August 18, 2011

Originally reported by Illinois Statehouse News. Read the original article here.

GOP: Unity is message, divisions linger | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

This edition of Political Junkie: The rise (and long fall) of Joe Lieberman … a farewell to Sargent Shriver … additional 2010 obits … former Rep. Jay Rhodes (R-Ariz.) has died … this week’s Junkie segment on TOTN (and the trivia question)… the latest podcast … and the return of ScuttleButton!

Quite a busy week, with the announcement by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that he’s not going to run for re-election, the death of Sargent Shriver, and the debate on the House floor over a health care repeal. And I certainly can’t omit what may have been the most eyebrow-raising incident of the week, the interview Sen. Harry Reid had on Tuesday with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, in which the majority leader called Chinese President Hu Jintao “a dictator.” Given the timing — Wednesday night was an official state dinner at the White House thrown by President Obama in Hu’s honor — it seemed pretty, well, odd.

All I can say is thank goodness we didn’t have that wacky Sharron Angle in the Senate. You know how she always says outlandish things.

Lots of things to talk about on this Friday, but I’m going to start with the decision of Lieberman, announced on Wednesday, not to seek a fifth term in Connecticut.

Democrats never forgave Lieberman for his political “embrace” of George W. Bush.

I admit I was taken aback by the news. Yes, it would have been a tough race, as he acknowledged at his Stamford event, but all along he kept sounding like a candidate. Plus, as he also said, he’s been in tough races before, like 1988 when he was not supposed to unseat GOP Sen. Lowell Weicker, or in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont but went on to win as an independent in November.

But something seems to have changed in Lieberman since that 2006 primary defeat, where he was abandoned by many of his longtime allies primarily because of his support for President Bush’s Iraq war policy. By winning that year, he became the first senator in at least a half-century to be denied renomination and yet keep his seat (the second, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, did so as a write-in candidate last year).

It would probably be fair to say that his disillusionment with his own party came before his 2006 rejection. Remember, he was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 — the first Jew to be on a major-party ticket — a ticket that won the popular vote. But Lieberman, as many vice-presidential nominees do, felt that the logical next step would be to seek the brass ring itself, and in 2004 he announced his candidacy for the White House. He was reportedly deeply hurt when Al Gore, his 2000 ticket mate, decided instead to endorse Howard Dean, the anti-war former governor of Vermont, for the nomination. Lieberman saw it as a betrayal. But Gore was not about to endorse a candidate who supported the war.

As it was, Lieberman’s bid went nowhere; he was out of the race by Feb. 3.

In many ways, Lieberman was a true independent. And that’s what Americans and the media say they want, right? We keep hearing they want more of their politicians to work across party lines. However, they just never liked Lieberman’s approach. Or maybe they simply didn’t like Lieberman. (I suspect that there is more tolerance in this country, at least in the media, for Republicans who often vote with Democrats than the opposite.)

The truth is, he most often voted with the Democrats, the party he stayed a part of, especially on domestic issues. Rumors that he was considering switching to the GOP were totally baseless. But his position on the war, followed by his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his denunciation of Democratic nominee Barack Obama at the 2008 GOP convention, were simply too much for Connecticut Democrats. He became their most despised person.

Of course, Democratic divisions about Lieberman go back to at least 1998, when he gave an impassioned denunciation of President Clinton on the Senate floor over his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Some saw it as principled; others saw it as sanctimonious. Whatever, it was probably one of the reasons Gore selected him as his running mate in 2000: to illustrate he (Gore) could be his own man, declaring his independence from Clinton.

And what about the Republicans? In 2006, they voted overwhelmingly for Lieberman. Back then, the inept GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, received less than ten percent of the vote. But that was a long time ago. Now, there is no indication of any GOP love for Lieberman at all, especially in the wake of his health care vote and successful pushing for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

So perhaps he just got sick of it all. The joy in his face, the impish sense of humor … much of that was gone in the past several years. It was, in some respects, time to go.

(Note: Regarding this week’s title. I’m not calling Lieberman “Joey” out of disrespect, or to be cutesy. In his speech announcing his retirement, several times Lieberman referred to conversations with his wife, who called him “Joey.” Just in case someone might think I was being disrespectful. I wasn’t.)

Lieberman’s departure makes him the third senator to bid farewell in the past two weeks. The decision by Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison to retire is similar to that of Lieberman’s; the odds are that the incumbent party will keep those seats. The more interesting retirement is that of Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), which now moves that seat into the “lean Republican” category. The Hutchison and Conrad retirements were reviewed in Tuesday’s Political Junkie column.

It’s too soon to handicap the Connecticut race, but my early guess for Democratic frontrunner is Rep. Chris Murphy (D-5th CD), who knocked off then-GOP Rep. Nancy Johnson in 2006. Susan Bysiewicz, the former secretary of state, jumped into the race on Wednesday, and some say Rep. Joe Courtney (D-2nd) might get in too. I’m sticking with Murphy as the eventual Dem nominee.

On the Republican side, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, who lost last year’s Senate race to Richard Blumenthal (D) after spending some $50 million of her own money, says she’s looking at another run. Others mentioned include former Rep. Rob Simmons, who lost the nomination to McMahon, and Tom Foley, who ran a strong race for governor in 2010.

From the Archives: “What Happens If Lieberman Wins?” (Political Junkie, Aug. 23, 2006); “Lamont Pulls Off Upset; What’s Next for Lieberman?” (PJ, Aug. 9, 2006); Lieberman and Lamont appear on the TOTN Junkie segment (Aug. 2, 2006); “Can Lieberman Survive the Primary?” (PJ, July 5, 2006); “Lieberman, Lamont and the War” (PJ, June 28, 2006); “Lieberman for Veep: Surprise, Surprise” (Junkie column at washingtonpost.com, Aug. 11, 2000)

Sargent Shriver’s political career, in buttons: (1) widely mentioned as a potential running mate for Hubert Humphrey in 1968; (2) briefly a Maryland gov. hopeful in 1970; (3) the VP on the 1972 ticket; (4) a candidate for the 1976 Democratic nomination.

Sargent Shriver dies. Shriver, the first director of the Peace Corps, died Tuesday at age 95; he had long been suffering from Alzheimer’s. A Kennedy brother-in-law — he married JFK’s sister, Eunice — Sargent Shriver was a pretty amazing guy, with tons of energy that lasted late into his life. And yet, for all he accomplished — in addition to the Peace Corps, he headed up President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” program as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and later served as LBJ’s ambassador to France — he was never successful in his own political career.

His hopes of seeking the Illinois governorship in 1960 were dashed when Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch, told him he couldn’t run because he needed to help with John Kennedy’s presidential effort. He was on the vice presidential short list in both 1964 (for Lyndon Johnson) and 1968 (for Hubert Humphrey), but the call never came. He also briefly was a candidate for governor of Maryland in 1970.

