A prominent muslim scholar and cleric has issued a 600-page fatwa, or religious edict, drawing from authoritative historical sources and scripture, to rule that true Islam bars any form of bloodshed. Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a muslim theologian from Pakistan, who lives and teaches in Britain, said an honest examination of the teachings and doctrines of Islam demonstrates an absolute prohibition on the shedding of blood for political or religious purposes.

In his speech, announcing the fatwa against bloodshed, ul-Qadri said “Whatever these terrorists are doing, it’s not martyrdom”. He sought to illustrate the difference between the kind of holy struggle sanctioned by Islamic teaching and the unjust use of violence for personal or political gain. The scholar said his fatwa has the weight of a jurisdictional finding, and should be taken as direct advice as to the real spiritual meaning of Islam’s treatment of violence.

According to CNN, where he appeared in an interview with Christiane Amanpour:

Ul-Qadri was speaking to CNN just over a week after he issued a 600-page fatwa in London denouncing terrorists as “the biggest enemies of Islam.”

In his fatwa, ul-Qadri also said suicide bombers are destined for hell and strongly criticized Islamic extremists who cite Islam to justify violence.

“Terrorism and violence cannot be considered to be permissible in Islam on the basis of any excuse,” he said.

Ul-Qadri explained that no matter of foreign policy, no act of aggression by a foreign state, no “good intention” could justify terrorism. His fatwa is the most thorough, researched and high-profile such ruling to rule out the possibility of radical terrorists having any legitimate claim to Islam justifying their activities.

He told Amanpour that while the most radical of the violent extremists will likely not accept his finding, he believes that a thorough reading of the document would convince even those on the verge of being “brainwashed” by those violent extremists. He said the most violent and incorrigible of the religiously motivated terrorists are a tiny minority of the global muslim population, even among and widely profiled angry young muslim men.

His aim is to set forth in clear, authoritative, historically founded and spiritually resonant language, once and for all the doctrine that Islam does not and cannot condone violence of any kind.

According to the CBC:

Qadri condemned suicide bombers as destined for hell, a counter to the extremist promise of eternal paradise after death. Qadri said the fatwa outlaws suicide bombings “without any excuses, any pretexts, or exceptions.”

He said he was compelled to issue the fatwa because of concerns about the radicalization of British Muslims at university campuses, most of whom are of Pakistani descent.

The fatwa could be a watershed moment in the struggle for the soul of Islam, across so many denominations where radical fringe elements are trying to radicalize the moderate core population. Ul-Qadri’s finding has been called an “absolute” condemnation of terrorism and bloodshed, allowing for no “excuses or pretexts”.

In 2008, Reuters reported that “An ultra conservative Muslim seminary in India, which is said to have inspired the Taliban, issued a fatwa, or edict, against terrorism during a meeting attended by thousands of clerics and students.” But ul-Qadri’s fatwa is the most sweeping and absolute condemnation of violence within Islam, and comes at a time when there is a proliferation of grassroots protest within Islam against the hijacking of the faith by terrorists and extremists.

The Great Recession has begun to push through to basic public services that affect us all. Education funding has dried up and across the country, cities facing major budget shortfalls are taking the radical step of shutting down schools in order to address the budget crisis.

Kansas City is closing nearly half of its schools. Detroit is planning to shutter schools strategically, using federal stimulus dollars to finance an overhaul that will streamline and improve the ways schools are managed and operated. According to Crain’s Detroit Business:

The plan aims to shrink district building space by more than 4 million square feet, which should save $31 million in 2010, according to DPS materials.

The plan’s initial phases will be funded by $500.5 million in federal stimulus bonds. A second phase, which involves new and specialized school construction, would be funded by a future $500 million bond sale.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Library, among many others, is planning to close at least 12 branches and lay off 140 workers. The effect would appear to be there is far less access for young people and members of the community to an information-rich learning environment.

In DeKalb County, Georgia, plans are underway to close schools in hopes of closing a projected $88 million budget deficit. The closures would save an estimated $2.3 million, hardly enough to justify such radical measures.

As budget concerns hit one after another state and municipality, we need to think about how to counter the trend, find creative ways to fund public education and related public services, to ensure hard times don’t build hard times into our children’s future…

• Join the discussion on the Hot Spring Network

El ciber-diálogo de Gender Links, para el jueves, 4 de marzo 2010, efectuó una conversación robusta sobre cómo mejorar el ambiente mediático de la Copa Mundial del 2010 respecto a los derechos de la mujer. Los, partícipes, en Nueva York y en Sudáfrica, se entrevistaron, cambiando ideas y comparando ambientes socio-culturales según favorezcan o no la entrada de las mujeres y las niñas en el ámbito del fútbol. Un ejemplo clave fue el caso de Estados Unidos, donde las niñas muchas veces tienen acceso a programas de deporte de la comunidad o a através de la escuela y donde las figuras más conocidas del fútbol internacional son mujeres como Mia Hamm.

Estados Unidos también carece del llamado ‘hooliganism’ y el espíritu machista que afecta al entorno aficionado futbolista en tantos otros países del mundo. Esta realidad contrasta con la situación de Sudáfrica, donde la expectativa es que la Copa Mundial traerá un flujo importante de aficionados mayoritariamente masculinos, muchos de ellos con la intención de divertirse en un ambiente precisamente masculino y aprovechar la ocasión para solicitar a prostitutas.

Se preguntó si en Estados Unidos, o bien, en América Latina en general, ha habido un aumento de promoción de viajes con el anzuelo de un viaje de ’soccer y sexo’. Es un tema difícil, que realmente necesita un estudio mediático-comercial de seria profundidad, porque estas promociones no han sido ni alta ni extensamente visibles, aunque es posible que se hayan promocionado de manera cuidadosamente oculta. Respecto al problema del posible tráfico de mujeres a Sudáfrica, se habló de la necesidad de evaluar las motivaciones de los traficantes y cómo se podría combatir el tráfico de mujeres en los lugares fuentes de mujeres traficadas.

En Sudáfrica en sí, y en la región, subir la consciencia pública del problema será útil y exigirá un esfuerzo deliberado de entrar en los ámbitos mediáticos dedicados al fútbol, y formular un mensaje que haga conexión entre los valores o la dinámica del deporte y la justicia social. Un problema central, para la prevención de una subida de tasa de tráfico de mujeres hacia Sudáfrica o hacia la prostitución en la región será enfocar esfuerzos de publicidad en presionar al gobierno de no ignorar el riesgo.

Mientras el interés económico de una subida radical del turismo puede llegar a ser el enfoque principal para el gobierno, no se puede permitir que llegue a incentivar a que gobierno de ejerzca con menos seriedad las leyes contra la prostitución. El poder de ese no ejercer, ese mirar hacia otro lado, esa permisividad con fines de lucro, radica en que puede ser casi invisible. Si el pueblo no está pensando ya desde un principio que el gobierno podría fallar en sus obligaciones de tal manera, es probable que ni so notaría la negligencia.

Para prevenir que una actitud de permisividad hacia tales maltratos de la mujer haga daño a la condición de la mujer en la región y a cientos o miles de mujeres específicas, habrá que presionar a los líderes tanto políticos como de organizaciones comerciales privadas, de no participar en un ambiente de permisividad de la prostitución o del turismo sexual. Desde Johannesburg, vino la pregunta de si enfocarse demasiado en este problema debilita la causa de la mujer y la pone en situación de víctima.

Desde Nueva York, esta respuesta:

No tiene que ser ese tipo de dinámica. No es necesariamente que las mujeres (en general) son víctimas de esta cultura abusiva, sino que el interés de los traficantes, y la desestabilización que promete el tráfico de mujeres para la prostitución, tanto en sus países de origen como en su país de destino, marca una desequilibración social general. Todo el mundo puede ser ‘víctima’ de este fenómeno, y los riesgos son más que sólo un deterioro en la causa de igualdad de la mujer. Pero hay que mirar bien los casos de victimización y combatirla para combatir el tráfico en general.

De ahí, la conversación giró para mirar otros asuntos de interés económico en las comunidades que podrían verse afectadas por una reorganización radical del ambiente comercial. Las “vendedoras ambulantes sudafricanas se estan quejando de que la FIFA está imponiendo reglas que significan que perderan los espacios en donde hacen comercio habitualmente”, dijo una dialogante especialista en asuntos de la mujer, desde Johannesburg.

El efecto real inmediato en la condición de vida de las comunidades locales tendría que ser central en el cálculo de valores respecto al beneficio de la Copa Mundial para el país de Sudáfrica. En Sudáfrica, se expresó la idea de que “Parece ser que eventos como estos terminan beneficiando a las clases ya privilegiadas en los paises del Sur que piensan que beneficiara a todos sus habitantes.” Y el consenso claro que se formó alrededor de este tema era que un evento tan caro y ambicioso como la Copa Mundial sólo tiene sentido para Sudáfrica si de alguna forma mejora la condición humana de cada comunidad y cada ciudadano.

