coal companies that enough is finally enough.

Because we have to. It's in the economy's interest. It's in our country's interest. And, yes, it's in our planet's interest.

---

No on 23!
Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition
www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com

The Success of California's AB32, the Bipartisan 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act
www.cabrightspot.com

Submit this article to The Obama News

Some have declared 2010 "The Year of the Woman" in politics. More apt, we should dub this year "The Year of the Businesswoman". Take a close look at the names on the fall election ballot. Many are seasoned businesswomen taking their first steps into the political arena.

This year 278 women are active candidates for governor, House and Senate in races across the country. Only the states of Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana and North Dakota do not have any women running.

Not since 1992, when a record number of women were voted into Congress has this "Year of the Woman" term been used. Then there were 256 female candidates on the ballot, 22 fewer than today.

Top of mind are Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in the state of California. Fiorina is the former CEO of Hewlett Packard and the Republican nominee for the California Senate seat against Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer. Whitman is the former CEO and President of eBay now running on the Republican ticket for Governor of California. The media is atwitter covering these two candidates, dubbing them the Republican Thelma and Louise of the Golden State. Yet while Whitman and Fiorina may be receiving a bulk of the coverage due to their near celebrity status, businesswomen across the nation are shifting into public service roles.

In South Carolina, Nikki Haley is the Republican nominee for the gubernatorial race. Haley is a member of the South Carolina Board of Representatives and immediately prior ran her family's multi-million dollar clothing company. Another newcomer is Linda McMahon, the Republican nominee for the Senate race in Connecticut. Until last year, she, along with her husband, operated World Wrestling Entertainment, a business they grew from 13 employees to well over 500 employees.

Republicans aren't alone on the businesswoman turned politician trend. After a 26-year career in business, most recently as the president of Florida Operations for Bank of America, Alex Sink is Florida's Democratic gubernatorial candidate. Sink is currently the Chief Financial Officer for the state. In Rhode Island, Gina Raimondo is the Democratic nominee for General Treasurer. Raimondo is a lawyer turned venture capitalist and co-founder of Judith Point Capital, a Rhode Island venture capital investment firm.

With unemployment at nearly 10% and our economy showing little sign of meaningful recovery, Americans yearn for new solutions. Women bring fresh faces to the political arena and, in many cases, the business acumen to put our economy back on track.

America needs an economic kick start and it only makes sense to turn to leaders who have a track record of proven results. These business women have established themselves as innovators and risk takers, turning profits where others could not. They have managed budgets in their companies, created jobs for their communities, and built new products and ideas to fuel economic growth.

With job creation as a top priority, demonstrated business savvy is exactly what this financial climate is calling for. Regardless of political leanings, this macro-trend of forward-thinking businesswomen entering the political arena could be just the jumpstart our economy needs.

Submit this article to The Obama News

In December of 2006, I introduced the Healthy Americans Act to reform the nation's health care system. Some on both sides of the aisle liked my bill, while others on both sides of the aisle did not. But the time has long since passed for debating the merits of the Healthy Americans Act. While I like to think that the legislation I spent many years developing helped advance and inform last year's debate, it became pretty clear at the beginning of 2009 that the White House and the Congressional leadership of both parties wanted to go a different way.

It's correct that I wanted health reform to do more to create choices and promote competition. But instead of spending the year on the sidelines criticizing my colleagues and advocating for my personal approach, I spent the year looking for opportunities to improve the legislation that WAS advancing through Congress. The same can be said of my health advocacy today, as I continue to look for ways to improve what is now law.

For example, in writing the Healthy Americans Act and working with the Congressional Budget Office on its score, I learned that giving consumers more choices is one of the most powerful ways to reduce health insurance costs and hold insurance companies accountable. While I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, I did get a provision included in the final bill that will allow a small group of Americans to convert their tax-excluded employer subsidies into vouchers that they can use to choose their own plans on the new health insurance exchanges. And I am already looking for opportunities to expand this provision so that more and more Americans are ultimately empowered to make their own health care choices.

Another provision that I got included in the final law came directly from my original legislative proposal. "Empowering States to be Innovative" (Section 632 in the Healthy Americans Act and Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) reflects my long held view that when it comes to health policy what works best for people in Tampa Bay, Florida doesn't always work as well for the residents of Coos Bay, Oregon. My state of Oregon has, in fact, long led the country in innovating approaches that have played a major factor in Oregon having some of the highest quality and lowest cost health care in the country. So both in writing my legislation and working to improve what is now law, I wanted to make it possible for states to keep innovating new approaches.

However, for states to really be empowered to be innovative the federal government has to be willing to give states a little leeway to implement their own approaches. A state, for example, can't offer a public option on its exchange if it has to follow the exact standards of the federal law that doesn't provide for one. Similarly, states can't hold health insurance costs down by joining other states to form "regional exchanges" with larger risk pools if they have to follow the federal law that requires that exchanges be state based. And, of course, no state-based approach - no matter how innovative - can work if everyone who participates in the state program gets fined by the federal government for failing to comply with the federal mandate.

So, in both the Healthy Americans Act and in the current health reform law, I included a provision that would allow states to gain an exemption from certain federal requirements - such as the individual mandate, the employer penalty and the exact standards for designing the exchanges, subsidies and basic health insurance policies - if they could find a way to do a better job of covering their state's citizens. And I have been working to help states, like my home state of Oregon, take advantage of this option and hopefully move-up the date when states can start applying for waivers. The reason for this - as the legislators in my state will attest - is that it's a lot less cost effective for states to implement their own approaches in 2017 if they also have to pay to implement the federally mandated approach in 2014. For those who claim this position represents a retreat from the health reform law, they are mistaken. I have been advocating virtually non-stop for states to have the right to go their own way, including during the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up up last fall when I got the provision included in the Senate bill. My letter to the state of Oregon last week was a continuation of my effort to promote state innovation in health care.

Of course, the temptation in today's gotcha political culture is to take any senator's comments on health care as being about scoring political points and either helping or hurting the White House. The truth here is that I have supported both an individual mandate and a state waiver for more than five years.

Again, both the individual mandate and the state waiver were a part of legislation that I introduced in 2006. And while this provision would allow states to opt-out of the federal health insurance mandate - which is what some politically motivated people are calling for right now - under my approach states will only be granted a waiver if they demonstrate they can do a better job of providing health care in their state than under the new federal law. To date, I haven't seen a single one of those states currently filing lawsuits against the individual mandate propose better ways of covering their citizens. In fact, one of the reasons I have been drawing attention to the state waiver is to highlight the insincerity of those filing lawsuits. If states aren't happy with the federal law they should be spending their energy innovating ways to do better rather than wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits that - if successful - would leave their state's citizens with nothing.