The running mate phone call did come, in 1972, but under very odd (and for Democrats, painful) circumstances. Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.), the Democrats’ presidential nominee, selected Sen. Tom Eagleton of Missouri as his running mate. But after the news leaked of his past psychiatric treatment for depression, Eagleton was forced off the ticket on July 31. Five days later, after a slew of Senate Democrats — Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, Abe Ribicoff and Ed Muskie — had turned him down, McGovern decided to pick Shriver. On Aug. 8, at a special meeting of the Democratic National Committee in the Sheraton Park hotel in Washington, it was made official.

(He got 2,936 delegate votes out of a total of 3,013. Missouri Gov. Warren Hearnes, angered by what he considered the unfair treatment of Eagleton, cast his state’s 73 votes for Eagleton. And four of Oregon’s votes went to former Sen. Wayne Morse, who was campaigning that year to reclaim his seat.)

Nobody was going to defeat President Nixon that year, certainly not George McGovern. As it was, the McGovern-Shriver ticket lost 49 states in a landslide blowout, but Shriver got good reviews for his candidacy. And that led him to start thinking about four years down the road.

With Ted Kennedy staying out of the ’76 campaign, Shriver decided to run for president, laying claim to the “Kennedy legacy.” But, as with many candidates with Kennedy connections — Ted Sorensen, Kenneth O’Donnell and Pierre Salinger come to mind — Shriver learned that the Kennedy mystique was not transferable. And voters saw him as a Kennedy relative without the Kennedy charisma. One of the last Democrats to get in the race, Shriver finished fifth in the Iowa caucuses, fifth in the New Hampshire primary and sixth in Massachusetts, and that was pretty much the end of his political career.

The Washington Post’s obituary made it clear that Shriver’s political ambitions “were as much propelled as they were frustrated by his connection to his in-laws, the powerful political dynasty from Massachusetts”:

When the family received word in 1964 that President Lyndon B. Johnson was considering Mr. Shriver as a running mate, Eunice balked. “No,” she reportedly said, and then invoked her brother Robert’s name. “It’s Bob’s turn.”

Kennedy aide Ken O’Donnell was more straightforward, telling Mr. Shriver that if any of the inner circle were to run, it would be Bobby – not “half a Kennedy.”

The obit also included this wonderful vignette from the ’72 election:

Despite his people skills, Mr. Shriver made a huge gaffe on the campaign trail while visiting a bar near a steel mill in Youngstown, Ohio. Locals ordered Pabsts, Schlitzes or Buds. Mr. Shriver called out, “Make mine a Courvoisier!”

The Shrivers had five children, including Mark Shriver, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates who lost a close bid for Congress in the 2002 Democratic primary to Chris Van Hollen; and Maria Shriver, the former NBC journalist who is married to ex-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver died in August 2009.

More Obits: In my extensive listing of those in the political world who passed away in 2010, I acknowledged that the list is obviously not complete and asked for reader input on those I missed. Here are some of them:

Howard Zinn, 87, a civil rights activist, historian and left-wing ideologue who was the author of “A People’s History of the United States.” (Jan. 27)

Ben Westlund, 60, the state Treasurer of Oregon since 2008. A Republican state representative, Westlund left the GOP in 2006 and briefly mounted an independent campaign for governor before switching to the Democrats later in the year. (March 7)

Fred Heineman, 80, who upset Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) in the GOP sweep of 1994 only to lose his bid for re-election to Price two years later, and who prior to his term in Congress was the head of the Raleigh police department. (March 20)

Louis Henkin, 92, a Columbia Law School professor and an expert in the field of human rights law. (Oct. 14)

Tom Vandergriff, 84, the former mayor of Arlington, Texas, who won an open congressional seat in 1982 as a Democrat but who was ousted two years later by Dick Armey (R). After his defeat he resurfaced as a Republican and was elected as a judge in Tarrant County. As mayor, he played a major role in luring the Washington Senators baseball team to Arlington in 1972, where they became the Texas Rangers. Tragically, the Rangers defeated the New York Yankees in the 2010 playoffs. (Dec. 29)

Roger Milliken, 95, a billionaire textile magnate who was instrumental in turning South Carolina into a Republican bastion. (Dec. 29)

John Wheeler, 66, who as chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund in the 1980s worked to ensure the memorial to be built. (Dec. 31)

Hat Tip to Liz Toy, John Hiestand, Matthew Bray, Karen Long and Kevin Dessy.

from Rhodes’ 1988 campaign

Jay Rhodes is gone. Word came in yesterday afternoon from my good friend, ex-Rep. Jack Buechner (R-Mo.), that a former colleague of his, Arizona’s John Rhodes III — known to everyone as Jay — has died. Rhodes, the son of former House Minority Leader John Rhodes, was elected to the House in 1986, replacing John McCain in the 1st District. A landslide winner three times, Rhodes was blindsided in 1992 by Democrat Sam Coppersmith and lost his seat.

I got to know Rhodes quite well in recent years when he was president of the Association of Former Members of Congress. He was not a fan of the media, and was often quite cranky. But he had a wry sense of humor and was always good to me, and would often tell me some great stories about the time when his dad went to President Nixon, along with other members of Congress, in the last days before Nixon’s resignation during the Watergate scandal. All of our conversations were off the record, but Jay promised me he would get them all into a book … which he apparently never did. My observation was that Rhodes was not a natural campaigner, nor a natural politician. But he was a good guy, and I mourn his passing.

Talk of the Nation: This week’s Political Junkie segment, which focused on the new Senate openings in Connecticut, North Dakota and Texas, can be heard here. Join host Neal Conan and me every Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET for the Junkie segment on TOTN, where you can often, but not always, find interesting conversation, useless trivia questions and sparkling jokes. And you can win a Political Junkie T-shirt!

And speaking of trivia, here was this week’s question:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who announced his retirement today, was of course the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000. Four years later, he sought the presidency himself. Before Lieberman, who was the last Democrat who ran for, but was never elected, vice president, and who also ran for president four years later? (Answer below.)

It’s All Politics: The new episode of our weekly podcast, focusing on President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address, new RNC chair Reince Priebus, the three Senate retirements, and the passing of Sargent Shriver, is up and can be heard here:

The podcast, which is recorded every Thursday, is completely archived. Click here to hear previous episodes.

Trivia Answer: Sargent Shriver.

This Day In Political History: Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia upsets Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts for Kennedy’s job as Senate majority whip. The vote is 31-24. There had been much criticism of Kennedy’s performance as whip, with some saying he wasn’t focused on the job, whereas Byrd was well regarded for his knowledge of Senate procedure. There was also some speculation that Kennedy’s role in the Chappaquiddick incident — where a female companion in the car Kennedy was driving, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned when the car went over a bridge in July 1969 — was a factor as well. Key to Byrd’s decision to run: the proxy from Ga. Sen. Richard Russell, who was dying in a Washington hospital (Russell, in fact, died less than five hours after the Senate vote.) The result is thought to seriously damage the prospects of Kennedy seeking the presidency in 1972 (Jan. 21, 1971).

Coming later today: ScuttleButton!

Got a question? Ask Ken Rudin: politicaljunkie@npr.org

Originally reported by National Public Radio. Read the original story here.

How Joey (Lieberman) Lost His Groove And Couldn’t Get It Back | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

In somewhat of a surprise, the House of Representatives passed the DREAM Act last night by a vote of 216 to 198 but it’s unlikely the bill will get through a Senate filibuster today.