Una idea importante sería incentivar a las grandes empresas invertir dinero en las comunidades, para ser parte de la experiencia de la Copa Mundial, pensando a largo plazo en qué efecto real tendrá cada dinero gastado durante la Copa. No es demasiado tarde para que sean un enfoque las comunidades locales, la condición humana de la ciudadanía ni el efecto generalizado de la Copa para el estatus de la mujer en la sociedad. Toda Sudáfrica debería ganar por anfitrionar este evento de alcance planetario.

Even as Haiti grapples with the deep and lasting devastation of the earthquake that left tens of millions dead, millions homeless and destroyed vital infrastructure needed to maintain routine food distribution and medical care, hundreds of thousands of people are now vulnerable to catastrophic flooding expected to hit the low-lying camps where they are struggling to maintain makeshift tent cities. As many as one million people need to be relocated and/or given viable shelter, to avoid the rapid spread of infectious disease.

Haiti suffers 98% deforestation, due to unchecked logging across the nation, which leaves its hillsides and river banks dangerously unstable and prone to slippage and flooding. Drainage canals in the capital Port au Prince and outlying areas, have been clogged with debris since the earthquake, and will likely not to the full work of clearing the floodwaters. Pervasive flooding would threaten the lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of displaced people unable to seek shelter more substantial than a tent.

With flooding, otherwise habitable land can become a breeding ground for infection and the close proximity of large numbers of displaced people can cause the risk of epidemic to run literally off the charts. Young children, pregnant women and the elderly and infirm can quickly find themselves immuno-compromised due to lack of food and safe drinking water, further exacerbating the threat. Oxfam, the Red Cross, Yele Haiti and other aid organizations, are racing to build the temporary infrastructure to protect against the rains.

According to Reuters AlertNet:

Oxfam is distributing tents and plastic sheeting to thousands of them and estimates indicate that there is enough shelter material — either in the capital or en route — to meet the needs of about 50% of those who have been displaced. Aid groups think that as many as 40% of them could return to their homes if their buildings are declared safe. Oxfam has a team of structural engineers in the capital right now assessing that issue.

Over 230,000 people were killed by the 12 January quake, and people have already begun to die as a result of the mounting rainy season. It is imperative that aid organizations, the Haitian government and US civilian and military personnel working to deliver aid, succeed in building rain-proof and flood-safe shelter, to prevent another mass catastrophe.

Agence France-Presse reported in February that:

A top UN official in Haiti on Friday said many of those made homeless by the massive earthquake one month ago are unlikely to be provided “good shelter” before the coming rainy season.

While the United Nations and other organizations involved in aid efforts are aiming to provide some sort of shelter material before the rains begin around May, the deputy head of the UN mission here said the challenge will be immense.

There were ongoing deliberations about whether to focus aid dollars on building more sturdy, flood-safe shelters, or whether to try to get the largest number of tents out to the largest number of people. This kind of international aid triage is a constant concern in situations of mass catastrophe and suffering, and it is likely the sturdiest kinds of temporary shelter will not be available to most displaced Haitians in time for the rainy season.

On the second morning of the 54th Commission on the Status of Women, Gender Links and the African Woman and Child Feature Service —through the Gender and Media Diversity Centre— hosted a roundtable dialogue involving Marren Akatsa-Bukachi of the Eastern African Sub-regional Support Initiative for the Advancement of Women (EASSI), Francisco Cos-Montiel of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Revai Makanje of Hivos, Norah Matovu-Winyi of the African Women’s Development and Communication Network, and Jennifer Lewis of Gender Links as facilitator, with Mwendabai Yeta Mkhize and myself providing event support and reporting.

The discussion opened with comments on statistical analysis of proress toward the goal of achieving 50/50 parity. With a 7% improvement since Beijing, the discussion moved quickly toward the question of how to accelerate the rise of women in decision-making and leadership roles.

With not enough parliamentary-level attention focused on women’s issues or the specific virtues of achieving parity in representation, local government emerged as a potential area of strategic focus, in relation to promoting women’s access to positions of leadership and decision-making. Quotas were raised as a potential policy lever by which to promote parity. Revai Mekanje suggested working to adopt a “more catalystic” approach to fostering support networks and the cultural underpinnings for women to take leadership positions and influence policy.

Leadership, as such, was the next topic: women need access to leadership positions, and women too often do not see themselves as right for leadership positions. These cultural and psychological barriers to accumulating political capital need to be addressed. Francisco Cos-Montiel noted that in studies of Indian political participation, it was clear that women who were able to achieve leadership or decision-making roles, in politics or in the private sector, were almost uniformly from a societal and cultural elite. Similar trends were seen across South America, highlighting the need to build the political capital of women from marginalized communities.

Norah Matovu-Winyi viewed this as the challenge of “decolonization of the mind”, which was then framed by the group as a project of “depatriarchalization”. Matovu-Winyi explained that this problem relates to a psychological colonization, because it involves the ceding of authority to a traditionally or systemically more powerful other who, it is supposed, “knows more than we do”. Personal or community agency is excluded by the prejudice that leadership entails a special inborn quality or elevated worth. In order to counter this surrender of selfhood to disinterested traditional elites, Matovu-Winyi proposed a deliberate effort to “demystify leadership”.

Marren Akatsa-Bukachi suggested this project must also apply to positions of influence in the private sector. Enterprise and community leadership roles, outside of elective political office, can wield significant influence that determines numerous factors of the quality of life for women, girls and whole communities. Without access to leadership roles in the private sector, women are less able to influence policy locally or decide how resources and opportunity are distributed in relation to their communities.

Akatsa-Bukachi also noted the pervasive custom of how even food is distributed among men and women, and linked this to the problem of the colonization of the mind by a systemic prejudice that favors patriarchy. Women are often left only the toes of the chicken, for example, while men enjoy the thigh and breast-meat. This inequity is not only a household custom or a commentary on private relationship dynamics, but is in many ways politically relevant. It illustrates the distance at which women are kept from positions of leadership and decision-making, even in such intimate details of daily life.

Jennifer Lewis, the event’s discussion facilitator, noted this male-female relationship dynamic shows the need to “make the political personal”. Matovu-Winyi noted it’s vital to promote “democracy as a way of life” — without genuine equality in everyday relationship dynamics, the political landscape cannot be authentically democratic.

Lewis also moved the discussion toward the specific question of how to get beyond the numbers. There was consensus among all participants that outreach and support-building efforts need to be “more deliberate”. Cos-Montiel said there needs to be more focus on “strategic” thinking about how to both relay the message that will best build toward parity, but also about how to help women build the cultural capital that will allow them to access the political arena or move into decision-making roles.

Akatsa-Bukachi suggested women need to move away from “staccato involvements”, occasional interactions with the systems, networks and privileges that allow women to take on leadership roles. Women cannot just come to the table “at the last minute”, when a viable female candidate for office gains traction, or a specific issue of controversy comes to prominence, because that temporary support-base will dissolve as soon as the trend shifts.

There is a measurable need for women to build sustained, comprehensive networks of involvement in matters of policy, writing opinion articles, talking about and promoting real change for women, including the rise of strong candidates who will be able to capitalize on this more sustained support.

The “loneliness of leadership” experienced by women was raised as a significant factor contributing to the difficulty of building an sustained base of positions in political and private leadership. Actual efforts to measure such deficits and to explore ways to foster such sustained support communities could help to advance the cause of parity in leadership and to provide young women with a culturally more favorable environment in which their abilities and ambitions will be more directly sought and expected.

Social media may be integral to building the necessary sustained support networks. Examples of how social media and community media can come together to empower women and combat injustice have peppered the discussions of these first days of the CSW. Gender Links is using the UN gathering to cultivate a global debate about what role media play in fostering understanding and progress with respect to the treatment of women.

Lewis asked the discussion participants to propose their main priorities in relation to expanding the role of women in governance. Quotas and the need to transform political parties from within were the first two priorities suggested. Akatsa-Bukachi said the 50/50 goal is a “solemn declaration” that needs to be repeated until it saturates the conversation. She also noted the need to reach out to men, to involve them and make them aware of the real need to improve society by achieving parity. An extension of this priority, she said, is the need to overcome the problem of “feminist faces with patriarchal minds”, while keeping in mind the goal of building a broader long-term alliance for equality that includes both men and women.

Matovu-Winyi said existing systems need to be employed and improved, to make as much headway as possible in the elections —local and national, across Africa and beyond— of the first three years of this decade. She also noted that “no politician just appears on the scene” and called for the creation of substantive institutional supports for women to get involved in public life. She called for “more research” across the spectrum of issues related to why women are or are not empowered to access decision-making roles.

Cos-Montiel called for the inclusion of “women from the margins”, a strategic approach to building cultural and political capital for women, and close scrutiny of what role religious institutions play in sustaining the dominance of a patriarchal narrative or mindset. He noted the combination of hierarchy and patriarchy in the structure of the Catholic church, observing that such institutional structures effect extreme symbolic and socio-psychological influence, which can limit women’s readiness or willingness to push for greater access to decision-making roles in the community, at work or in the political sphere.