I continue to support the individual mandate unless a state can demonstrate that it will provide equal or better health care without one. I continue to prefer the individual mandate from the Wyden-Bennett bill to the one contained in the bill that passed, because it was accompanied by greater consumer choice and a rock-solid guarantee that all Americans would receive the same level of health coverage as their Member of Congress.

I voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not because I thought it was the best we could do, but because I thought it was a whole lot better than the current system. I still know that to be true. But in my mind, passing that law is far from "mission accomplished" and my constituents can count on me to keep working to improve that law and our nation's health care system, regardless of which way the political winds may be blowing.

Submit this article to The Obama News

Forget about the new oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The big breaking news is BP's attempt to leverage its promised $20 billion Gulf Restoration Fund to get the US government to let it keep drilling for oil in the Gulf.

The New York Times reports:

BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

[... ]

"If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow," said David Nagle, BP's executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, "makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs."

BP's global operations generated more than $33 billion in profits in 2009, so coming up with $20 billion shouldn't be an issue.

But, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388504575418602719011146.html" target="_hplink">as the Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 10, the Obama administration has permitted BP to finance the $20 billion exclusively from its Gulf of Mexico drilling operations:

The Obama administration and BP PLC are close to a deal to use future revenues from the oil giant's Gulf of Mexico operations to guarantee its $20 billion cleanup and compensation fund, a move that would give both sides an incentive to continue production in the Gulf, scene of the U.S.'s worst-ever offshore oil spill.

In his June 15 Oval Office address, President Obama explicitly said he would hold BP responsible for cleaning up the Gulf and compensating all those effected ( " target="_hplink">Video link here): "We will make BP pay for the damages... This fund will not be controlled by BP... BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region."

And when he met with BP's executives on June 16, BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg said they would pay to restore the Gulf, no strings attached (Video link here): "... a framework that will show the American people that we mean what we say... We will look after the American people."

Who would have guessed that a president who appeared to recognize the illegal as well as immoral nature of BP's business practices (after all, people died) would actually negotiate with them over the terms of the penalty they'd be paying?

Negotiating the terms of BP's penalty? Setting the stage for BP holding the $20-billion fund hostage to getting its way with the Congress of the United States?

Couldn't that be called "extortion"?

This is not how I thought the Obama administration would be treating BP in the face of this tragedy. BP does not deserve to be compensated for paying its debt to society.

This $20 billion is a penalty for operating the way it does. It is not some bizarre new form of political contribution.

The incompetence of the Bush administration is why the Katrina disaster was ultimately as tragic as it was. Will it turn out that the Obama administration was the opposite -- too smart for its own good -- and as a result produced the same result?

Playing cute -- financially speaking -- with BP is no way to deal with this kind of corporate behavior. And it may turn out to have been no way to insure that BP pays its debt to society without thinking it can get something in return.

Submit this article to The Obama News

There have been a host of Republican candidates for Senate -- chief among them Sharron Angle and Rand Paul -- who have taken heat this election cycle for ducking the press. Connecticut Senate aspirant Linda McMahon is not one of them. The former wrestling executive has not gone out of her way to avoid the media. She has, however, made some fairly interesting decisions about what press questions she will and won't answer.

In the past few weeks, McMahon has studiously refused to talk about what she would like to see done to both Social Security and Medicare. The Connecticut Republican has been upfront with her belief that the entitlement programs need reforming. She's argued that they are both going bankrupt and, in the process, bankrupting the country. But when pressed for specific remedies she's insisted that those two topics are not campaign issues.

"Here's my position: I really do think we're going to have strengthen all of our entitlement programs, but that's not really a discussion for the campaign trail," McMahon said late last week. "I think that really needs to be in the legislative arena where we can have bipartisan debate and really talk about that earnestly."

"She has never endorsed a specific entitlement reform," Ed Patru, McMahon's spokesperson told the National Review Online, the week prior. "There are no plans on that end for the campaign at all. She believes any plans for Social Security or Medicare must be divorced from the hyper-partisan arena of the campaign and be done in the legislative process."

While hardly a profile in political courage, McMahon's avoidance of specific Social Security and Medicare proposals has an obvious strategic purpose. Instead of choosing between a platform of more intense privatization (as embraced by some members of the GOP) or one that avoids deep cuts (as preferred by most of the public), she's avoided the topic altogether.

What's driven Democrats in Connecticut mad is not just the notion that a campaign is somehow an inappropriate time to discuss entitlement reform. Members of both parties have said they want to wait for the recommendations of the president's deficit commission before weighing in on the matter. It's that McMahon has managed to do this while presenting herself to voters as a savior of Social Security and bludgeoning her opponent, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, for supposedly cutting Medicare benefits with his support of Obamacare.

Below are just a few of the mailers going around Connecticut, as passed to the Huffington Post by a Democratic source:

Submit this article to The Obama News

In one of his most definitive statements on the subject to date, the nation's central banker said Thursday that he expects some of the nation's megabanks to start getting smaller.

"The most important lesson of this crisis is we have to end Too Big To Fail," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "My projection is that, even without direct intervention by the government, that over time we're going to see some breakups and some reduction in size and complexity of some of these firms as they respond to the incentives created by market pressures, and regulatory pressures as well."

Throughout the legislative slog toward financial reform, Bernanke -- like the Obama administration -- resisted congressional efforts to break up the handful of too-big-to-fail firms that dominate the financial system. In May, however, a third of the Senate voted to effectively bust up the biggest of those giant financial institutions.

That effort didn't succeed, but Bernanke attempted to put some lingering concerns to rest during his critical questioning by the panel created to investigate the roots of the financial crisis.

The nation's four biggest lenders collectively hold about $7.5 trillion in assets, according to their most recent quarterly filings with the Fed. That's equal to more than half the estimated total U.S. output last year, International Monetary Fund figures show.

Those four banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- each hold more than $1 trillion in assets. BofA and JPMorgan each have more than $2 trillion. The four giants control about 48 percent of the total assets in the nation's banking system, according to Fed data collected through March 31.

In 2001, it took 16 banks to control half of the market, Fed data show.

During the height of the financial crisis, the same four firms received or benefited from hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds in direct equity investments and guarantees on debt and assets. Effectively deemed too big to fail, meaning that any one of their failures could have destabilized the financial system, the lenders were rescued from failure -- and have since prospered, thanks to widening spreads between how much banks pay for funds and how much they charge borrowers.

"Too-big-to-fail financial institutions were both a source (though by no means the only source) of the crisis and among the primary impediments to policymakers' efforts to contain it," Bernanke wrote in his prepared remarks.

Yet when presented with the opportunity, the Obama administration declined to break up the banks. Instead, administration officials argued that a combination of stricter regulation, higher capital requirements and a new hybrid regime that combines bankruptcy with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's bank-failure process would send the message that these firms would indeed be allowed to fail, and that it would be too expensive for them to remain so large.

Noted economists, former bank regulators and some presidents of regional Fed banks have panned that reasoning.