As expected, all three African-American reps from Illinois, Danny Davis, Bobby Rush, and Jesse Jackson, voted to support the Dream Act. So did lakefront liberals Jan Schakowsky and Mike Quigley. All are Democrats.

Originally reported by Huffington Post Chicago. Read the original story here.

DREAM Act: How Illinois Reps Voted | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

WASHINGTON – In less than three hours, the extraordinary forces tugging at Barack Obama’s presidency — and the Republicans who will soon take more control of Congress — came into sharp relief: a sky-high jobless rate, an out-of-control deficit and pressure to keep taxes down.

Together, they illustrate the difficulty of balancing immediate, costly fixes for the economy with the long-term austerity needed to control the nation’s debt. What’s more, Obama must show that his handling of those challenges has been deft enough to earn him four more years in the White House.

To be sure, the competing demands create a conundrum for all of Washington — Democrats and Republicans alike. But it is the president who has claimed the mantle of honest broker and the price would ultimately be paid by him.

Between 8:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. Friday, the Labor Department announced first that November’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.8 percent, then a majority of the president’s deficit commission backed tough penny-pinching measures to slash $4 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years. In between, Democrats and Republicans continued to struggle for a compromise that would extend Bush-era tax cuts.

In one bright spot, the Obama administration sealed a trade agreement Friday with South Korea, further opening the 12th-largest economy as a market to American goods. The final deal, which eluded the president during his recent trip to Asia, is the largest since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico negotiated under President Bill Clinton.

The competing obligations were evident even while the president attended to yet another demand — a deadlier war in Afghanistan. As news of the unemployment rate hit, Obama was in the air on a secret visit to the troops, one year after expanding the U.S. military presence there.

“Jobs and growth are our most urgent need,” Obama said, in thanking the deficit commission for its work. “But if we want an America that can compete for the jobs of tomorrow, we simply cannot allow our nation to be dragged down by our debt. We must correct our fiscal course.”

The answers to both may seem contradictory. The long-accepted response to a recession, advocated by early 20th century British economist John Keynes, is for government to prime the economy with short-term spending that adds to the deficit. Ideally, an economic recovery then generates revenue that can offset those initial expenses.

So even as the administration welcomed the deficit commission’s work, the White House made a case that if taxes were going to remain low for even the highest-earning taxpayers, then spending to help middle income taxpayers and unemployed workers needed to be extended as well.

Obama and congressional leaders appointed a negotiating team to work out a compromise on the tax cuts. Discussions center on whether to extend them for one to three years and whether to include unemployment assistance. Officials said the deal could also include raising the debt limit, drawing yet more attention to the nation’s borrowing.

Administration officials on Thursday presented a menu of jobless benefits and tax credits totaling $150 billion for one year. Republicans insist that any spending be offset by reductions elsewhere, a step the White House opposes.

“Republicans arguing that we should immediately pay for emergency measures like unemployment insurance but we do not need to pay for a high income tax extension does not make any policy sense,” said Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

But Republicans are rejecting that response.

“To restore American exceptionalism, we must end all this Keynesian spending and get back to the practice of free market economics,” Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a leading House Republican, said this week.

The political consequences are evident to all.

A wave of voter anger over the economy last month shifted control of the House from Democrats to Republicans and narrowed the Democratic majority in the Senate.

The restlessness in the electorate grew not only from the weak economic recovery but also from a perception that the government was spending too much and not showing results.

Both political parties immediately seized on the unemployment rate. Republicans said it illustrated the failure of Obama’s policies, while Democrats said it demanded greater spending to protect workers and prime the economy.

Vice President Joe Biden declared the unemployment number “disappointing” and said it underscored the need for Congress to approve an extension of unemployment insurance to jobless workers.

The unemployment setback came as the White House was trying to draw public attention to signs of economic improvement. Obama last month highlighted the resurgence of the auto industry with a trip to a Kokomo, Ind., Chrysler plant.

Administration officials also point to the ever decreasing taxpayer cost of the $700 billion financial rescue that became a public symbol of government intervention and bailouts. Earlier this week, the independent Congressional Budget Office lowered its estimated cost of the program to only $25 billion.

But those successes, even as they mount, get trumped by lingering unemployment, the last economic indicator in a recovery to show improvement.

The task ahead is the equivalent of turning on one spigot with the left hand while turning off another with the right.

Eleven of the 18 deficit commission members backed the austere measures proposed by its two chairmen — former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. But the commission would have required 14 supporting votes to force Congress to consider the plan.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a member of the commission and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the pressure is now on Obama’s administration.

“They are not at the table,” he said. “We need the administration at the table.”

At the White House, economist Goolsbee cautioned:

“You want to lower the deficit in the medium and long run. That’s the deficit challenge we face. That’s totally different than saying, ‘Let’s go yank the belt as tight as it will go right now.’ That would be highly detrimental.”

____

Associated Press writer Julie Pace contributed to this report.

More spending, less spending — Obama’s dilemma (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

Originally reported by WISH-TV News. Read the original article here.

Radio host: Sharpton visit ‘political’ | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

Originally reported by WISH-TV News. Read the original article here.

White overcomes scandal to win | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

Originally reported by WISH-TV News. Read the original article here.

AP declares Coats beats out Ellsworth | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

By Kevin Lee      Illinois Statehouse News

SPRINGFIELD  –  Illinois Senate Democrats and Republicans are geared for a fundraising sprint in the days ahead.

Both parties are pouring in hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates who face electoral battles.

Richard Winkel with the University of Illinois says political parties will donate to the candidates they think have the best chance of winning.

101810Winkel2                          :11.2                           ….it’s not unlimited.”

Senate Democrats are contributing hundreds-of-thousands of dollars to incumbents who face electoral challenges.

One of those incumbents is Western Illinois state senator Deanna Demuzio, who has received almost half-a-million-dollars in cash in the last two weeks.

David Morrison with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform says political parties will sometimes wait until just before the election to contribute.

101810Morroson2                      :12.8                             …moves you’re making.”

Winkel expects the ample fundraising to continue in the days leading up to the election on November 2nd.

Originally reported by Illinois Statehouse News. Read the original article here.

Political Parties Using Money To Win Senate Seats | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

CLEVELAND – Politically weakened but refusing to bend, President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that Bush-era tax cuts be cut off for the wealthiest Americans, joining battle with Republicans — and some fellow Democrats — just two months before bruising midterm elections.

Singling out House GOP leader John Boehner in his home state, Obama delivered a searing attack on Republicans for advocating “the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.”

Obama rolled out a trio of new plans to help spur job growth and invigorate the sluggish national economic recovery. They would expand and permanently extend a research and development tax credit that lapsed in 2009, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their investments in equipment and plants through 2011 and pump $50 billion into highway, rail, airport and other infrastructure projects.

The package was assembled by the president’s economic team after it became clear that the recovery was running out of steam. There was a political component, too: With Democrats in danger of losing control of the House in November, Obama is under heavy pressure to show voters that he and his party are ready to do more to get the economy moving and get millions of jobless Americans back to work.