The dialogue closed after 44 minutes of lively and engaged discussion, with Norah Matovu-Winyi remarking that political supports for women will be “more authentic” when the narrative driving those social mechanisms is not focused only on the concept of rights for women as inherently virtuous, but deliberately integrates that foundational idea into a more dynamic discourse that gets closer to the daily needs and interests of non-activist women and the communities in which they live.

“From Social Media to Social Action” was the subject of one of the morning sessions on Day 1 of the 12-day 54th annual Commission on the Status of Women, at the UN headquarters in New York. A panel of pioneering and accomplished women, from diverse fields of research, activism, and enterprise, offered a far-reaching exploration of the ways in which new media can help to effect change and improve the situation of women, around the world. Outreach, social networking, and informational access, were integral to the morning session’s discussion.

As social networking technologies have evolved, they have become not just user-friendly in the extreme, but have created a global forum through which individuals and communities, organizations and governments, can work to build connectivity among people, and share information in a way that promotes opportunity, liberty and stability for women in even remote corners of the world. Social networking tools decentralize the flow of information, allowing for a more flexible, dynamic application of global communications platforms, handing the control of access and information to the people who seek or require it.

The central thrust of the event was cogently distilled in Gloria Feldt’s call for women to “employ every medium”, take advantage of any communicative vehicle, using all the tools available, to achieve the most comprehensive and dynamic delivery of the message. But the discussion drew from a diverse range of experience and focus, bridging the distance between the strictly technological approach to social media, questions of Jungian psychoanalysis and cultural consciousness, and the community fabric as it is affected by banking and lending practices.

Olivia Calderón, California Legislative Director for the New America Foundation’s Asset Building Program, brought this last point forward, discussing community outreach efforts designed to ensure predatory lending practices don’t undermine individuals’, families’ or communities’ ability to build value and lay the groundwork for a stable, prosperous future. These programs require a communicative engagement and benefit from a social media outreach and decentralizing philosophy that privileges acting locally.

Feldt also suggested the need to act locally, explaining that while women complain of not being published as much as men in major newspapers, the most likely explanation is that they in fact submit a far smaller number of articles; she called on women to write to their newspapers, and to write for them, to publish and to create a base of discursive support for women and for women’s issues. Specifically, women could tap into grassroots networks with the aim of submitting at least 25 letters the to editor in support of every article published.

Tae Yoo, a Senior Vice President for Corporate Affairs for Cisco Systems, works on her company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, building “public-private partnerships to create positive, sustainable change in education/capacity development and economic development”. She said the internet is “the most ubiquitous” mode of inclusive communication, where “groups can find each other, because they have common interests and strategies”.

Yoo also said new developments in technology and decentralized grassroots organization are “raising the bar for social media” in a way that can ”empower women around the world” by promoting education, leadership, the building of constructive alliances and partnerships, as well as support networks fed by the technical resources of sometimes geographically remote individuals or organizations. The Cisco Networking Program, for example, now operates in 160 countries, though Cisco Systems itself is only physically located in 70.

Cisco opened the first Network Academies at Kabul University. As a result, women are able to learn that it doesn’t matter where one is, so long as one has acces to the infrastructure that allows for communication across borders. The use of social networking tools to provide access to a global network of potential collaborators, educators and sources of information, makes it possible to rapidly expand the resources available to remote communities, far beyond the limits imposed by geography and local economic and social trends.

Clare Winterton, Executive Director of the International Museum of Women, explained how her organization views ”art as a winning strategy for gender equity”. The online museum uses thematically driven art exhibits to promote gender issues, educate people around the world and connect women and organizations that can play a productive role in driving progress toward gender equality and social justice.

Winterton framed “art as an entry point” for allowing women to learn more about their world, about the world beyond their own experience, and about their role, or potential role, in that wider society. A key question, she said, is how do we use art to bring new people to the table? “Women and men need different entry points and different touchpoints to really get inspired … and to take action”.

She went on to say that “the way we communicate, whether that be through art, or through marketing … is something we really need to invest in as a movement … to create a bridge to action, to connect men and women around the world”. In a review of reaction to the use of social media to inspire action, she reported that over 70% of people said they experienced three personal changes, while more than 6o% said they’d taken three steps toward action, as a result of the experience of gender-relevant online artwork and social networking.

Like Tae Yoo’s work at Cisco, to foster education and empowerment of women and girls in Afghanistan and elsehwere, Winterton’s work explores the connection between economic standing and women’s rights and potential for decision-making and free exercise of personal agency. Olivia Calderón’s work for the New America Foundation’s Asset Building Program, in California, also demonstrates the strong current running between economic degradation, social connectivity and women’s access to opportunity and security.

Calderón explained how her father and mother came to the US from El Salvador and Mexico, respectively, in hopes of building an asset base on which they could create a world of possibilities for their family. She said she learned from their experience how policy shapes the environment in which individuals, families and communities can build assets and translate their work into a more stable future. Public policy that allows for abusive lending practices undermines the freedom of individuals to tap their own talent and build a sustainable asset-base.

In Sacramento, she has worked to establish an college-savings account for all children, so that educational opportunity will not be determined by geography or socio-economic status. She also spoke of the ongoing work to create a portable IRA, allowing people to build a life-long pension they can carry from job to job, so their security in retirement need not be put at risk by one employer’s fortunes or misfortunes.

Key to understanding the role of banking policy and community asset-building was the fact that “the financial market of the 21st century has two faces”. For higher income families, financial services outlets “trip over themselves” to offer quality services and financial security, while for lower income families, the picture is very different: predatory lending, unstable mortgages, check-cashing counters and abusive pay-day lenders.

Projects designed to counter the corrosive effects of predatory mortgage lending, credit card abuses and pay-day lenders, both require and help to protect community organization. They are designed to foster not just the building of personal assets, but also of value in the community and a connective frame of mind, where collaborative action allows for a more cohesive planning that protects individuals, families and the fabric of human talent and trust around them.

Jean Shinoda Bolen spoke of the need to integrate issues of gender equality into a conceptualization of social interaction in light of the circle, which is to say, not linear power dynamics or the convenient geometry of hierarchical structures. The circle prizes parity, symmetry, and connectivity, and allows for communication to occur across a more constructive non-vertical network of relationships.

In light of the circle effect, Shinoda Bolen said that when women begin talking to each other, “the world changes for them”. They are awakened to the possibility of expanding the reach of their individual agency, building toward adopting spontaneous leadership roles and engaging in decision-making for a community broader than what they had previously understood as their own domain.

She also spoke of “putting a spiritual center in that circle”, coming to accept that in a sense, communicative expansion of one’s physical and psychological field of engagement equates to an “energy field”. Every circle formed is informed by circles that came before and will influence circles that come afterward. Communicative purpose, direction and intensity remains, and establishes a guide for future activity.

The Honorable Jackie K. Weatherspoon, who served in the New Hampshire House of Representatives for six years, explained that ”New England has been the only region in the country that actually did an assessment of the platform for action for Beijing”. She also noted that as the people with the most knowledge, commitment and social capital, age, it becomes increasingly necessary involve young people, to inspire the same passion for a cause that brought the progress to date.

To engage young people, she spoke of events designed to function in a ”cafe style”, with intimate, informal conversation, but in which the young people change location or groups every 15 minutes or so, to keep them engaged and expand their pool of shared interest. While teenage girls are experiencing real difficulties in their high-connectivity, media-intensive social environment —with cyber-bullying, depression, suicides, self-image crises, and the sometimes demeaning portrayal of women and girls in mainstream media—, social media offer one of the best means for young women to cultivate their own discretionary and leadership abilities, to find a place of meaning, and to inspire others to advance the cause of equality.

Elahe Amani, of the Women’s News Network, highlighted not only the effectiveness of social media in fostering awareness and by extension, social action, but the ways in which social media can provide women and girls with a greater sense of self-determination and courage, to allow them to speak out, to protest, to organize.

That cultivation of courage, that encouragement of the expansion of the reach of an individual’s voice, is one of the main attractions of social media generally, and a driving factor in the relationship of social media to inspiring and organizing social action and substantive change. Understanding the relevance of social media to the personal and social development of women of all ages can, or should, lead to a deliberate and coordinated effort to inform and reform the real-world experience of women and girls across the world.

The International Museum of Women, an online art gallery, which aims to foster dialogue and promote new educational directions for women and in relation to issues of women’s rights and opportunity, is hosting an exhibit called ‘Ecomomica‘, which explores the role women play in the evolving global economy.

The exhibit explores whether the global economic crisis has in fact created opportunities for women, the question of whether food is a basic human right and how scarcity affects women and what women do to counter it, whether women might be “paying for China’s economic prosperity with their bodies”, the dynamics of leadership and power, and how women may be changing the Arab and Islamic world.