The crisis commission seemed likewise skeptical Thursday, peppering Bernanke -- as well as FDIC Chair Sheila Bair, who was next to testify -- with questions regarding the new financial-regulatory law's ability to end Too Big To Fail.

Bernanke told them that the breakup of the big banks, which Democratic Sens. Ted Kaufman (Del.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) could not get the Obama administration to rally behind, will happen naturally. In effect, it will be too expensive to be Too Big To Fail, and so the firms will get smaller.

But that process won't be painless.

"Let me just be clear: this is not going to be easy to implement," Bernanke warned. "I think the one area that's going to take a lot of effort is the international element." As an example, he said, likely referencing Citigroup, "one of the banks that we supervise has offices in 109 countries, each one with its own bankruptcy code and its own rules and so on."

Prominent critics of the bill's perceived shortcomings in ending Too Big To Fail -- like Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and a contributing editor for the Huffington Post -- have pointed to the byzantine structures of massive international lenders like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase. It's nearly impossible to shut down a U.S-based megabank with extensive overseas operations, they warn. Regulators will thus feel pressure to simply keep them alive.

One top FDIC official said the new bill, guided through Congress by Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), may not have made a difference when it came to resolving the fate of Wachovia, a firm that wasn't allowed to fail and instead was taken over by Wells Fargo. Wachovia's creditors were saved from losses.

"Taking the new rules, you all seem to have gained a lot of comfort with some of the new legislation that's passed about the ability that you will have in the future to be able to govern situations where firms may fail," Heather H. Murren, an FCIC commissioner who until 2002 was a managing director of global securities research and economics at Merrill Lynch, told Wednesday's panel of FDIC, Federal Reserve and former Treasury officials. "And I'm curious about what would have been different if you were to apply the rules that we now have today at the time when you were looking at situations like Wachovia.

"So then how would your body of knowledge have been different, and how might the outcome have differed had we had those rules instead of what we had at the time?" asked the former highly-ranked equity research analyst.

After a polite back-and-forth in which John Corston, the acting deputy director of the unit overseeing complex banks at the FDIC, explained the situation during those tense moments of the crisis when regulators were debating whether to allow firms to fail or bail them out, Murren finally asked: "So then the outcome might not have differed, it just would have been a little bit easier as you went along?"

"It might not have differed, but it certainly would have been -- I think we would have then made much more informed decisions," Corston replied.

Bair, his boss, was adamant that too-big-to-fail firms on the cusp of failure will be shut down in the future. Firms of systemic importance also will be required to present blueprints on how they'd be shut down should they approach failure. Bernanke and Bair both argued that this would have been invaluable during the height of the last crisis.

Bair said that companies that don't comply with the new rules -- or if regulators feel that some part of the firm poses too much of a threat -- will be forced to divest parts of the firm so that it "no longer creates undue risk to the financial system." Bernanke echoed that point during his testimony when he said regulators could make firms unwind to make dealing with their potential failures "feasible."

Given policymakers' proclivity for bailing out and propping up too-big-to-fail banks, though, questions remain as to whether they'll follow through on these threats.

"When it's crunch time, that's when the test will come," said FCIC commissioner Byron S. Georgiou. "A healthy skepticism about it is appropriate."

The commission's 43-page preliminary report on Too Big To Fail, released in conjunction with the two-day hearing, details the nation's recent history of bailing out massive banks and their Wall Street cousins, like hedge funds and securities firms.

During the Great Depression, the government rescued a number of large banks. But it didn't happen again until 1974, the report notes.

Then in 1980. And again in 1984 -- though this time, policymakers admitted outright that some firms simply were too big to fail.

"During a hearing on Continental Illinois's rescue conducted by the House Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in September 1984, Comptroller of the Currency C. Todd Conover stated that federal regulators would not allow any of the eleven largest 'money center' banks to fail," according to the FCIC report. "Representative Stewart McKinney of Connecticut, a member of the committee, declared that '[w]e have a new kind of bank. It is called too big to fail. TBTF, and it is a wonderful bank.'"

The next day the Wall Street Journal headlined its piece on the hearing, "U.S. Won't Let 11 Biggest Banks in Nation Fail -- Testimony by Comptroller at House Hearing Is First Policy Acknowledgment." At the time of its failure Continental Illinois was the nation's 7th-largest bank, the FCIC notes.

Policymakers went on to rescue several large firms throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s.

Then Congress passed a law in 1991 attempting to end bailouts -- just like this year. It was useless during the most recent crisis, which saw two notable failures -- Washington Mutual, a lender, and Lehman Brothers, a securities dealer -- but several rescues of firms like Bear Stearns, another dealer; AIG, an insurer; the nation's biggest and smallest banks; and money market funds.

Because of the crisis, large firms swept up their almost-as-large competitors. JPMorgan Chase, for example, took over Washington Mutual, a $300-billion lender. At the time Wells Fargo took over Wachovia, the latter was the nation's fourth-largest bank.

"There's been a concentration of size and strength, obviously a disturbing trend," Georgiou said. "It doesn't give one a great deal of confidence" that regulators will be able to allow these firms to fail should they be near failure, he added, "but we hope for the best."

The last crisis, regulators and some academics stress, was a liquidity crisis -- there was a run on the banks. Money was no longer flowing, and so policymakers had to do whatever they could to ensure the markets didn't completely freeze, taking down the whole economy with them.

Others have argued that if one of the nation's largest firms runs into trouble -- a Bank of America, for example -- it's likely that because of the interconnectedness of the megabanks, BofA's failure would likely simultaneously cause the failures of other large institutions. Another crisis would ensue.

Asked if he thought regulators would be able to shut down one of the nation's largest banks if its failure could cause other big banks to fall, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another crisis commissioner, responded with a question of his own: "Are you going to pull the trigger and wind down the six largest financial institutions simultaneously?"

The answer was clearly no.

READ the FCIC's report:

var docstoc_docid="53281022";var docstoc_title="FCIC Report On Too Big To Fail";var docstoc_urltitle="FCIC Report On Too Big To Fail";
FCIC Report On Too Big To Fail

*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Submit this article to The Obama News

For most people, Labor Day marks the end of summer or back to school and for many an election season. For me, Labor Day has always been what it was originally intended to be: A day to celebrate the contributions that working men and women have made to the strength and prosperity of the country.

It's become somewhat of a tradition for labor secretaries to use Labor Day to speak on the status of the American worker -- to give a "State of the American Worker" report, if you will.

Some have made remarks from podiums. Others have testified on Capitol Hill. Some have chosen to address think tanks, corporations, or labor unions. I want to talk directly to you -- the American worker.

Many of you have told me that you want an America to "produces things again." You want a nation that is strong, that leads the international marketplace in innovation and a commitment to quality. And you want a government that is responsive, pragmatic and understands your needs.