However, none of Wednesday’s proposals, nor Obama’s call for allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest Americans, seems likely to be acted on by Congress before the elections, reflecting the battering Obama and congressional Democrats have taken in public opinion polls.

Obama made one of his strongest appeals yet to allow the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush — in 2001 and 2003 — to expire at the end of the year on schedule, but just for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually or joint filers earning over $250,000. The changes would affect dividend and capital gains rates and various other tax benefits as well as income from wages and salaries.

The president’s strategy — pushing for legislation to save some tax cuts but not all — carries its own risks. Since all the tax breaks would expire automatically at the end of the year if Congress failed to act, that could result in sweeping increases for taxpayers at every income level — a major blow to recovery hopes and a colossal dose of blame for voters to parcel out to lawmakers and the White House.

Some influential Democrats, and Obama’s own former budget director, Peter Orszag, have suggested a compromise might be necessary — one to temporarily extend all the tax cuts, perhaps for a year or two — given the current election-year animosity between the two parties.

But in his remarks in Cleveland, Obama strongly signaled he wasn’t about to sign off on any such deal.

“Let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else. We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer,” the president said. The administration “is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less,” he said. It was a slight misstatement of his own position, since the $250,000 would apply to household income. The threshold for individuals would be $200,000

White House officials said Cleveland was picked as the speech site expressly because Boehner, who probably would become House speaker if Republicans take back control of the chamber in November, laid out his party’s economic agenda here in a fiery Aug. 24 speech.

At that time, the Ohio Republican called for Obama to fire key economic advisers and to support an extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

Boehner kept up the attack on Wednesday. “If the president is really serious about focusing on jobs, a good start would be taking the advice of his recently departed budget director and freezing all tax rates, coupled with cutting of federal spending to where it was before all the bailouts, government takeovers and `stimulus’ spending sprees,” he said after Obama spoke.

Earlier, Boehner was even more specific on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” saying Congress should freeze all tax rates for two years and pare back federal spending to 2008 levels. The deep recession began in December 2007.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs noted that keeping the Bush tax cuts in effect just for two more years would represent a change from past calls by Boehner to keep them in place permanently.

“My question for him is: Are they abandoning the permanent or are they going with the two-year plan? I’ve seen him saying permanent so many times that I tend to believe that,” Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One. “That’s his plan and I think that continues to be his plan.”

Republicans, and some Democrats, argue that the fragile state of the economy makes this a poor time to raise taxes on anyone — and that increases could stifle wealthier people’s appetite for spending.

Obama argued that the rich are more likely to save additional money than spend it. And he said the struggling U.S. economy can’t afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation’s highest earners.

That $700 billion is what the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it would cost the Treasury to continue tax cuts for top earners over 10 years. What Obama wants to do would cost just over $3 trillion over the same period, the panel estimates.

The debate over the Bush tax cuts is an unwelcome one for dozens of vulnerable Democratic incumbents just weeks before Election Day. Already, a handful of Democrats in conservative or swing districts, such as Reps. Gerry Connolly in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Bobby Bright in southeastern Alabama, have come out publicly for extending all the cuts — at least temporarily.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., engaged in a tight re-election battle, said he “would not support additional spending in a second stimulus package” and that any new initiatives such as Obama’s infrastructure package should be paid for with leftover funds in the $814 billion stimulus package passed last year.

Still other embattled Democrats, wary of alienating middle-class voters, are siding with Obama. In central Ohio, for example, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy has said the tax cuts for higher earners should be repealed but middle-income people should see no tax increases.

Obama acknowledged recovery had slowed noticeably, with unemployment hovering just under 10 percent.

“The middle class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning,” he said.

Polls have shown a steady slippage in Obama’s approval ratings and an accompanying rise in Republican prospects for winning House and Senate seats in November. That has chipped away at Obama’s leverage to get things done in Congress.

Obama has sought to frame the election as a choice between continuing his policies or reinstating those pursued by Bush. He acknowledged in an interview with ABC after his speech that “if the election is a referendum on are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is, then we’re not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to better than it’s been doing.”

The excerpt was aired Wednesday on ABC’s evening news. Fuller portions of the interview were airing Thursday morning on “Good Morning America.”

___

Tom Raum reported from Washington. CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM writers Stephen Ohlemacher and Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.

Obama firm, won’t yield on tax hike for wealthiest (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

SPRINGFIELD  –  The old politics at the statehouse may doom the new political push to get billions more for road construction.

The Transportation for Illinois Coalition is pushing to get candidates on the fall ballot to commit to a vote on the rest of the money for the state’s 10-billion dollar road building plan.  About half of the money has been okayed, and Jennifer Morrison with the Coalition wants the rest to be okayed soon.

090710Morrison1               :16            …can be implemented.”

But Republican State Rep Jim Watson said the money is on hold because lawmakers wanted to make sure it was being spent properly and raised properly.

090710Watson1                   :28              …build the system”

Democrats say the GOP actually played games, but have the power to approve the rest of the money whenever they choose.

Watson says that may happen this fall, or next year.

Originally reported by Illinois Statehouse News. Read the original article here.

Politics Hamper Politcal Push For More Road Money | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

WASHINGTON – House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.

The allegations — which include failure to report rental income from vacation property in the Dominican Republic and to report more than $600,000 in assets on his congressional financial disclosure statements — came as lawyers for Rangel and the House ethics committee worked on a plea deal.

One was struck, people familiar with the talks said, but Republicans indicated it was too late.

The deal between the lawyers will have little meaning if the committee members don’t approve it, and Republicans said at the proceeding they were insisting on going forward with a trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

“Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase,” said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel

Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., has made clear that she wants the committee to be unanimous — leaving little chance for agreement without Rangel capitulating on virtually all counts.

Many Democrats had urged Rangel to settle the case to avoid the prospect of televised hearings right before November congressional elections that will determine which party controls Congress next year.

However, as Thursday’s public airing of the charges drew nearer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem resigned to the case proceeding.

“The chips will have to fall where they may politically,” she told reporters. Pursuing ethics cases against House members is “a serious responsibility that we have,” she said.

The alleged violations of House standards of conduct also include using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a center for public service to bear Rangel’s name on the New York campus of the City College of New York.

Rangel was also accused of accepting a rent-stabilized property in Manhattan for his campaign office and initially not paying federal taxes on the Dominican Republic property.

The ethics panel said Rangel failed to report rental income on his original tax returns for 1998 through 2006 from the Dominican Republic villa. It also said he violated federal laws in addition to House ethics rules, including the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, Postal Service laws and government service codes.

The ethics charges, agreed upon after a two-year probe, were read in a public session of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics committee is formally known.

Rangel, 80, did not attend.

The session set the stage for a committee trial, expected to be held in September. Democrats had hoped to avoid such a public confrontation as November elections approach.

“We live at a time when public skepticism about the institutions in our country is very high,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the ethics committee chair.

She said it had been the panel’s goal “to by our actions rebuild and earn trust by the public and our colleagues.”

Republicans have been trying to turn the case into an indictment of Democratic leadership. Rangel stepped down earlier this year as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, one of the top posts in the House.