The exhibit’s themes also touch on women’s access to capital, through traditional banking and more innovative micro-lending programs, the practice of linking credit to education and healthcare, which helps to create personal security and future opportunity, and the effect of debt inherited by women from family or deceased husbands and how banking failures in the west have affected communities.

Also of real importance is the response of women around the world to mounting economic pressures: in many communities across the world, women have begun to organize in order to help ensure their families or communities are protected against some of the more severe risks of a global marketplace for goods and services.

• Visit the exhibit at IMOW.org
• Or join our discussion on the Hot Spring Network

The media are exploding with reports that explicitly declare that “the public opposes the current healthcare reform bills” passed by both houses of Congress. In fact, this is patently false, and any of the major polls on the subject bear this out, if one devotes the time necessary to understand the numbers. It is inaccurate to say “the public opposes”, because there is not one uniform majority of Americans opposing a specific set of initiatives in the pending reforms.

Lazy polling is a dangerous standard that sees pollsters simply ask direct questions that might work for an individual respondent, but cannot produce an accurate or useful number across an entire population. Instead of finding out why individual respondents oppose a proposed reform; pollsters simply ask: support or oppose? Maybe they add indifferent to the list of options, or go with a 5-point scale of strongly support, support, indifferent, oppose, strongly oppose.

The result is an infantile analysis of public opinion. When 60% of respondents choose oppose or strongly oppose, pollsters say “We have proof that a majority oppose ‘the president’s plan’”; they simply ignore the problem that of those 60, 15 may oppose the very idea of reform, 15 may oppose the president personally, 15 may be opposed to Democratic concessions to Republicans who nevertheless refused to support the legislation, and another 15 may be opposed because they want single-payer.

The flaws inherent in “approve/disapprove” polling are legion, and any intelligent discussion of the 2010 political landscape must take these inaccuracies into account. For instance, CNN reported on Sunday that only 34% of Americans say “most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected”, but 51% say their own member of Congress “deserves to be re-elected”. The fairest analysis of this poll is that the first number is totally meaningless, except in evaluating how deeply flawed-in-detail political reporting has come to be.

There can be no real meaning to a poll-question about an issue of great nuance, which by its nature implies an extreme diversity of viewpoints on a broad range of variables, if there is no nuance whatsoever in the question itself. If the poll on Congressional approval is so easily shown to be off by up to 17% —the poll provides no way of knowing whether any of the respondents are acquainted with “most members of Congress” or their actions, views, performance or integrity—, a poll on public opinion of the healthcare bill gives us no information about how that legislation might be improved.

For instance, when the specifics of Republican and Democratic proposals are polled, there is significant skepticism, even among Republicans unaware of the source of the proposal, of the potential for Republican proposals to have a significant impact on the uninsurance, denial-of-treatment and pricing crises. On the other hand, the specifics of the Democratic reform proposals in the House and Senate are, in fact, very popular.

In fact, until the Democrats in the Senate finance committee held up the legislation during the summer, then adopted major concessions to the insurance industry, the reform process enjoyed overwhelming majority support, and the anti-tax “tea party” movement was the main source of opposition. That convergence of facts needs to be considered in any reporting on public dissatisfaction with the reform process, which must also be distinguished from the specifics of the reforms as such. Dissatisfaction with the process and dissatisfaction with the underlying principles of reform are not coextensive and must be treated as separate political trends.

During the Blair House health summit, Pres. Obama mentioned, without being overly detailed about the point he was making, that for the majority to scrap its proposals entirely in favor of a new policy based entirely on the principles of the Republican minority, which is nowhere near a majority in either house of Congress, would simply make no logical sense as a way of building consensus. Whether Republicans like it or not, whether the press is willing to explore the complexities or not, the vast majority of Americans opposed the Republican platform and voted for the Democratic agenda in 2008, and this reform was central to Pres. Obama’s campaign.

The people want most of the specifics of this reform, and in fact, when the mechanics of specific policies are explained, the overwhelming majority also favor even the public option. It needs to be considered that if Democrats do not defend and re-adopt some of the aspects of reform that have been watered down or replaced, they will continue to struggle to win public approval. The media environment has imposed a false parallel between “bipartisan” cooperation with Republicans and “building consensus” with among the public at large.

Republican House minority whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) said today on Meet the Press that Republicans want healthcare reform, but they favor a “common-sense, modest, incremental approach”. The statement is sly and problematic: Cantor wants to imply that incremental is responsible, playing on the emotional fetish that brings many to conservative politics, but he is simply fudging the facts and reframing an historically irresponsible approach in order to attack the president. Incremental fixes to the pervasive healthcare crisis have so far failed to reverse the trend toward ever-higher costs and ever-less-competent insurers.

Faced with the criticism that Republican proposals would cover 3 million people at most —of a pool of uninsured estimated between 30 million and 52 million, depending how one counts the “eligible uninsured”—, Cantor did not take issue with the figures, but explained that this incremental plan would first and foremost bring down healthcare costs. The Republican plan contains no provision designed to alter the market dynamics that allow costs to continue escalating and, without guaranteeing that people cannot be dropped or denied coverage due to illness or pre-existing conditions, will not prevent the uninsurance crisis from exploding out of control.

Cantor’s “common-sense, modest, incremental approach” is a thinly veiled campaign of sabotage, very deliberately designed to ensure that the most abusive and unsustainable elements of the healthcare crisis need not face the pressure of serious reform. The fact is, every responsible economic analyst understands that serious, effective healthcare reform must be comprehensive, if it is to solve the problems of tens of millions of uninsured, pervasive arbitrary denial of treatment, and the pricing crisis, which is leading to record numbers of bankruptcies and putting the integrity of the healthcare system in danger.

The Republican party made a very public, very conscious decision, in early 2009, that uniform, persistent opposition to Pres. Obama’s campaign for comprehensive healthcare reform legislation would be their best lever to change the electoral dynamics of the nation and gain ground in the House and Senate in 2010. The revelations about this decision are not dissimilar from the Chinese Communist party’s decision, when President Hu Jintao took power, that it would relentlessly defend its stranglehold on power by way of a “smokeless war” against press, dissidents, spiritual groups, and occupied regions, like Tibet or Xinjiang.

This Machiavellian strategy has been well understood, and is implicit in the majority of reporting on the politics of healthcare reform, but until Pres. Obama began to challenge the Republicans’ do-nothing approach —in his State of the Union, his Q&A with the Republican House caucus, and the Blair House summit—, mainstream press reporting systematically ignored the fact that this political approach to the question of health insurance reform was, in itself, a way of saying the only good reform is dead reform.

Since the Blair House health reform summit, House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH), his whip, Mr. Cantor, and the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have struggled to maintain their hardline against comprehensive reform, which philosophical difference is now their reasoning for the demand to “scrap the bill and start from scratch”. It was, of course, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who noted the comprehensive/incremental philosophical divide, and the Republican leaders’ concession on this point almost appears to signify their walking straight into a rhetorical ambush.

“Incremental” sounds cautious, responsible, maybe even less expensive. “Common-sense” sounds like it’s meant to match up with the mindset of the average person. “Modest” is meant to sound sympathetic. But, in the context of health insurance reform, these words actually take on a very different meaning: “incremental” means defend the status quo and the insurers’ bottom line, “common-sense” means one views the American people as commoners not equipped to understand legislative complexity, and “modest” means not confident of our ability to help you.

Whether the media have understood this new Republican message crisis is unclear. But to watch Rep. Cantor unable to respond to Democratic House deputy House majority whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is to see very clearly that not even the Republican leadership believe their own rhetoric. It is intellectually dishonest enough that it can only be defended by way of repetition of bullet-points, not with a reasoned response to specific points in conversation.

Wasserman Schultz explained the feeble 3-million covered number for the Republican plan and the Democrats’ 31-million covered figure, backed up with strong measures designed to make health insurance more affordable. She also noted that the legislation includes the single largest small-business tax-cut in American history, designed to make it more affordable for small businesses and their employees to participate in the private insurance market. The Republican bill does no such thing.

Cantor’s role on today’s Meet the Press was to be the spokesman for a floundering campaign of sabotage, and he balked. He could not find the words or the reasoning to defend the indefensible, and instead fell back on an attempt to say that doing nothing constructive is actually an attempt to eventually, over time, build up a series of non-actions that might amount to something constructive. Cantor could not provide a viable explanation for the failure of his incrementalism to amount to any substantive or effective reform. That is the story, and this Republican message crisis will help the Democrats get their bill through.

A massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake has hit central Chile, the epicenter estimated about 200 miles southwest of the capital Santiago, roughly 70 miles from the city of Concepción, the nation’s second most populous city. The tremor lasted about 90 seconds and caused serious damage to roads and bridges. 122 people are confirmed dead, according to Chilean authorities, and a tsunami warning has been issued for the entire Pacific Ocean basin (including Hawai’i, Japan and the Philippines).