But more than anything else, no matter where I go and who I talk to, you've told me "we need jobs."

And after 18 months, I have never been more confident that we are headed in the right direction, or more certain that our country must put creating jobs ahead of partisan roadblocks and petty political games.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited an economy that was losing as many as 750,000 jobs each month. We had to act immediately to stop our economy from going into another Great Depression and reverse the dangerous trend of job loss. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act made unprecedented investments for a new clean-energy economy, revitalized infrastructure and transportation, helped transform health information technology, and helped make America more competitive for generations to come.

Now, instead of losing jobs, we have actually added them in the private sector every month. We have averaged about 90,000 jobs for the last seven months.

But we've accomplished something else too, and this is important. The Recovery Act saved millions of American jobs in the auto manufacturing industry. Those efforts also kept health care workers in clinics and community hospitals. They kept hundreds of thousands of teachers in classrooms, and police and firefighters on the beat -- where they should be.

And although the Republicans criticized him, the president stepped up and saved both Chrysler and GM, keeping manufacturing jobs in America.

When others told him to give up, he made clear that failure was not an option. We cut taxes for middle class families and made it easier for small businesses to hire new workers.

But, there are still too many Americans who are struggling. For young people, people of color, and people in regions of the country hit hardest by the recession, the unemployment rate is much higher.

During my travels this year, I've never once heard working people -- or people who need and want work -- demand special treatment. Americans don't want a hand out, they just want a level playing field with clear rules, an opportunity to work hard and a fair chance to provide for their families and get ahead.

These are the people I think about every single day, and they constantly renew my faith in the American worker.

We've focused on the engine of job creation, and that's small businesses. I've seen time and time again the big impact that small business hiring has on a community. We've expanded credit to small businesses and we are making it possible for American entrepreneurs to create and grow businesses that will put people to work.

We are also investing in a new American foundation -- a whole new industry and employer and that's clean energy. We look at that investment two ways -- advances in biofuels, wind and solar power will not only reduce our dependence on foreign energy, but also reenergize the American manufacturing sector.

These jobs require skill, preparation, and hard work. I've heard often in my travels that Americans want an America where hard work is rewarded. As your Labor Secretary, I want that too.

Renewing faith in the American economy and getting people back to work is about making the connections between people, training, and opportunities. This Labor Day I'm incredibly excited to announce www.myskillsmyfuture.org -- a new online tool to help do just that.
By visiting the site and adding information about your most recent job, you can see exactly what skills you need for other jobs, find local training and education providers and view real, local job postings. There are jobs out there, and I'm doing all that I can to help people find them and employers fill them.

These are important steps, but the big question now is -- what's next? So on this Labor Day, my message to you is this. We have a lot of work to do -- together.

In the weeks and months ahead, policymakers will be debating what should come next.
There are some who believe that when times are tough, it's time to get tough on workers. I don't buy that.

I believe -- and I am committed to -- making training opportunities widely available, so unemployed workers at every level can retool and reenter the workforce. Cutting corners on worker health and safety isn't the answer. Keeping workers safe matters far more than saving a few cents -- it also improves a company's bottom line. And we cannot deny workers a voice. I recognize, respect and celebrate a worker's right to organize and bargain collectively.

As individuals, and as a nation, we have very important choices to make, and each one merits careful and informed discussion. Each and every one of us has something at stake, and we simply cannot afford to make the wrong choices.

As we honor the contributions of American workers this Labor Day, there is optimism about the future of our economy. We are a resilient nation, with some of the most driven and dedicated workers on the planet. And, "Good and safe jobs for everyone" is more than a slogan at your U.S. Department of Labor -- it's a deep and sincere commitment that we've made to American workers and their families.

For more, visit www.dol.gov/laborday and watch the video below:

Submit this article to The Obama News

. . . .[W]ith liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge of Allegiance

Opinions from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are of interest to a variety of people. Lawyers read them in order to learn what the law is with respect to issues that have been ruled on by the courts in the circuits in which they live. The poor, who live within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, read them to learn how their constitutional rights differ from those of the well off. They were reminded of this in August by the same court that had tutored them three years earlier in the case of Rochio Sanchez v. County of San Diego

Sanchez was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2007 and the U.S. Supreme Court announced in November of that year that it would not review the court's decision. The case stands for the proposition that it is OK to search people's homes without a warrant. Before my readers rush to add strong locks to all their doors I must reassure them. The case has no applicability to most of my readers. Their homes are protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bans unreasonable searches and seizures. The people in California whose homes are not protected by the Fourth Amendment are those on welfare.

In 1997, the San Diego District Attorney came up with "Project 100%." Under the program those wanting to participate in the county welfare program must consent to unannounced visits from members of the Public Affairs Fraud Division who walk through the house looking in drawers, medicine cabinets, etc. to make sure no crimes are being committed. The practical consequences are that welfare recipients are forced to trade the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment for welfare benefits. That is not, of course, how the judge who wrote for the majority sees it. It is how Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the dissenters, sees it. He said: This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor. San Diego's program strips these individuals of their rights of privacy... This is especially atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive government entitlements. The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsides.

The poor have now learned of yet another way in which the protection given to many by the Fourth Amendment does not benefit them. It has to do with curtilage. That is the area around the home and includes such things as porches, driveways, front walks, etc. For Fourth Amendment purposes, curtilage was treated the same as the inside of the house. A warrant was needed to search the curtilage. The case of U.S. v. Pineda Moreno in which a final ruling was made by the majority of the Circuit on August 12, 2010, changed that.

U.S. v. Pineda addressed the question of whether the police can come onto a driveway at night without a warrant and attach a tracking device to the resident's car. The answer given by the 9th Circuit court is that it's OK. Judge Kozinski, one of the dissenters in the earlier case wrote a dissent this time around. Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment accords to the home itself... Our court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home's curtilage... 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last. He observed that the majority justified its holding by saying that delivery people, children, etc. could use the driveway and sidewalk to get to the front door and, therefore, the resident had no expectation of privacy there. He observed that people with gated houses, electric fences, etc. were unaffected by the ruling since the general public cannot get near their curtilage. Addressing the insensitivity of the majority to the plight of the poor he said: There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist. No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges... The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that's not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can't afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it... [T]he Constitution doesn't prefer the rich over the poor... The panel's breezy opinion is troubling on a number of grounds, not least among them its unselfconscious cultural elitism... Today's decision is but one more step down the gloomy path the current judiciary has chosen to follow with regard to the liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment. Sadly, I predict that there will be many more such decisions to come. Sadly, given the proclivities of today's Supreme Court, he's probably right.

Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page.

Submit this article to The Obama News

At Grist, Randy Rieland writes:

Ready for your morning bowl of crazy? Five years ago, Congress set aside millions of acres of public land in the Southwest for the development of solar farms. This was primo real estate for solar, considered one of the best spots in the world. So far not one solar panel has been erected.