But Bonner told colleagues, “No one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice.”

“It is the duty of the House to punish its members for disorderly behavior. As such, this is truly a sad day,” the Alabama Republican said.

Under the tentative plea deal, it was not immediately clear how many of the 13 charges of ethical violations Rangel agreed to accept.

It includes eight members, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Thus, for any deal to be accepted it must be approved by at least one Republican.

In the frantic hours leading up to the meeting, Rangel’s lawyer, Leslie Kiernan, talked to attorneys for the panel about how to avoid a trial for the 40-year veteran.

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been “given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase.”

However, he said, that phase is now over. “We are now in the trial phase,” he said.

A congressional trial could be avoided only if Rangel admitted to substantial violations, or resigned.

Punishment could range from a report criticizing his conduct to a reprimand or censure by the House, or a vote to expel him — which is highly unlikely. Any agreement would have to be approved by Rangel and ethics committee members.

“Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I haven’t had a bad day since,” Rangel told reporters earlier Thursday. “But today I have to reassess that statement.”

“I think everyone is looking forward to getting all the facts out in the open, and people will have to react once we know what we’re dealing with,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.

Rangel is tied for fourth in House seniority. He’s still vigorous at 80 years old.

He had substantial influence as Ways and Means chairman. The panel handles taxes, trade, portions of health care, Medicare and Social Security.

But he stepped down from that post in March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case, saying he should have known that corporate money paid for two trips to Caribbean conferences.

Rangel had repeatedly said he looked forward to a public discussion of the current allegations. A four-member investigating panel, with separate members from the judging subcommittee, brought the charges.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has warned Democrats against a rush to judgment, and any lawmaker with a significant African-American constituency must consider whether it’s worth asking Rangel to quit.

However, some Democratic House members in close races may think it’s more important to distance themselves from Rangel. They don’t want to have to answer negative Republican ads about Pelosi’s promise to wipe Congress clean of ethical misdeeds.

Two Democrats didn’t wait to hear the charges.

Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, a second-term lawmaker who received 65 percent of the vote two years ago, said Rangel needs to resign to preserve the public’s trust in Congress.

Rep. Walt Minnick of Idaho, a freshman who got 51 percent of the vote last time, called for resignation if the charges are proven.

Congress adjourns for its August recess after this week.

___

CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM writers Ann Sanner and Alex Brandon contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS hearing date to Thursday, not Friday, in 8th paragraph)

Panel hits Rangel with 13 alleged ethics charges (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

WASHINGTON (CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM) –
U.S. Democrats on Tuesday went back to the drawing board as they considered stripping out a controversial tax from their landmark financial-reform bill in order to win the swing votes needed to pass it through Congress.

With crucial Republican moderates threatening to withdraw their support, Democrats were weighing alternative ways to fund the most sweeping rewrite of the Wall Street rulebook since the 1930s.

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, one of the lawmakers in charge of the bill, said he planned to reopen negotiations later on Tuesday and was mulling a plan to bring a $700 billion bank bailout program to an early end to pay for reforms.

The bill had been expected to pass both chambers of Congress this week in time for President Barack Obama to sign it into law by July 4. But supporters have been forced to scramble for votes in the Senate, putting that goal in jeopardy.

Senate Democrats still hope to pass the bill by the end of the week, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.

Analysts said that while that timetable may slip, the bill was still likely to become law.

“We believe that this legislation will pass, timing and the bank tax remain the final question marks,” wrote FBR Capital Markets analyst Edward Mills in a research note.

Democrats are now two votes short of the 60 needed to clear a Republican procedural hurdle in the Senate. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd died on Monday, depriving his party of a needed vote, and Republican Senator Scott Brown said on Tuesday he would withdraw his support unless Democrats strip out a $17.9 billion tax that would apply to large financial institutions.

The tax was added during a final all-night negotiating session last week to cover the costs of the bill.

“It is especially troubling that this provision was inserted in the conference report in the dead of night without hearings or economic analysis,” Brown wrote in a letter to the Democrats who are handling the bill. “This new provision takes real money away from the economy, making it unavailable for lending on Main Street, and gives it to Washington.”

White House staff were expected to meet with Brown later in the day.

Other moderate Republican senators who previously supported the bill have also expressed reservations over the new tax.

One of those Republicans, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, told reporters she was working with Dodd to get away from the tax and they were “making progress.”

“The bill is not perfect. But I believe if you take out the new bank tax that, on balance, it would improve our financial system and I would support it,” she told reporters.

LOOKING FOR MONEY

The tax was added to ensure that the bill does not add to the government’s ballooning budget deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated on Monday that the legislation would be deficit-neutral with the tax provision.

If the tax is removed from the bill, lawmakers may consider raising banks’ deposit insurance fees in addition to tapping the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, sources said.

“The plan it to reconvene the conference later this afternoon, the idea being the elimination of TARP … except for the existing obligations,” Dodd told reporters.

Shutting down the politically unpopular bank-bailout fund before it expires in October to free up money to defray the financial reform bill’s costs could satisfy Republicans who have tried repeatedly to end it.

One memo being circulated on Tuesday showed Dodd was also considering a proposal to raise the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp premium ratio to 1.35.

Currently the FDIC by law must maintain the insurance fund at 1.15 percent of banks’ covered deposits. The increase in the premium ratio would result in a rate hike on banks.

If negotiators agree on a solution, the House could vote on the measure on Wednesday. That conceivably could give the Senate enough time to approve it and send it to Obama by July 4.

The bill, which aims to prevent a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis that shook the global economy, is a top priority for Obama and would give him and his fellow Democrats a big legislative win ahead of November congressional elections.

“We continue to work with Congress to find all possible paths to ensuring Wall Street reform is enacted as soon as possible,” an Obama administration official said.

The legislation would force banks to reduce, but not cease, risky trading and investing; set up a new government process for liquidating troubled financial firms; and establish a new consumer-protection bureau.

Bank stocks fell sharply when the market opened on Tuesday and were down 4 percent in early afternoon trade. The reform bill, instability in Europe and fears of weaker-than-expected earnings were pushing prices lower, analysts said.

Democrats return to drawing board on Wall Street bill (CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

Generic Ballot has Democrats ahead by four points

NEW YORK, June 28 /CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM/ — Normally in politics the one thing that can be counted on is that Republicans and Democrats will think differently about most issues. But, when it comes to how Congress is doing their job, it does not matter what party label someone has — they all give Congress negative ratings. More than four in five Americans (86%) give the overall job Congress is doing a negative rating while just 14% give it positive marks.

(Logo:  http://photos.CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM.com/prnh/20100517/NY06256LOGO )

(Logo:  http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100517/NY06256LOGO )

Breaking this down by party, almost all Republicans (97%) give Congress negative marks, as do nine in ten Independents (90%). Also, even though Congress is under Democratic control, three-quarters of Democrats (75%) give the institution negative ratings.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,227 adults surveyed online between June 14 and 21, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

The Tea Party

Tea Party support continues to hold steady with just under two in five Americans (37%) supporting the Tea Party Movement and three in ten (31%) opposing it. In May, 38% of Americans said they were Tea Party supporters while 30% were opposed to the movement.  Most of this support is coming from Republicans (69% support the movement) followed by Independents (43%), while over half of Democrats (56%) oppose it.