Chilean expatriates are reporting significant difficulties on contacting some friends and relatives in the affected region, and power and communications have been knocked out across an as yet undetermined area. The Chilean Red Cross is already preparing rescue and relief services, should they be needed, though Chile is a nation with much experience in dealing with massive, tragic earthquakes, and officials have been careful to say Santiago and Concepción have been built to withstand such events.

Santiago’s main airport has been closed for at least 72 hours, while damage is assessed and repairs made to the runway and vital facilities, and as a precaution against aftershocks causing problems for planes landing or taking off. At least two aftershocks measuring magnitude 6.0 or greater, as well as many smaller ones, have been recorded by the US Geological Survey. At least two of the nation’s major copper mines —copper is a leading export commodity, as Chile exports more than 1/3 of the world’s copper— have also halted operations.

It is still very early in the earthquake response process: many areas remain without electricity or communication, and the government has a compounded response problem, as the president has reportedly said a massive wave struck Robinson Crusoe Island, off the coast of Chile in the Pacific Ocean. Initial media pictures have been limited to Concepción and Santiago, with little reliable information about what the situation might be in smaller towns and villages close to the epicenter.

A quake of magnitude 8.0 or greater is considered to be powerful enough to likely destroy entire communities in the region of the epicenter. This quake is significantly more powerful than that. There is reason for concern that small villages and communities in the region of the epicenter might be less prepared to sustain earthquake damage and less able to respond effectively to save lives. Efforts to locate the missing and/or injured, and to assess loss of life and property in those villages are complicated by the destruction of infrastructure and communications.

Now about 9 hours after the initial tremor, geological and meteorological services are estimating the resulting ocean surge should be reaching the beaches of Mexico’s southern Pacific coast. It may be another two to four hours from noon before the ocean surge hits Hawai’i. Oregon has just issued a tsunami warning as well, as reports of a large wave striking Robinson Crusoe Island have led to increased concern about a wave-effect across the entire Pacific Ocean.

CNN is reporting the quake is likely of a “convergent” nature, meaning the undersea tectonic plate’s subduction under the continental plat caused it to “rebound”, pushing up against the continental plate, provoking tremors and geological shifts across a region 400 miles in diameter. That “rebound” effect could mean a number of aftershocks, as the plates again settle into their standard positions.

The White House and the US State Dept. have both announced close monitoring of the situation and the preparation of resources and personnel to aid in rapid crisis response. 2 US nationals working for the State Dept. in Chile are at present unaccounted for, and the State Dept. is working to contact a significant number of locals who are employed by the State Dept. Communication networks may account for some of the difficulty in accounting for all personnel. The US has pledged aid to Chile, as needed, for rescue and relief.

The UN Secretary General’s office says Ban Ki-Moon and his team are closely monitoring events, including the risk of tsunami landfall around the Pacific rim. The Secretary General’s office is announcing online that the entire UN system is preparing to assist in disaster relief. José Goñí, Chile’s ambassador to the United States said the death toll “probably is going to increase in the next hours” and “the destruction all over the country is enormous”. He also noted that magnitude 8.8 is one of the most extreme earthquakes in recorded history.

The Republican party’s Congressional leadership is participating in a bipartisan healthcare reform summit moderated by Pres. Barack Obama, at Blair House near the White House. The “square-table” discussion includes the leading budgetary and health policy partisans from the House and Senate, as well as Pres. Obama, Vice Pres. Biden and Sec. of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. The president invited Republicans to “show me what you got”, and to lay out constructive alternative ideas for healthcare reform, in the interest of building consensus.

Much of the discussion so far has focused on the complaints of Republican opponents who are skeptical of the virtues of the Democratic healthcare reform bills already passed by both houses of Congress. Pres. Obama and Democratic leaders working on the specifics of how to achieve comprehensive health insurance reform have spent the day taking turns answering those Republican complaints with information and an invitation to continue working together and sharing ideas.

When Rep. John Boehner suggested the existing healthcare reform bill is “a dangerous experiment”, Pres. Obama chastised him for politicking. He noted that there is a vast range of issue on which Democrats and Republicans fundamentally agree, and that focusing on differences in such radical terms is more destructive than constructive. He also reminded his critics that the healthcare bill is not 2,700 pages because they wanted it to be complex, but because the issue itself is actually that complex, and failure to address that complexity has already proven to fail.

When Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said medical malpractice is the single leading driver of rapidly escalating healthcare costs, Pres. Obama said it’s important to look at the numbers, and countered McCain’s claim with an important analysis of the figures. Obama noted that he and the Democrats take very seriously the need to reform how medical malpractice insurance works and its impact on costs for the average person.

The Congressional Budget Office, he noted, has looked at the problem and found that putting a cap on medical malpractice lawsuits could save up to $5 billion per year over ten years. That’s a tiny fraction, much less than one percent, of all the money spent every year on healthcare in the United States. So, while he and the Democrats care about making sure medical malpractice insurance and lawsuits do not drive up costs, they are clearly not anywhere near the leading factors.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) seconded Obama’s remarks and noted that he’s been working on the issue for decades. He explained that CBO not only projected capping judgments could save up to $5 billion per year, a minimal influence on the overall cost of healthcare, but that it would likely lead to 4,800 more deaths per year from medical malpractice, when that punitive oversight mechanism is taken away.

Pres. Obama noted: ”They’re not sultans from wherever; they’re folks who are left out… the vast majority of this 30 million people we’re talking about, they work. They work every day… and they can’t get healthcare. And it is a scary proposition for them. So, we can debate whether we can afford to help them, but we can’t debate whether they need help.”

When challenged to consider health savings accounts (HSA) as the way to solve the uninsurance crisis, Obama observed that “… members of Congress are in the top income bracket… health savings accounts are a good idea, but all the studies show that the people who use them are people who have a lot of disposable income; these people don’t.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) was very complimentary of the setting and said “Never before have so many members of Congress behaved so well in front of so many television cameras”, adding that “If we ever get to a conference committee, we may want you to be the moderator”. He then went on to insist that the president shift his focus entirely and more or less abandon the Democratic plan.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), as the meeting went past its extended 4:30 closing time, sought to frame the day’s debate as a contest of ideas between a Republican preference for incremental reform and a Democratic preference for broader, more comprehensive reform. He urged both sides to agree to “real reform”, adding that ”Real reform in particular changes the incentives that drive the system, and greatly empowers the consumer”.

Sen. Wyden also spoke of the need to allow every consumer in the US to “fire their insurance company” and to shop for better coverage and better care, if they are unsatisfied or mistreated. He urged both parties to focus on making sure that whatever philosophical differences there might be, the focus of reform be the goal of empowering the consumer.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) was one of the last members of Congress to speak. He said to Obama: “God bless you for your leadership on this issue. The country desperately needs you, and your leadership”. Dingell has been laboring for five decades to make this reform process happen, and no president and no Congress have gone as far as Pres. Obama and the current process.

Dingell, whose father was one of the leading proponents of healthcare reform, during and after the era of the Great Depression, said starting over is not an option. He quoted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), as saying “I think any Republican who says we should start over, I think that’s bogus, that’s partisan talk”.

Dingell said “We have before us a hideous challenge,” adding that “The last perfect legislation” came in the form of the Ten Commandments handed down to the Israelites, “written in the hand of God”. For that reason, he noted, it may look like bad politics for Republicans to join the Democrats and sign up to legislation that contains elements that run contrary to their political philosophy, and which is complicated and imperfect, but fundamentally necessary and good.

Dingell was not the only Democrat to use the notion of political courage to challenge the Republican participants. Pres. Obama repeatedly noted that he did not undertake this massive reform for its being “good politics”, but rather because hard things need to be done to fix an escalating long-term problem. House Speaker Pelosi, in language with a distinctly more partisan ring, suggested that all involved needed to have the courage to adopt the best policies, regardless of the image they want to convey to voters and pundits.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted how far the process has come, and thanked Pres. Obama for his leadership. She noted the low-cost healthcare exchanges were a Republican idea, adopted by the Democrats in an effort to ensure comprehensive reform would both involve the private market and privilege consumer choice.

Pelosi also chastised the insurance industry, saying they opposed the public option —an integral part of the plan for making the low-cost exchanges viable as both affordable and market-oriented— saying that “left to their own devices, they have behaved shamefully, and we must act on behalf of the American people”.

She also took issue with Minority Leader Boehner’s claim that the Democratic proposals seek to reverse federal law and institute public funding for abortions. “There is no public funding for abortions in these bills”, she said. She also took issue with Rep. Camp’s claim that measures designed to reduce waste and abuse in Medicare will “cut benefits”; “They do not”, she said firmly.

“This will take courage to do” said the Speaker, urging Democrats and Republicans to focus more on the work of finding common ground on the facts and on solving the problems facing the American people. Her view that Republicans would not be constructive participants was evident, though she appeared to defer to the president’s call for a focus on finding common ground.