Oh, you want us to build something? This discouraging news comes courtesy of the AP's Jason Dearen, whose investigation shows that the understaffed U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) focused almost all its time on approving oil and gas projects and leased the land on a first-come, first-served basis, often to outfits with little or no experience in actually building solar farms.

Case in point: Cogentrix Solar Services, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. Cogentrix had zero solar experience, but holds leases on nearly half the Nevada acreage for which applications have been filed. Another sickening stat: In the last five years, the BLM has approved more than 73,000 oil and gas leases on public land, but hasn't given final approval to one solar lease. Not a one. Writes Dearen:

BLM's solar leasing system ended up allowing developers to lay claim to prime sites -- many located in the deserts that span California, Nevada, and Arizona. All developers had to do was fill out an application, pay a fee and file development plans. But many were so vague that it was difficult for BLM to separate the serious projects from the speculative ones.

• • • • •

Green diary rescue appears Thursdays and Sundays. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it. The rescue begins below and continues in the jump.

• • • • •

Haole in Hawaii posted another photo diary of Hawai'i Underwater: "These photos were taken during a handful of dives over the past two weekends including a night dive last night at Pupukea Marine Reserve. I hope you enjoy your visit."

Deep Harm had looked at rotten eggs in Rodents, maggots and steaming piles of hypocrisy at egg farms:  "The inspectors found manure piles up to 8 feet high, holding doors open and giving wildlife access. "Wildlife" included live rodents, wild birds and a plague of flies, live and dead, including their larvae (maggots). 'Additional problems included overflowing manure pits, improper worker sanitation and wild birds [a potential source of avian influenza] roosting around feed bins,' reports The New York Times. The investigators also found salmonella bacteria in chicken feed and in barn and walkway areas, and in water used to wash eggs at a Hillandale facility.  It isn't clear, yet, which came first:  the salmonella or the egg."

Submit this article to The Obama News

European High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy Baroness Catherine Ashton decided to head to China instead of participating in the Middle East stakeholders dinner hosted by President Obama in the Old Family Dining Room this week.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair covered a lot of national and transnational categories as head of the Quartet -- meaning theoretically that the EU, Russia and the UN were in the room along with the US, Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Jordan.

But two notable stakeholders were absent, and President Obama's team took care to address this by issuing a "readout" of phone conversations between himself and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Saudi King Abdullah.

Here is the readout:

Readout of President Obama's Recent Calls on the Middle East

President Obama called President Sarkozy earlier today to thank him for his support for a comprehensive Middle East peace, and to consult on next steps to encourage further progress in the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The President noted that he had a productive series of meetings yesterday, and said that he believed the two parties were committed to achieving progress. President Sarkozy affirmed his full support for the peace talks and his commitment to working with President Obama and the other leaders to advance the process. Both leaders agreed to remain in close touch on this issue as part of their ongoing cooperation.

Earlier in the week on [Monday], August 31, the President called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to discuss the situation in the region, including direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq.

I don't know whether the Saudi King wanted to attend, but through the grapevine have learned that France's political CEO was miffed not to be included. France takes affairs in the Middle East and what is unfolding with Israel-Palestine, Lebanon and Syria -- as well as Iran -- very seriously.

An Obama-Sarkozky phone call on the fringe of this renewed effort is probably not enough, and France needs to be built in more directly. Lady Ashton has other affairs to tend to -- and these make sense -- but when there is a chance of securing a new equilibrium in the Middle East, France on its own merits should be a core partner.

One of the realities of the "messy status quo" that was reachieved by restarting direct peace negotiations is that Hamas remains outside the camp of those consulted. Hamas' power and influence have grown with attempts to isolate it -- and ultimately, Hamas needs to be part of the package.

While there are enormous political impediments to the US managing direct discussions with Hamas -- which only contributes to a sense in the Middle East that America's affections in this mess are one-sided -- the US can "remove the veto" on other nations dealing with Hamas to see how its views and parameters can be heard or potentially moved through some kind of engagement.

In my view, the only modern-day Kissinger who is operating in European foreign circles today is French national security adviser to the President Jean-David Levitte, former French Ambassador to the United States.

One senior US State Department official I discussed Levitte with, and who took mental stock of the various foreign policy hands in important European positions today, saw Levitte as the only one who had both a granular understanding of equities at play in the Middle East and a good vision of where things needed to go.

There is a behind-the-scenes veto on our allies dealing with Hamas, and this needs to be lifted. Levitte is the right one to be working quietly and privately to see if Hamas can be brought into a structure largely consistent with that which could be forged by Netanyahu, Abbas and the others in the rather limited group trying to jump start the Middle East peace process.

Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons

Submit this article to The Obama News

Tonight's Diary Rescue comes to you courtesy of the hard work and diligence of the following Rescue Rangers: Louisiana1976, ItsJessMe, YatPundit, sunspark says and srkp23. dadanation is thought to have done double duty both rescuing and editing, but we all have our doubts...

thE rescueD diarieS

• Young diarist Earley Post tells us that regarding corporate influence in politics, "What if...?" iis the Wrong Question. (Louisiana 1976)
• amybdean graces us with an eloquent essay steeped in memory all the while looking towards the future: Labor Day’s Legacy: A More Inclusive America. (dadanation)
• Ojibwa keeps on teaching: Indians 101: The Tuscarora & the Iroquois League. (srkp23)
• faithfull brings to light a most unsettling reality in West Virginia due to Nike in Mountaintop Removal - JUST DO IT! (dadanation)
• americandad provides a Wisconsin congressman with a Wisconsin (and American) history lesson in May God smite us with Rep. Paul Ryan's "cancer"! (sunspark says)

thE usuaL suspectS

jotter has High Impact Diaries: September 1, 2010.

sardonyx brings us tonight's Top Comments: Blameless Edition.

thE requisitE disclaimeR

Please use this as an Open Thread as well as your chance to promote your favorite diaries of the day. Respectful engagement is most welcome here. Please keep in mind that each Diary Rescue's daily purview extends from 3pm PST yesterday to 3pm PST today

Submit this article to The Obama News

As employers struggle with rising healthcare costs and a sour economy, U.S. workers for the first time in at least a decade are being asked to shoulder the entire increase in the cost of health benefits on their own.

The average worker with a family plan was hit with 14% premium increase this year, pushing the bill to nearly $4,000 a year, according to a survey by the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

That is the largest annual increase since the survey began in 1999 and a marked change from previous years, when employers generally split the rise in the cost of premiums with their employees.

Submit this article to The Obama News

There is a lot of polling in the Thursday edition of the Wrap, and little-to-none of it is bound to make Democrats terribly optimistic about the direction in which the 2010 election cycle is heading.