While over one-third of Americans may be supporters of the Tea Party movement, this does not mean they all consider themselves members of the Party. Just 8% actually would describe themselves as a member of the Tea Party while 77% would not. In May, 10% of Americans said they were Tea Party members.

The 2010 Congressional Election

Looking ahead to November, it is potentially a close race. If the election for Congress were being held today and only a Democrat and a Republican were running, just over one-third (34%) of U.S. adults would vote for the Democratic candidate while three in ten (30%) would vote for the Republican candidate. In May, 35% said they would vote for the Democrat and 28% would vote for the Republican, so this gap is narrowing.

However, it would be better news for the Democrats if a Tea Party candidate enters the race.  Just over one-third (34%) of Americans would still vote for the Democrat, but 18% would vote for the Republican candidate and 14% would for the Tea Party candidate.

So What?

While four months can be a lifetime in politics, the reality is it is just about 18 weeks until the elections in November. In that time, each party has to convince voters to vote for their candidate and not for the other one. But, in those 18 weeks, there are a lot of outside events that can occur which cannot be predicted. There is always that “October surprise” which can shift an election. The way this year is going do not be surprised if there are surprises in July, August and September, as well.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between June 14 to 21, 2010 among 2,227 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

The results of this Harris Poll may not be used in advertising, marketing or promotion without the prior written permission of Harris Interactive.

Q1215, 1230, 1235, 1240, 1245, 1250

The Harris Poll® #82, June 28, 2010

By Regina A. Corso, Director, The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive

About Harris Interactive

Harris Interactive is one of the world’s leading custom market research firms, leveraging research, technology, and business acumen to transform relevant insight into actionable foresight. Known widely for the Harris Poll and for pioneering innovative research methodologies, Harris offers expertise in a wide range of industries including healthcare, technology, public affairs, energy, telecommunications, financial services, insurance, media, retail, restaurant, and consumer package goods. Serving clients in over 215 countries and territories through our North American, European, and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms, Harris specializes in delivering research solutions that help us – and our clients – stay ahead of what’s next. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.

SOURCE Harris Interactive

http://www.harrisinteractive.com

Almost Nine in Ten Americans Give Congress Negative Ratings | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

WASHINGTON – Channeling the nation’s anger, lawmakers pilloried BP’s boss in a withering day of judgment Thursday for the oil company at the center of the Gulf calamity. Unflinching, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said he was out of the loop on decisions at the well and coolly asserted, “I’m not stonewalling.”

That infuriated members of Congress even more, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Testifying as oil still surged into the Gulf of Mexico and coated ever more coastal land and marshes, Hayward declared “I am so devastated with this accident,” “deeply sorry” and “so distraught.”

Yet the oil man disclaimed knowledge of any of the myriad problems on and under the Deepwater Horizon rig before the deadly explosion, telling a congressional hearing he had only heard about the well earlier in April, the month of the accident, when the BP drilling team told him it had found oil.

“With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year around the world,” Hayward told Republican Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas.

“Yes, I know,” Burgess shot back. “That’s what scaring me right now.”

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., told the CEO: “I think you’re copping out. You’re the captain of the ship.” Democrats were similarly, if more predictably, livid.

“BP blew it,” said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House investigations panel that held the hearing. “You cut corners to save money and time.”

The verbal onslaught had been anticipated for days and unfolded at a nearly relentless pace. Hayward had one seemingly sympathetic listener, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who apologized for the pressure President Barack Obama had put on BP to create a compensation fund. Hours later, after criticism from Republicans and Democrats as well as the White House, Barton backed off and apologized for his apology.

With multiple investigations continuing and primary efforts in the Gulf focused on stopping the leak, there was little chance the nation would learn much from Hayward’s appearance about what caused the disaster. Yet even modest expectations were not met as the CEO told lawmakers at every turn that he was not tuned in to operations at the well.

He said his underlings made the decisions and federal regulators were responsible for vetting them.

Hayward spoke slowly and calmly in his clipped British accent as he sought to deflect accusations — based on internal BP documents obtained by congressional investigators — that BP chose a particular well design that was riskier but cheaper by at least $7 million.

“I wasn’t involved in any of that decision-making,” he said.

Were bad decisions made about the cement?

“I wasn’t part of the decision-making process,” he said. “I’m not a cement engineer, I’m afraid.”

Also, “I am not a drilling engineer” and “I’m not an oceanographic scientist.”

What about those reports that BP had been experiencing a variety of problems and delays at the well?

“I had no prior knowledge.”

At one point a frustrated Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, interrupted the CEO. “You’re kicking the can down the road and acting as if you had nothing to do with this company and nothing to do with the decisions. I find that irresponsible.”

Hayward quietly insisted: “I’m not stonewalling. I simply was not involved in the decision-making process.”

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., voiced the committee’s frustrations as the afternoon wore on. “You’re really insulting our intelligence,” he said. “I am thoroughly disgusted.”

Waxman told the BP executive that in his committee’s review of 30,000 items, there was “not a single e-mail or document that you paid even the slightest attention to the dangers at this well.”

Burgess slammed both the CEO and the government regulators for a risky drilling plan that he said never should have been brought forward.

“Shame on you, Mr. Hayward, for submitting it,” Burgess said, “but shame on us for accepting it, which is simply a rubber stamp.”

In a jarring departure that caught fellow Republicans by surprise, Barton, the top GOP member of the panel, used his opening statement to apologize — twice — for the pressure put on the company by President Barack Obama to contribute to a compensation fund for people in the afflicted Gulf of Mexico states.

Barton said the U.S. has “a due process system” to assess such damages, and he decried the $20 billion fund that BP agreed to Wednesday at the White House as a “shakedown” and “slush fund.” He told Hayward, “I’m not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize.”

He later retracted his apologies to BP, then apologized anew — this time for calling the fund a “shakedown.” “BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident,” he said, and “fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident.”

Barton’s earlier remarks were clearly an embarrassment for the party. House Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence issued a statement asserting: “Congressman Barton’s statements this morning were wrong. BP itself has acknowledged that responsibility for the economic damages lies with them and has offered an initial pledge of $20 billion dollars for that purpose.”

Since 1990, oil and gas industry political action committees and employees have given more than $1.4 million to Barton’s campaigns, the most of any House member during that period, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

As Hayward began to testify, a protester disrupted the hearing and was forcibly removed from the room by Capitol police. The woman was identified as Diane Wilson, 61, a shrimper from Seadrift, Texas, near the Gulf Coast. Her hands stained black, she shouted to Hayward from the back of the room: “You need to be charged with a crime.”

Stupak, the subcommittee chairman and a former Michigan state trooper, noted that over the past five years, 26 people have died and 700 have been injured in BP accidents — including the Gulf spill, a pipeline spill in Alaska and a refinery explosion in Texas.

Hayward argued that safety had always been his top priority and “that is why I am so devastated with this accident.” When he became CEO in 2007, Hayward said he would focus “like a laser” on safety, a phrase he repeated on Thursday.

Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., questioned BP’s commitment to safety.

BP had 760 safety violations in the past five years and paid $373 million in fines, Sullivan said. By contrast, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips each had eight safety violations and ExxonMobil just one, Sullivan said.

“How in the heck do you explain that?” he asked Hayward. Hayward said most of those violations predated his tenure as CEO. “We have made major changes in the company over the last three to four years,” he said.

An estimated 73.5 million to 126 million gallons of oil has come out of the breached wellhead, whether into the water or captured.

The reservoir that feeds the well still holds about 2 billion gallons of oil, according to the first public estimate Hayward has given of the size of the undersea oil field.

That means the reservoir is believed to still hold 94 percent to 97 percent of its oil. At the current flow rate, it would take from two years to nearly four years for all the oil to be drained from it.

___

CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM writers Tom Raum, Matthew Daly, H. Josef Hebert, Seth Borenstein, Matt Apuzzo, Eileen Sullivan and Ben Feller in Washington and Harry Weber in Houston contributed to this report.

BP chief says he wasn’t in loop, enraging Congress (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

Posted by John Chase at 3:18 p.m.

It’s no secret Republicans are looking for ammunition wherever they can find it to tarnish Democrats with the stain of Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial.

But one of their first efforts missed the mark.

Read the original article from Stateline.org.

IL: GOP stretches the case in Blagojevich press release | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

WASHINGTON – A senior adviser to President Barack Obama says the Democratic nominee for the Senate in South Carolina doesn’t appear to be a legitimate candidate.

South Carolina Democrats chose a political unknown, 32-year-old Alvin Greene, to run against Republican Sen. Jim DeMint this fall.

Greene is an unemployed military veteran who hardly campaigned for the office, and his victory last Tuesday has raised questions about who backed his candidacy.

And it turns out that he’s facing a felony charge.

Obama adviser David Axelrod says South Carolina Democrats deserve a strong, credible candidate. He says it’s a big mystery how Greene won.

Axelrod appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Obama adviser questions legitimacy of SC candidate (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

The 215-204 roll call Friday by which the House voted to continue providing unemployment checks to people out of work more than six months and revive certain tax breaks for families and businesses.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 214 Democrats and 1 Republican.

Voting no were 34 Democrats and 170 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 3 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats — Bright, N; Davis, X.

Republicans — Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Griffith, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans — Young, N.

ARIZONA

Democrats — Giffords, N; Grijalva, Y; Kirkpatrick, Y; Mitchell, N; Pastor, Y.

Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Shadegg, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats — Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y.

Republicans — Boozman, N.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats — Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Garamendi, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, N; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans — Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

COLORADO

Democrats — DeGette, Y; Markey, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, N; Salazar, N.

Republicans — Coffman, N; Lamborn, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats — Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Himes, N; Larson, Y; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Republicans — Castle, N.

FLORIDA

Democrats — Boyd, N; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, X; Klein, N; Kosmas, N; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y.

Republicans — Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, X; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Posey, N; Putnam, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Young, N.

GEORGIA

Democrats — Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, X; Lewis, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII

Democrats — Hirono, Y.

Republicans — Djou, N.

IDAHO

Democrats — Minnick, N.

Republicans — Simpson, N.

ILLINOIS

Democrats — Bean, N; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Halvorson, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans — Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Schock, N; Shimkus, N.

INDIANA

Democrats — Carson, Y; Donnelly, N; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, N; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans — Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N.

IOWA

Democrats — Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans — King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Democrats — Moore, Y.

Republicans — Jenkins, N; Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats — Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans — Davis, X; Guthrie, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats — Melancon, X.

Republicans — Alexander, N; Boustany, N; Cao, Y; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats — Michaud, N; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats — Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Kratovil, N; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans — Bartlett, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats — Capuano, N; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats — Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y; Schauer, Y; Stupak, X.

Republicans — Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats — Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans — Bachmann, N; Kline, N; Paulsen, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats — Childers, Y; Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.

Republicans — Harper, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats — Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, Y.

Republicans — Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, N; Graves, X; Luetkemeyer, N.

MONTANA

Republicans — Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans — Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats — Berkley, Y; Titus, Y.

Republicans — Heller, N.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Democrats — Hodes, Y; Shea-Porter, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats — Adler, Y; Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans — Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; Lance, N; LoBiondo, N; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats — Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y; Teague, Y.

NEW YORK

Democrats — Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, Y; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McMahon, N; Meeks, Y; Murphy, N; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans — King, N; Lee, N.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats — Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; Kissell, Y; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, X; Watt, Y.

Republicans — Coble, N; Foxx, N; Jones, X; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Democrats — Pomeroy, Y.

OHIO

Democrats — Boccieri, Y; Driehaus, N; Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kilroy, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Space, Y; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Austria, N; Boehner, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, X; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats — Boren, X.

Republicans — Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.

OREGON

Democrats — Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans — Walden, N.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats — Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Carney, Y; Critz, Y; Dahlkemper, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans — Dent, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N; Thompson, N.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats — Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats — Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans — Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats — Herseth Sandlin, N.

TENNESSEE

Democrats — Cohen, Y; Cooper, N; Davis, Y; Gordon, Y; Tanner, Y.

Republicans — Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Roe, N; Wamp, N.

TEXAS

Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, N; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans — Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.

UTAH

Democrats — Matheson, Y.

Republicans — Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats — Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats — Boucher, Y; Connolly, N; Moran, Y; Nye, N; Perriello, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats — Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, N; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, N.

Republicans — Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats — Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans — Capito, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats — Baldwin, Y; Kagen, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.

Republicans — Petri, N; Ryan, X; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans — Lummis, N.

Roll call on jobless benefits, tax breaks (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Thursday he plans to pass security-related appropriations bills before the November election, as House Democratic leaders continue to struggle with the decision over whether to pursue a fiscal 2011 budget resolution.

Hoyer said that he has been discussing the fiscal 2011 appropriations process with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and the possibility of passing the security-related bills before the midterms.

“Mr. Obey and I have been talking about appropriations and, in fact, those that will be a priority will be bills related to security,” Hoyer said.

Hoyer did not specify, but he is likely looking at the annual Defense, Homeland Security and Military Construction-VA spending bills.

His comments came as Republicans, lobbyists and budget experts have questioned whether House Democratic leaders would consider any of the 12 annual spending bills before the election.

“It’s been clear that this was going to be a difficult year for appropriations in any case,” said Jim Horney, who was deputy Democratic staff director on the Senate Budget Committee from 2001 to 2004 and now directs federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The difficulty has already arisen, Horney said, as Democratic leaders have struggled to reach a compromise in the Caucus on discretionary funding.

The disagreement turns on a demand from the Blue Dog Coalition that non-security discretionary spending be cut 2 percent each year for three years and subject to a freeze for an additional two years. Liberal Democrats are opposed to that proposal because they are concerned that it would hurt federal programs on which their constituents depend.

House Democrats are also considering passing a deeming resolution, instead of a five-year spending plan, that would set the discretionary funding level for just fiscal 2011 and allow appropriators to move forward on the spending bills.