At 4:59 pm ET, Pres. Obama began his closing remarks. He said he would take roughly ten minutes to give his summation of the days events and to answer some of the complaints raised by Republican opponents of the Democratic proposals before the Congress.

Obama went on to explain that several of the provisions Republicans have sought to oppose, on the grounds that they are “socialist” or a “government takeover”, are actually market-oriented reforms that in no way give the government control of patient care. In fact, as the president has noted at virtually every opportunity, the focus of the reforms before Congress is precisely to ensure that doctors and patients are able to make choices, without bureaucratic interference, from government or from private firms’ accounting divisions.

Obama noted that small businesses will actually receive a significant amount of the money devoted to low-cost exchanges, because it would be devoted to subsidizing the purchase of insurance for those who cannot otherwise afford it. “And that’s not a radical idea,” he added, “it’s consistent with the idea of a market-based approach”.

“I suspect that, if the Democrats and the administration were willing to start over, and then adopt John Boehner’s bill, we’d get a whole lot of Republican votes. I don’t know how many Democratic votes we’d get, but we’d get a lot of Republican votes.” He pointed out that many Democrats believe starting over means doing nothing.

He suggested that the goal needs to be to find common ground, to solve the “core problem of 30 million people without health insurance and dealing seriously with the pre-existing condition issue”. He urged Republicans to search their souls to see if there is something they can do to come to the table and be part of the reform process.

He said of the average Americans who “They don’t want us to wait; they can’t afford another five decades”. Democrats repeatedly emphasized tragic stories of the insurance system’s failures, while Republicans focused mainly on philosophical principles and the claim that the US healthcare system is “the best in the world”.

While Pres. Obama and Congressional Democrats have suffered in public opinion polls, as a result of the complexity and imperfection of the healthcare reform process, Republicans appear to be involved in a high-stakes gamble that the logical incoherence of arguing that reform is needed but none of the current reform can stand, and besides, the US has “the best healthcare system in the world”, will not become apparent to voters.

Anecdotal polling and commentary, on C-SPAN and related social networking sites, suggested Republican voters were frustrated by their party’s failure to put forward substantive proposals. The general reaction of independents appeared to be that Pres. Obama was responsive and knowledgeable, and the inability of Minority Leader Boehner and other leading Republicans to push their arguments reduced their credibility.

The media and the public appear to calling for some resolution of this great debate, though support for either side appears to remain entrenched among the already decided, and more confined to “wait-and-see” for independents and those who are not sure whether the reforms which have passed both houses of Congress would benefit them or not.

‘Psychic numbing‘ is a relatively new term, assigned to the phenomenon which shows people tend to feel less urgent compassion, and tend to give less, when the suffering in question is shown to be more systemic and more pervasive, or affecting larger numbers of people. Some psychologists believe it is linked to our intuitive sense that if one suffers alone, the suffering is worse, but if one is accompanied, there might be some security in numbers, not just emotionally, but practically.

The individual does not actually suffer less, but somehow, human beings —across cultures, ages groups and regions— appear to have an almost inborn tendency to convince themselves that the one who suffers with others is somehow safer. This is, of course, rarely true. While yes, a young boy might survive because his older sister goes without food, two young children in a population beset with pervasive, persistent scarcity or political disorder, may be at significantly heightened risk of violence, or even enslavement.

Others suggest the phenomenon of psychic numbing is more to do with some sort of instinctual calculation of the worth of one’s efforts. If one seeks to help one lone child, one’s actions seem able; if one seeks to send a small amount to help millions, one’s actions may seem less able, less capable of ‘making a difference’.

There is a theory that this might be related to a long “prehistoric” period —far longer than the period which we refer to as “recorded history”— in which smaller tribal bands were the organizing principle of human society. We can understand safety in numbers, but we can’t conceive of how sending a few dollars, or writing a letter, will in any way contribute to easing the suffering of millions of people. Biologically, this just doesn’t compute in a cerebral infrastructure organized around tribal society.

Yet there are alternatives: there is the theory of an informational tipping point. The lone photo, with no information and no statistics, will spark great compassion. Adding statistics or removing the photo, or naming numbers that run into the millions, will lessen the likelihood of compassion across a large population. But when enough information is given so that the reader/viewer can comprehend in intellectually resilient terms the scale of a tragic crisis, the real energy of compassion is again motivated, perhaps more effectively than by any other means.

Social networking has allowed people to share information and to make donations with an ease of effort and on a scale of cooperative endeavor never before possible. This may be helping to ease the transition away from generalized psychic numbing and toward generalized charitable predisposition, as social networking sites help to shrink the size of the planet to the biologically comprehensible “village” scale, familiarizing people with their counterparts across the world.

How much of a role is there for social networking in solving this problem? How much of the problem is about resistance to new information about crises of massive scale? How much is a crisis of imagination? And are there examples of how we can do or are doing better in any given case?

• Join the discussion at The Hot Spring Network’s Crisis Policy Forum

The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.

Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

And as bad as things are today, they’ll only get worse if we fail to act. We’ll see more and more Americans go without the coverage they need. We’ll see exploding premiums and out-of-pocket costs burn through more and more family budgets. We’ll see more and more small businesses scale back benefits, drop coverage, or close down because they can’t keep up with rising rates. And in time, we’ll see these skyrocketing health care costs become the single largest driver of our federal deficits.

That’s what the future is on track to look like. But it’s not what the future has to look like. The question, then, is whether we will do what it takes, all of us – Democrats and Republicans – to build a better future for ourselves, our children, and our country.

That’s why, next week, I am inviting members of both parties to take part in a bipartisan health care meeting, and I hope they come in a spirit of good faith. I don’t want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.

It’s in that spirit that I have sought out and supported Republican ideas on reform from the very beginning. Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people. I hope Democrats and Republicans can come together next week around these and other ideas.

To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system. We know where the broad areas of agreement are. And we know where the sources of disagreement lie. After debating this issue exhaustively for a year, let’s move forward together. Next week is our chance to finally reform our health insurance system so it works for families and small businesses. It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.

What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.

In response to a recent article, explaining that record snowfall in certain places does not equate to a proof that global warming is not happening, but rather, that global warming is an apt explanation for why the record snowfalls would occur there, a number of climate skeptics chose to attack certain points in the piece, using what they take to be established science. In some cases, the evidence cited was simply misrepresented or misinterpreted, according to the wishes of the skeptics themselves.

For instance, one commenter wrote the following:

What does NASA satellite data tell us? “Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity. “

This report from October 1997 was cited in the same comment as proof that in fact global warming is a myth. The report does not say that. In fact, it specifically deals with questions about the accuracy of the very technology the commenter cites as proving the claim that a cooling trend exists while a warming trend does not. It’s important to remember that, first of all, the information is 13 years old, and the purpose of the linked report was to explore whether or not satellite data could be used to track atmospheric temperature fluctuations, at the time, not an entirely proven science.

There is also the problem of the comment’s premise: that lower atmospheric temperatures and surface temperatures cannot be different or that if lower atmospheric temperatures cool, surface temperatures could not warm or the warming would be cancelled out. The truth is that an increased difference between surface temperature (remember, we live at the surface; ocean temperature, glaciers and ice-melt are also at the surface) and temperatures in the lower atmosphere can lead to even more severe storms and climate-related environmental impact.

That temperature difference means stronger winds, and those winds cause climate phenomena to move, which is how we get weather. If surface temperatures are warming, the warming itself will also be more widespread due to increased wind activity. Winds are the engine of climate; they carry masses of low and high pressure, determine monsoon rain patterns and align weather systems over whole regions over extended periods of time.

The commenter fails to even consider this issue, because the intent of the comment was not to illustrate a matter of fact, but to use an apparently unrelated study —one exploring the criticism of the very point he is trying to make—, from 13 years ago, to discredit a vaguely defined “view” held today. In fact, that vaguely defined view is the consensus of the vast majority of scientists involved in climate research the world over, a consensus built on hard evidence and observable fact, and informed with the most advanced scientific peer-review process we have.

The skeptic commenter’s attack on the climate consensus conveniently ignores actual reporting on what is observed in terms of global average temperatures, the warming trend and the human role in driving that trend. It’s worth looking at what NASA’s climate scientists say about warming trends, 13 years after addressing the problem of whether satellite measurements were accurate enough to deliver reliable data.

On 21 January 2010, NASA released a report entitled “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade”. That warmest decade report shows a clear evidence of a sustained warming trend from the year 1880 through the present. The data come from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the most advanced climate measuring scientific institution in the world.

The climate-skeptic commenter alleges there is a proven cooling trend and that “The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.”

In fact, NASA’s GISS findings show a marked upward trend in global average temperature, increasing dramatically over the last half-century, with the last decade clearly the warmest ever recorded. Regarding El Niño, there is recognition that the “unusually high temperatures” for 1998 might be in part attributable to that phenomenon, but El Niño shifts weather patterns within a specific latitudinal range, and does not explain long-term global trends in average temperature.