Sure, a lot of the less-than-charitable data comes from partisan sources. But even a couple of independent sources come up with data that shows Democrats in considerably bleaker positions than earlier data would seem to indicate.

That warning offered in advance, let's trudge forward with the Thursday edition of the Wrap....

THE U.S. SENATE

FL-Sen: Crist internal gives him (narrow lead), as he gains Dem nod
Given where public polling was on this race as recently as three weeks ago, it is hard to get a lot of confidence for Independent Charlie Crist based on the release of his own internal polling by Keith Fredrick. The new poll gives Crist a lead of just a single point, with Crist at 35%, Rubio at 34%, and Kendrick Meek well behind the pack at 17%. Crist did get some welcome news today, as he locked in a surprising endorsement in the form of state senator Al Lawson. Lawson just finished with a closer-than-expected primary challenge to Congressman Allen Boyd, one in which he challenged Boyd to his left. Lawson's defection is particularly notable, given that he is an African-American Democrat who is choosing Crist over Kendrick Meek, who is seeking to be the first African-American member of the U.S. Senate ever from the state of Florida.

KY-Sen: New Braun Research poll puts Paul back in the lead
Braun Research is back with their semi-regular survey of Kentucky on behalf of CN|2, and their assessment of the race has changed quite a bit in the past few weeks. After giving Democrat Jack Conway a one-point lead in their last survey, the pollster moves Republican Rand Paul back into the lead. The new numbers put Paul at 42% and Conway at 37%. The poll also decides to look ahead to 2011, where they find Democratic Governor Steve Beshear in position to get re-elected narrowly, as he leads Republican challenger David Williams by six points.

NY-Sen: Primary poll puts undecided in the lead...by a lot
In a sign of how pedestrian the Republican primary to challenge Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been, half of the GOP electorate is still undecided with less than two weeks to go, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll of the Empire State. Former Congressman Joe DioGuardi paces the field with 28% of the vote, with David Malpass trailing at 12% and Bruce Blakeman in the third spot at 10% of the vote.

OH-Sen: PPP poll gives Portman a solid edge over Fisher
PPP's new poll out of the Buckeye State is a reversal of fortune from the previous PPP survey in the state. Republican Rob Portman has pulled out to a seven-point lead over Democrat Lee Fisher (45-38). Tom Jensen of PPP points to an interesting dichotomy among the undecideds: they voted for Obama in 2008 by a two-to-one margin, but have a net disapproval (40-46) of the President at this point. What direction will those folks head in November? This pattern could be repeated in races all over the country.

THE U.S. HOUSE

IA-03: Boswell gets key endorsement as Dems hammer Zaun
In agricultural Iowa, incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell got a key endorsement in his dangerously close battle with Republican Brad Zaun in the swing 3rd district. Boswell won the endorsement of the Iowa Corn Growers yesterday. Meanwhile, Iowa Democrats have launched a hard hitting ad on Brad Zaun that goes after the Republican for a domestic incident in 2001 that recently came to light (for what it's worth, DMR columnist Kathie Obradovich is not a fan of the ad).

NY-23: Hoffman vows to fight until November
For those hoping for some delicious Republican infighting saving a tough seat for the Dems, you are about to get some love from a very familiar source. Doug Hoffman has now made it clear--if he does not win the Republican primary in a couple of weeks, he will continue onward to the general election as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Interestingly, the Tea Party that launched Hoffman to prominence in 2009 is making it clear that they may not go along for the ride in November if Hoffman decides to split the conservative vote yet again.

PA-12: GOP internal predicts GOP to snag Murtha seat in November
Democrat Mark Critz might have won the special election to replace John Murtha in May, but a new internal poll out from Public Opinion Strategies is claiming that Republican Tim Burns will claim the district on his second attempt in November. An internal poll from the NRCC claims that Burns is at 48%, with the newly-minted incumbent Critz five points back at 43%. The district is a swing district, one carried by both John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008 (a rarity, to be sure).

VA-05: The ugliest poll on Earth just got...uglier
Republicans crowed, and Democrats blanched, when a summer poll in the 5th district held by Democrat Tom Perriello from SurveyUSA showed the incumbent trailed by twenty-three points to Republican Rob Hurt. SurveyUSA is back in the Fifth, and the results are even worse. The pollster, which has been unrelentingly negative in its assessment of Democratic House candidates this year, has Hurt now at 61% of the vote, with Perriello well behind at 35%.

RACE FOR THE HOUSE: Ayers McHenry heads west, and the ugly continues
Consider the source (Republican pollster, partisan sponsor), but the third wave of House polls from GOP number-crunchers Ayers McHenry looks at the West, and the numbers for the Democrats there are almost universally awful. The pollster, looking at ten Democratic-held districts, has the GOP going 6-3-1 in trial heats for November. The standard caveats apply for internal polls, but the Colorado blog ColoradoPols uncovered another potential issue: the fact that the firm did not appear to poll more than the two major party candidates. In races with active teabagger candidates, that could actually matter in a close race.

AZ-01: Paul Gosar (R) 47%, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) 41%
AZ-05: Dave Schweikert (R) 50%, Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) 44%
AZ-08: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) 46%, Jesse Kelly (R) 46%
CA-11: David Harmer (R) 45%, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D) 44%
CA-47: Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) 45%, Van Tran (R) 43%
CO-03: Scott Tipton (R) 51%, Rep. John Salazar (D) 43%
CO-04: Cory Gardner (R) 50%, Rep. Betsy Markey (D) 39%
NM-01: Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) 49%, Jon Barela (D) 42%
NV-03: Joe Heck (R) 48%, Rep. Dina Titus (D) 45%
OR-05: Rep. Kurt Schrader (D) 44%, Scott Bruun (R) 36%

THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES

FL-Gov: Scott selects running mate for November
Rick Scott made an interesting selection today, giving the nod to African American Republican state legislator Jennifer Carroll as his choice for Lt. Governor. Besides the obvious gender and racial balance represented by Carroll is a potentially more important political consideration: Carroll had been a supporter of Bill McCollum during the recently concluded primary. The thaw between Scott and supporters of McCollum could be a long time in coming, as the vanquished foe is still very reluctant to support his fellow Republican.

MD-Gov: Dems pounce on Ehrlich union endorsement
It has become common practice for Republicans to pooh-pooh union endorsements of Democrats, arguing that such endorsements are the work of the "bosses" and not good rank-and-file teachers/officers/etc. Therefore, it is a tad ironic that a rare union endorsement of a Republican candidate has such transparent evidence of such top-driven influence. The Democrats are pouncing on the endorsement of Republican Robert Ehrlich by the Maryland Classified Employees Association. Democrats were lightning-quick to point out that the union's executive director is a former Republican state legislator, who is running for office as a Republican this year (and could probably use some love from the top of the ticket).