If the decision is made to pursue a deeming measure, it would be the first time since 1974 when the current budget rules were put in place that the House has failed to pass a budget resolution.

Budget negotiations have been going on for weeks and some lawmakers, including House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., have said House Democratic leaders have to decide soon.

Republicans Thursday accused Democrats of shirking their responsibility to pass all 12 annual appropriations bills.

“If the news that the Democrats are not planning on doing appropriations bills is true, it would be an absolute failure to fulfill their most basic duties as members of Congress,” said Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.

Meanwhile, Hoyer, in his weekly colloquy with Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said that while work continues on trying to get an agreement on a budget plan, it would not likely be reached before the Memorial Day recess.

“But my expectation is that we will continue to work on that and hopefully do that shortly after our return,” Hoyer said.

He added that the House could take up a war supplemental spending bill next week. “Chairman Obey is working to get a bill ready for committee consideration and it is possible that we would consider that next week if in fact Mr. Obey and the committee are ready to report that out,” Hoyer said.

The Senate is expected to begin consideration of its version of the supplemental after it votes on financial reform legislation.

Read the original article here.

Security-related spending bills are likely to take priority | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

The $395 million proposal — unveiled at a morning news conference and rushing toward floor votes in both chambers later in the day — reignited a familiar fight between anti-tax Republicans and Democrats who say the deficit-riddled state needs new sources of cash.

Lawmakers and Pawlenty are hard-pressed to balance the budget before the state constitution requires the legislature to adjourn next week. The state Supreme Court made the crisis more acute last week when it said Pawlenty exceeded his authority last year when he ordered budget cuts without legislators’ approval.

With the Republican governor and top legislative Democrats far from reaching a budget deal, Democrats planned to use their large majorities in both chambers to pass the tax bill. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher said the vote had to be Monday to leave enough time to try to override a veto with GOP help. Top Republicans said their members won’t vote to override.

Pawlenty promised to veto the bill, which he said would give Minnesota the nation’s fifth-highest income tax rate and hurt small businesses.

“The DFL’s proposed tax increase is like Jason in ‘Friday the 13th’ — it’s scary and it keeps coming back,” he said in a statement.

Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller said he doubted Pawlenty’s position had changed.

“I have no reason to believe that he’s become flexible or willing to compromise,” he said.

The proposal would establish a new income tax bracket for the highest-paid taxpayers. Couples filing jointly would pay a 9.1 percent tax on income topping $200,000 after deductions and credits. The higher rate also would apply to taxable income of more than $113,100 for singles and more than $170,350 for heads of household.

The bill also would roll back $40 million worth of President George W. Bush-era state income tax cuts for high-income taxpayers a year earlier than scheduled.

Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk said the new taxes would affect 122,000 filers for 2010 taxes payable in 2011. He said 97 percent of that group has taxable incomes of $250,000 or higher.

The tax plans are part of a deficit fix that includes $680 million in spending cuts and $1.7 billion in delayed payments to public schools, largely mirroring the reductions Pawlenty made last year.

Enacting the cuts would avert a cash crunch that could result from schools, cities or other groups touched by Pawlenty’s cuts seeking reimbursement of that aid after last week’s court decision.

Top Democrats said the new taxes will cushion schoolchildren and college students from the state’s financial problems. They said they accepted most of Pawlenty’s budget plan and hope he will bend.

“Those that would like to boil this down to whether taxes will be increased or not are oversimplifying the problem and the fiscal situation we’re in right now,” House Majority Leader Tony Sertich said.

Minn. Democrats want higher taxes for wealthy (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.

BERLIN – Voters in Germany’s most populous state dealt Chancellor Angela Merkel a painful setback Sunday, erasing her government’s majority in the upper house of parliament and curbing its power after a stumbling start and criticism over the Greek debt crisis.

Merkel’s center-right alliance was voted out of power in a state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, a region of some 18 million people that includes Cologne and the industrial Ruhr area. It was the first electoral test since she started her second term in October.

“This is of course a warning shot for the governing parties, and the people should know that it has been heard,” said Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, the vice chancellor and leader of the Free Democrats, Merkel’s junior coalition partner. “We must make an effort to win back lost trust.”

Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats won 34.6 percent of Sunday’s vote, 10 points down on five years ago and their worst showing in the state since World War II, and the Free Democrats 6.7 percent, final results showed.

The coalition, whose makeup mirrors that of the national government, finished well short of a majority in the state legislature.

The main opposition Social Democrats won 34.5 percent and the Greens 12.1 percent. A hard-left rival, the Left Party, won 5.6 percent.

It wasn’t immediately clear who would run North Rhine-Westphalia and whether conservative Juergen Ruettgers could cling onto the governor’s office in Duesseldorf.

The Social Democrats fell just short of a majority to govern along with the Greens. They could try to form a previously untried alliance with the Left Party or a “grand coalition” with the conservatives.

Merkel will likely have a harder time running Germany — Europe’s biggest economy — without a majority in the upper house, which represents Germany’s 16 states and must approve major legislation.

She will have to haggle with the opposition — diminishing prospects of tax cuts intended to stimulate the economy and significant reform to the health-insurance system, both projects dear to the Free Democrats.

Merkel’s federal government currently controls 37 of the 69 upper-house votes, including six from North Rhine-Westphalia.

Its stock has slid following a poor start, constant squabbling over policy and the challenge from the Greek crisis.

A senior Merkel aide said Sunday’s setback had many causes — including local problems and “too much unnecessary arguing on the public stage.”

The Christian Democrats’ general secretary, Hermann Groehe, also pointed to “the general uncertainty, people’s concerns with a view to the stability of the euro, the situation in Greece.”

Merkel initially held out on agreeing to aid for cash-strapped Athens, prompting German opposition parties to accuse her of avoiding an unpopular decision in the election run-up.

On Friday, however, parliament approved a bill allowing Germany to grant as much as euro22.4 billion ($28.6 billion) in credit over three years as part of a wider rescue plan.

A bigger problem with voters may have been the government’s poor start at home. Freed last year from a “grand coalition” with the Social Democrats in which she shone as a consensus-builder, Merkel then got bogged down in internal divisions — notably about the wisdom of making big tax cuts soon.

The chancellor may soon be back to consensus-building without an upper-house majority — a frequent situation in Germany, which Merkel experienced in her first term. Opposition parties oppose tax cuts and plans such as extending nuclear power stations’ lives.

“It’s a good signal … that North-Rhine Westphalia has said, ‘this isn’t how we want to live in Germany,” Social Democratic leader Sigmar Gabriel said.

Gabriel said it was a “turning point” for the Social Democrats, who are still recovering from a heavy national election defeat in September.

They led North Rhine-Westphalia for nearly four decades until losing it in 2005 amid discontent over then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s efforts to trim the welfare state.

Sunday’s results gave the Christian Democrats 67 seats in the state legislature and the Free Democrats 13.

The Social Democrats won 67, the Greens 23 and the Left Party 11.

German state vote curbs Merkel’s power (AP) | Chicago Press Release Services - Chicago's leading press release newswire service; professional press release services, press release distribution and newswire services.