NASA’s warmest-decade report reads:

A deep solar minimum has made sunspots a rarity in the last few years. Such lulls in solar activity, which can cause the total amount of energy given off by the Sun to decrease by about a tenth of a percent, typically spur surface temperature to dip slightly. Overall, solar minimums and maximums are thought to produce no more than 0.1°C (0.18°F) of cooling or warming.

“In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data hasn’t stopped global warming from continuing,” said [GISS Director James] Hansen.

Small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols can also affect the climate. Volcanoes are powerful sources of sulfate aerosols that counteract global warming by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. In the past, large eruptions at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines and El Chichón in Mexico have caused global dips in surface temperature of as much as 0.3°C (0.54°F). But volcanic eruptions in 2009 have not had a significant impact.”

So, while volcanic eruptions can cause temperature fluctuations, they cause cooling, not warming, and in the period from 1880 to the present, that effect has not overridden the significant warming trend. NASA specifies that in fact the period 2000 to 2009 (not part of the 1997 report) is clearly the warmest decade on record.

The second point raised by the commenter was that my claim that “even as the intensity of solar activity has dipped, the warming trend has continued” is “categorically untrue!” This attack is covered by NASA’s data, from the GISS report, already listed above. The truth is that the ONLY extant data on whether global average temperatures have changed during the recent solar cycle minimum show that in fact WARMING CONTINUED virtually unabated.

The third point of critique offered by this particular climate skeptic was a flawed attempt at rhetorical inversion. I had written “the evidence of newly sensitive solar activity assessment methods does not have a long enough history to accurately determine any long-term relationship to Earth climate”, to which the commenter retorted, “Let me re-phrase this… …the evidence of the newly proclaimed anthropomorphic global warming does not have a long enough history to accurately determine any long-term relationship to Earth climate.”

The rhetorical inversion falls flat, because solar activity assessment methods do not have a long-enough history is a factor, due to the fact that they attempt to measure the specific relationship of activity on a distant celestial body, with no hard surface where any recorded history can be explored or traced. We have no way of determining what the solar surface history was in relation to measurements of Earth climate pre-dating the advent of the solar-activity monitoring technology.

The attempted inversion does not work, because the Earth does have a hard surface, with hundreds of millions of years of climate information recorded in its geological record. Ice and sediment, organic matter and the fossil record, all show us information about the make-up of past climate patterns and even average temperature ranges for specific regions, based on things like the distribution of flora and fauna during a given period in the geological record.

It seems important to note, in a thorough and informed response to such a critique of climate science, that the climate-skeptic comment in question used the term “anthropomorphic global warming”. The term “anthropomorphic” means “in the form of human beings”. It refers to when we see an object as having human qualities, like assigning the value of “face” to a car because of the layout of its headlights and grill.

The term is used by some climate skeptics either out of ignorance or as a way of making the mainstream climate consensus sound foolish. The proper term is “anthropogenic”, meaning “caused by human beings”. Anthropogenic global warming describes the demonstrable connection between human industrial activity, namely the production of unnatural quantities of carbon-based gases, and the observable increase in global average temperature.

The fourth point raised amounts to another flawed rhetorical inversion. This one does not work, because it ignores the rhetorical premise of what it seeks to invert. The claim had been made that:

There is a logical leap involved in much of what is claimed about the link between solar activity and climate; until that logical leap is narrowed to evidentiary verifiability, the global scientific consensus will not treat the claims you cite as truly scientific…

Our climate skeptic —who had proposed that there was a definitive historical link between solar cycle minimums and global cooling, implying that the whole global consensus on climate destabilization is lying about warming— wrote the following in response:

May I re-phrase this… There is a logical leap involved in much of what is claimed about the link between anthropomorphic global warming (i.e. man-made increases in CO2 production) and climate; until that logical leap is narrowed to evidentiary verifiability, the global scientific consensus will not treat the claims you cite as truly scientific.

This rhetorical inversion does not work, because there is a fundamental difference between mainstream climate science and the logical leap involved in the solar-cycle theories cited. The difference is that mainstream climate science is based on the established evidentiary history of climate modeling, temperature study, physics, meteorology and geology. It is a vast, interdisciplinary terrain of fact and evidence, and leaves little room for interpretation or guesswork.

The solar cycle critique the commenter cited has already been shown to NOT illustrate what some scientists say it might illustrate —a comprehensive global cooling trend—; in fact, warming has continued, despite the dip in solar surface activity. And the critique is based wholly on the assumption, entirely in the realm of theory and untested, that reduced sunspot activity means cooler temperatures on the surface of the Earth. (It might mean a reduced warming influence related to sunspot activity, but not necessarily a wholesale cooling of Earth’s surface temperatures.)

The only reliable evidentiary measure of this claim is NASA’s modeling mostly over the last 10 years, after the 1997 report the commenter cited as having some bearing on satellite temperature measures, and what NASA ACTUALLY FOUND during the last ten years is that the solar cycle minimum might reduce global average temperatures by 0.1ºC (in a decade when global average temperatures have risen “to the highest levels ever recorded”, according to NASA’s research).

Climate-science skeptics have been gleeful in their assault on climate change theory, the hard research and tens of thousands of scientists behind it and the very concept of human responsibility to the environment, because there has been snowfall. In a stunning display of ignorance, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) openly claimed the record snows that hit Washington, DC, were evidence there was in fact no climate change, that the whole idea is just a myth.

His obvious ignorance about the definition of climate —it does not mean local weather— is one facet of his failure to reason. But the truly sinister feature of his non-evidentiary, ideologically driven, and well-funded (by corporate donors) attack on climate response policy is his unwillingess to see pattern of global climate destabilization. Record snowfalls across the nation, with snow falling in 49 of the 50 states (none in Hawaii, of course) are anecdotal proof of global climate destabilization.

But while Sen. Inhofe is using his family to build an igloo, alleging that snowfall makes global climate change an impossibility, the science is showing the destabilization of global climate patterns to be far more severe than any previous models had projected. It remains to be adequately studied whether eight years of flagrantly climate-skeptic industrial policy in the US may have contributed to a worldwide emissions binge, accelerating the process.

What the most unthoughtful, mean-spirited and self-interested climate skeptics, like Inhofe, fail to understand, or want the public and the government to fail to understand, is that a slight warming of the global average temperature alters weather patterns of all kinds. This leads to the destabilization of major climate patterns, and can mean the breakdown of deep ocean currents, the jet-stream —which keeps Europe warm despite its high latitude— and even the African and south Asian monsoons.

One of the most visible and immediate effects of destabilization is the more intense storms that come with warming of the global average temperature. With warmer seas and a slightly warmer atmosphere, storms that feed on sea-water evaporation —which is accelerated in a warmer climate— become more powerful, and have more precipitation to dump when they hit land. Intensifying hurricanes and the intensified snows of 2010 are equally indicative of that trend.

But the inconvenience, beauty and/or shock of incredible snows, is just one detail of how warming shifts climate bands and causes patterns of weather communication between regions to break down; the most dangerous scenarios relate to the oceans. The rapid and accelerating melting of polar ices shows not only the risk for rising sea levels, but also the risk of undersea climatological destabilization factors: the breakdown of sea methane hydrates along the sea bottom or the Deep Ocean Current could fundamentally alter climate patterns everywhere on Earth.

Methane clathrate hydrates —more commonly called methane hydrates— are deep ocean deposits of highly concentrated methane gas, trapped in the crystal structure of water ice. If these become vulnerable to melting, the release of methane could have a catastrophic effect on the relatively stable climate patterns that have existed throughout recorded human history.

Research in the permafrost region of Siberia in 2008 showed millions of tons of methane being released from melting clathrate hydrates, with the result being concentrations as high as 100 times normal in some areas. Methane is many times more greenhouse effective than carbon dioxide, and an atmosphere filled with massive concentrations of it would certainly produce significant destabilization in global climate patterns.

It is believed the rapid release of methane from methane hydrates may have been part of the feedback loop of catastrophic climate destabilization that led to major extinctions in the past. Major extinction events or global climate alterations may have been spurred by massive global methane release that resulted from melting of hydrates thawed by warming induced by either meteor strikes or volcanic eruptions of catastrophic magnitude.

The severe warming of the global average temperature over recent decades has no evident natural cause, though it is clearly explained by the massive increase, over the last several centuries, and most importantly over the last 100 years, of carbon-based gases that contribute to the “greenhouse effect”, keeping warm air closer to the surface of the planet, creating these dangerous climate destabilizing feedbacks.

The Deep Ocean Current has been described as a conveyor-belt of stable climate, required for civilization as we know it to function. It is, in fact, a global flow of water, the dynamics of which protect the climate distribution we view as “normal”. The most crucial engine of the Deep Ocean Current is where the warm Gulf Stream waters, having brought warmer temperatures to northern Europe —which is on the same latitude as Newfoundland—, reaches a literal tipping point in the North Sea, where the ambient temperature is so low the tropical waters rapidly cool and plunge to the bottom.