NY-Gov: Republican primary poll shows race still in the air
Rick Lazio has been the frontrunner for the GOP gubernatorial nomination throughout the 2010 election, but that might be changing at the last, according to the new poll from Quinnipiac. Lazio's lead is down to twelve points (47-35) over businessman Carl Paladino. Lazio is probably close enough to 50% to be comfortable, but his days of having a two-to-one lead over Paladino are pretty much over.

OR-Gov: Labor comes in big for Democrat John Kitzhaber
Oregon is one of those states where donors can drop big coin on their favored candidates: at one point earlier in the cycle, the majority of Republican Chris Dudley's take came from just two donors. Labor is starting to weigh in on the race. The latest example: the AFSCME, which dropped six figures ($100K) during August into the coffers of Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Kitzhaber.

TX-Gov: Even GOP internal polls have Perry sitting at 50%
As a sign of how potentially vulnerable incumbent Republican Rick Perry truly is, even internal polling for the GOP cannot put the incumbent over 50% in his re-election bid. That said, the poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for GOPAC does give Perry a sizeable edge, with Perry at 50% and Democratic challenger Bill White at 38%.

THE RAS-A-POLL-OOZA

Not a ton of data from the House of Ras today, but it joins the rest of the numbers from their day in that unremittingly negative tone. Team Ras-sie put both Rick Scott (FL-Gov) and Dino Rossi (WA-Sen) out in front today. The only poll that can come close to being construed as positive for Dems is the relatively small lead for GOP incumbent Sean Parnell in Alaska.

AK-Gov: Gov. Sean Parnell (R) 53%, Ethan Berkowitz (D) 43%
FL-Gov: Rick Scott (R) 45%, Alex Sink (D) 44%
WA-Sen: Dino Rossi (R) 48%, Sen. Patty Murray (D) 46%

Submit this article to The Obama News

As students head back to school this fall, I traveled over the last two weeks on an eight-state bus tour to highlight "Courage in the Classroom." The mission of the tour was simple: to honor our nation's unsung heroes -- our teachers.

We started in Little Rock, Ark., where I visited historic Central High School and talked to a group of teachers there about the Obama administration's proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as No Child Left Behind. Our big blue bus then continued on to Hamburg, Arkansas, where I saw the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) at work on a rural high school campus that's being upgraded and visited a pre-kindergarten center that is helping young learners start school on the right foot.

We then rolled into Louisiana. I joined students at a Monroe magnet school for a tour of their school's garden and a conversation with the faculty about the importance of creating a healthy school environment. As both Secretary of Education and a parent, I'm a huge believer in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative. I also stopped by a lively gathering of the state teachers union and emphasized the important role their organization plays in shaping our nation's future. In Tallulah, Louisiana, I got a workout when I played basketball with the Madison High School Jaguars.

The next day, we woke up in Jackson, Mississippi and visited the Kids Kollege Children's Defense Fund Freedom School at Jackson State University to talk with teacher interns about what we can do to recruit a new generation of effective teachers. We stopped for lunch in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where I got teachers' ideas for improving assessments of students' learning and better compensating and evaluating teachers. In the last event of the southern leg of the tour, I visited George C. Hall Elementary School in Mobile, Alabama, to learn how the school and surrounding community have successfully turned around that school.

The trip through the South was a busy two days, but our tour didn't end there. After a weekend back in Washington, the bus set out again, this time in the Northeast. We started in Albany, New York, where I joined Gov. Paterson to praise the state for its courage in reforming education, which the Department of Education recently recognized with a Race to the Top award.

In Massachusetts, another Race to the Top winner, I visited a high school in Springfield for a conversation about ways we can better engage students in their educations. Next, we went to Keene, New Hampshire, to meet some college students who are preparing to become teachers. We talked about how we can improve training to help them address the challenges they'll face in the classroom. In Manchester, New Hampshire, I dropped by Bakersville Elementary and toured the neighborhood, which is home to students from 18 different countries.

In Portsmouth, New Hampshire, I talked with military families at the Naval Shipyard about the difficulties they face in providing their children with a consistently top-notch education as they move around our country and the world in our nation's service.

Our last stop was Maine, one of several states on this tour that I hadn't visited before as Secretary. In Portland I enjoyed the presentations of three rising 8th graders about the impact of the civil rights movement in their lives today.

Throughout the "Courage in the Classroom" tour, I was encouraged by teachers who are working hard to make a difference in the lives of students, often in difficult circumstances. From a teacher-in-training in Arkansas, who started his education as a four year old in the pre-kindergarten program I visited, to a teacher in Maine who has been in the classroom 35 years, the people I met along the way were truly inspiring. Through their tireless work, I am confident our nation will be able to achieve the president's 2020 goal of having the highest college graduation rate in the world.

Although the tour is over, I remain interested in hearing from you about how Americans can educate our way to a better economy and once again lead the world in education. We can continue this conversation on ED.gov's blog, on my Facebook page and on Twitter (@ED_Outreach).

Have a great school year, everyone.

Arne Duncan is the Secretary of Education.

Submit this article to The Obama News

WASHINGTON — Delaware Republicans call Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell a liar who "could not be elected dog catcher" in a fierce attack that underscores GOP fears of the tea party-backed candidate knocking off top recruit Rep. Mike Castle and winning the nomination.

Stunned by tea partier Joe Miller's upset of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republicans are taking no chances in Delaware, which holds its primary Sept. 14. The party sees Castle, the state's lone congressman since 1993, as the best candidate for the seat long held by Vice President Joe Biden.

Republicans circulated audio of a testy, 22-minute interview that O'Donnell had with radio station WGMD on Thursday. Party officials also have said she inflated her resume and made flat-out untrue statements while being dogged by questions about tax liens and foreclosures. Castle says she has misrepresented his record.

"She's not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware," state party chairman Tom Ross, who is backing Castle, said in a telephone interview. "She could not be elected dog catcher."

Castle's campaign began running radio ads on Thursday and prepared negative television ads against O'Donnell. The radio ads cite a News Journal of Wilmington, Del., report on O'Donnell's finances and declares her "a financial nightmare."

"According to the News Journal, O'Donnell has become a professional candidate, living off contributions from her two failed campaigns," the announcer says. "While leaving a trail of unpaid bills to vendors and staff, O'Donnell instead used those donations for her own personal expenses and rent. ... While you work hard to pay your bills and taxes, Christine O'Donnell lives by different rules."

The ad also cites O'Donnell's slow repayment of student loans and that she "got caught when she refused to pay thousands in taxes she owed the IRS and defaulted on her mortgage."

The planned television commercials would air in the week leading up to the primary. The campaign also has created a website, RealChristine.com, a clearinghouse of negative O'Donnell stories.

"Unfortunately, the truth always seems to be an issue," said Ross. "Her version of reality doesn't jibe with any of the facts."

O'Donnell's campaign did not return messages seeking comment.

The Tea Party Express has announced a six-figure commitment to back O'Donnell. The group announced its first expenditures – more than $46,000 – late Thursday and put the anticipated cost at about $250,000.

"We are launching an aggressive multimedia and multiplatform campaign to help propel Christine O'Donnell to victory, and we've only just begun," said Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express.

In the radio interview Thursday, O'Donnell refused to back down from claims that she won two of Delaware's three counties in her 2008 Senate bid against Biden, despite numbers that show she didn't.

"I was the 2008 endorsed candidate against Joe Biden and I won in two counties," O'Donnell had told a group in Pennsylvania.

WGMD's Dan Gaffney, a conservative radio host who backed O'Donnell's Senate bid, asked her to explain the claim.

"Look at the results," O'Donnell said. "What do they say? 49 (percent), 49. I call that a tie."

She lost that county by 272 votes.

Commenting on Kent County, home to state capital Dover, O'Donnell said: "I said I nearly tied."

The host played the audio again that shows she didn't couch it that way. Flustered by the questioning, O'Donnell asked Gaffney whether he was being paid off by Castle, who has refused to debate her.

She then blamed her schedule for the missteps. "You're on the campaign trail, starting at 5 a.m., you go to 12 ... you go until midnight," she said. "Sometimes you slip up on those things."

Although private polling shows Castle with a comfortable lead, they want to avoid a surprise like Miller upending Murkowski.

Ross argued that the two candidates – O'Donnell and Miller – are far different.

"When you look at Joe Miller, he's an Ivy League graduate, a war hero and an attorney who is prominent in the community," he said. "We could go across the street from the apartment Christine O'Donnell rents and we probably couldn't find anyone who knows her."

Although O'Donnell has appeared on the ballot in the past, she faces an uphill race against Castle, Delaware's sole representative in the U.S. House who won in 2008 with 61 percent of the vote.

Republicans also take some comfort in the calendar. The deadline to register in the Republican primary has passed; tea party activists energized by the upset in Alaska missed their chance to vote in the closed primary. The Republican winner will face Democrat Chris Coons.

Submit this article to The Obama News

After a two-week absence, the Senate Snapshot is back. The charts are a lot cooler, but the news is grim:

Senate Snapshot, September 2nd, With Rasmussen Polls

Thanks to user Dbug, the snapshot now comes with a chart displaying the odds of each possible seat outcome:

The chances of 50 and 51 Democratic seats are almost identical, with 50 Democratic seats slightly more likely (and those totals include Sanders and Lieberman). Republicans have an 18.7% of taking control of the chamber.

Senate Snapshot, September 2nd, Without Rasmussen Polls

Without Rasmussen polls included in the averages, the picture is not much better. In fact, it is only about as good as the snapshot was one month ago, with Rasmussen polling included. A narrow Democratic majority of 52 seats is the most likely outcome:

Looking desperately for good news? President Obama's job approval is back in positive territory, according to Gallup. If the situation is going to turn around for Democrats, that positive trend will have to be more than a blip.

Notes
--This forecast is a snapshot, not a forecast. All of the odds presented here are based on if the election were held today. It is not a prediction of future trends.

--If a campaign isn't listed here, then it is not currently as close as any of the campaigns listed here.

--Charlie Crist's chances of victory are not included in the overall Democratic, or Republican, chances of victory.

--A * indicates that the candidate has a primary challenger, but is the favorite to win the nomination.

--All polls used in the averages are taken from Pollster.com.

--A complete description of the methodology behind this forecast, along with all the research and a FAQ, can be found here.

Submit this article to The Obama News

HuffPost editor Roy Sekoff joined Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" Thursday night to assess the electoral prospects of the candidates who seem to be vying even now for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

That group includes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and even Bush-era Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

"I actually thought it would be impossible to top the 2008 group in terms of freak-showishness, when we had Sam Brownback running against Darwin and Tom Tancredo running on the xenophobia ticket," Sekoff said. "But this group, they have so many loose cannons, it almost is enough to make one pine for Duncan Hunter."

Olbermann sought to dismiss Palin in light of her decision to headline the GOP's annual Ronald Reagan Dinner in Iowa Sept. 17, given that no Reagan-dinner headliner has won the nomination. Sekoff was skeptical.

"I don't think we can use historical precedent when it comes to Palin," Sekoff said. "Don't forget, no presidential candidate has ever had their own reality show with Kate Gosselin guesting, or has a daughter who's an unwed mother and a contestant on 'Dancing With The Stars.' So I think we're in uncharted waters here, Keith."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Submit this article to The Obama News

Add VoteVets to the growing list of organizations calling for Simpson's ouster from the catfood commission. You'll recall that this week Simpson aimed his fire at disabled veterans who are "not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess." See, the benefits they receive in return for having sacrificed their health to defend the country cost too much.

One veterans' group, VoteVets, is demanding Simpson's removal on behalf of the millions of veterans who receive Social Security and the millions of disabled vets Simpson blames for the deficit. Via e-mail:

Washington DC – The nation’s largest progressive veterans organization, VoteVets.org, is calling on President Obama to relieve former Senator Alan Simpson from his chairmanship of a deficit reduction commission for defamatory comments about veterans.

In a letter to the President, Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, wrote, "On Tuesday, Senator Simpson actually put veteran's benefits on the chopping block... blaming disabled veterans for the country's fiscal situation. And for us, that is the final straw."

Soltz says, "President Obama, this week you called for all Americans to honor and thank our troops. I know you agree that honoring our troops can't just be lip service. And the best way to honor those who serve our country is to make sure that we take care of them once they return home. That means strengthening the vital programs we rely on, including Social Security and veterans' health care, not undermining them as Senator Simpson seems intent on doing."

The full letter is below the fold.

Submit this article to The Obama News

I've spent much of the past two years quoting skeptical and dour Middle East hands, but most felt at least a glimmer of cautious hope today, a good one for Obama:

The launch of new direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders Thursday was the result of a rare flexing of U.S. muscle by President Barack Obama, whose extended hand has left him with fewer opportunities for foreign policy chest thumping than his predecessor had.

The Obama administration was able to force two reluctant adversaries to put tricky domestic politics aside and agree to show up for an unpredictable, unscripted series of meetings every two weeks, the next to be held in Egypt on September 14 and 15.

And Obama had an opportunity to show on the foreign policy stage the kind of dug-in patience and tenaciousness that to both allies and critics has defined his approach to domestic policy – particularly health care legislation – for the last 18 months.

Thursday’s beginning remains fragile, and all observers cautioned that any way forward will be in stops and starts. But the two days of meetings with the Israelis, Palestinians, and other key leaders left the White House exultant both at the style and the substance of a small victory a long time in coming.

“From a political perspective it’s been a good week for [Obama] – but more importantly it’s been a very good week for America’s national security – and that’s how he measures it,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told POLITICO.

 

Submit this article to The Obama News