The effect is a powerful waterfall with more downward thrust than the driving current of any river system in the world. That thrust is crucial to keeping the global Deep Ocean Current moving, because it has enough force to push that same current down around Africa and into the Indian Ocean. Similar inducement zones occur across the globe, but the most crucial is the North Sea plunge. The breakdown of this “conveyor belt” could simply do away with warm European climates or the monsoon rains on which half the world’s population depends for food.

This is why “warming” is global and not local. The snows of Washington, DC, might appear to mean “cold” to the non-evidentiary observer, but in fact, they mean “warm”. Harsh mountain winters can just as easily be a sign of warming as snowless winters, because “global warming” is just a trigger for what is actually climate destabilization. It is foolish, if not brutish, to argue that somehow “cold” will make for climate stability in the same way water stands still when it freezes.

The climate does not work that way. It is a global contagion of temperature variations, humidity, atmospheric gases and feedbacks, which never stops or freezes. Winds are not mystical forces or the breath of gods, but rather the result of temperature fluctuations. Sen. Inhofe cannot explain away decades of climate science with record snowfalls, in part because the snows are a predicted proof of the warming and destabilization trend, and secondly, because he is talking about weather, not climate.

The war in the Democratic Republic of Congo has killed 6.9 million people in 12 years. No war has cost more innocent lives since World War II, and the level of extreme violence, brutality against women, and even the enslavement of families and villages, appears to be escalating. The world’s attention has yet to fully focus on the plight of the Congolese civilians living in a state of perpetual extreme crisis day after day.

With nearly 7 million people killed, this ethnic slaughter of innocents is by far the worst genocide since the Holocaust, yet for its complexity, or its perceived remoteness, the eastern DR Congo has received shockingly little attention. The UN has more peacekeepers deployed there than anywhere else in history, yet the mission is said to be at risk of failure, as the peacekeepers appear not to have a strong enough mandate to protect civilians and combat the warlords.

CafeSentido reported in May 2009 that “A UN commander in Congo says the conflict is unpredictable and sporadic, changing with no warning, like the weather. There are only 17,000 troops in Congo, a nation of 60 million people, with a massive land area, as large as 20 states combined across the eastern US.”

The war needs to be tackled with an aggressive, unified global push on all three fronts opened by the Obama administration’s 3D diplomacy (development, diplomacy, defense). Increased hostilities are considered unlikely to help bring long-term peace, but a credible, forceful, effort needs to be made to stop the killing. 6.9 million lives have been lost while the world has watched.

What can we do to mobilize international resources and consensus, to shape policies that will both help improve the security and quality of life of the Congolese civilians besieged by so much war and catastrophe, and end the killing once and for all?

• Join the discussion on the Hot Spring Network

Esperanza Spalding, a rising star in the jazz world, and an increasingly recognizable face at high-profile cultural gatherings, performs “Tell Him” at last year’s White House Poetry Jam, in this video. The song is a moody, jazzy blend of love and meditation, an apt message for a weekend on which we celebrate both the virtues of love and affection and the political achievements and moral compass of past presidents.

There were three individuals convicted by the Bush-Cheney administration in military courts, and two of them are currently free and walking the street. There have been hundreds of individuals convicted on terrorism charges in civilian criminal courts, over the last three administrations, the current one included, and every one of those convictions has been upheld, and every one of those terrorists is behind bars today.

Mr. Cheney is determined to persuade the public, the press and courts, that there is a unique quality about the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the armed conflict that has as its goal the apprehension or destruction of the leadership of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. He seeks to establish a special legal condition, based on the argument that the attacks of 11 September 2001 were “an act of war”.

Cheney believes this justifies an unprecedented departure from established Constitutional law or adherence to international treaties. His reasoning is backwards, and if successful in making the case for such an “innovation” in legal thinking, would radically undermine the ability of the American government to prosecute accused terrorists. The reasons are complex, so we will explore them here in brief.

The point is to start thinking about what it means to be a nation of laws. Cheney would like us all to surrender our hold on the reins of government and acquiesce to his unprecedented claim that the Bush administration should have had unilateral authority to strip any individual of his or her human and/or Constitutional rights on the basis of the notion that he or she is an “enemy combatant”. On this point, we have the Supreme Court’s very firm admonition that there is no possible justification for this view in the US Constitutional order.

In short, no official sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States can do so by espousing this view of absolute executive authority, rooted in the pre-revolutionary privileges of the monarch as sovereign. In the United States, the “sovereign” is the People. This is why the Constitution of the United States opens with the words “We the People”. On no other authority can any legal foundation be made, according to the democratic republican political infrastructure of the laws we make and enforce.

According to the United States Constitution, every international treaty which is signed and ratified by the process laid out in the Constitution is in fact the “supreme law of the land”, equal to the Constitution itself in its binding authority over the officials of the American government. This means that when recourse is made to internationally established legal standards on the nature of “war crimes”, international law on war crimes must be followed.

To call the attacks of 11 September 2001 an “act of war” is understandable and gives little reason for refutation. But it’s important not to base legal reasoning on visceral emotional reactions. In international law, war is defined as an open, declared, armed conflict between two or more sovereign states. Civil war —conflict between a government and one or more armed factions within the territory over which that government has jurisdiction— involves some distinctions.

If the attacks were an “act of war”, and by implication should be prosecuted as an act of war, then they need to qualify as a war crime. Any rational person would say the mass murder of thousands is clearly criminal, but prosecuting that crime in a legal setting requires applicable legal definitions. Mass murder is a crime, because it is mass murder, a criminal offense easily able to be prosecuted —and routinely prosecuted with success—under civilian criminal law.

War explicitly permits mass killing, under certain conditions; prosecuting war criminals requires that they be agents of war within a state that can legally qualify as going to war. To recognize Al Qaeda as an agent of war is to grant Al Qaeda the status of a sovereign entity, and entails a specific perversion of logic that cannot be upheld on legal foundations: international treaties are binding only for signatories (the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions, while non-signatories are not; this affects the ease with which such prosecutions could be carried out).

The argument for prosecuting Al Qaeda terrorists as war criminals would, under international law, require they be prosecuted before a court established under international law, in accordance with existing treaty obligations, for the prosecution of war crimes. That argument runs absolutely contrary to Mr. Cheney’s professed preference for the use of ad-hoc American military courts, in which due process rights are stripped away at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.

Cheney’s vehement pushing of that conceptualization of terror prosecutions suggests he finds a particular kind of expediency in the ad-hoc military tribunals he envisions. Since the logic he is using to justify his claims has been rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States, and runs contrary to the legal foundations on which the US government can prosecute crimes, it’s crucial to examine what expediency he so vehemently believes is there.

Expediency is, it must be noted, not an argument that a practice is good, useful or productive to achieving worthwhile aims. In matters of public policy, or of jurisprudence, expediency is little more than a claim about quickly ending debate, with no guarantee of a virtuous outcome. In essence, the argument for expediency is an argument that intends to cover-up glaring cause for doubt.

As the great political philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft wrote: “vice skulks, with all its native deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners are always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that a measure rotten at the core may be expedient.” We should ask each of the shallow reasoners at hand why they cannot provide us both allegiance to the mandates of Constitutional law and a vigorous defense of our physical space.

For us, as a nation, to adopt the Cheney view on terror prosecution —which includes his quest to retro-actively legalize and justify the use of torture, including to the point of near death (the very purpose of waterboarding) and even (in dozens of alleged cases) actual death—, we need to abandon transcendent foundational principles enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

In other words, we need to turn over the making of laws to the arbitrary judgment of executive officials. To what end? How could such a transition possibly be constructive in the project of defending the democratic values of a nation of free people and of laws? Obviously, it would be counterproductive to undermine the Constitutional order in an effort to defend it. The expediency Mr. Cheney seeks to put in motion is just as obviously self-serving.

As vice president, Dick Cheney is alleged to have overseen an unprecedented expansion of executive power, with no legal or judicial permission or oversight, part of which was to allow, to promote, and possibly even to order and oversee, systematic torture and the circumvention of Constitutional law. Cheney’s first and most obvious motivation for constantly demanding the executive branch accept the validity of the use of torture is to establish a precedent whereby his action would be considered legal and not criminal.

The current administration, however, has little reason to join Cheney in his refusal to follow Constitutional law. Testimony from FBI interrogators, who did not use torture and who followed due process law and true American standards of prosecution, has repeatedly suggested the CIA’s use of torture impeded the effort to get reliable information from terror suspects and even silenced cooperative witnesses.

It is well-established science that coercion and intimidation, torture even moreso, are counterproductive in terms of the interest of developing reliable information about one’s enemies or for uncovering ongoing criminal conspiracies and activity. No responsible political or military leader would engage in such practices, if his or her motives were genuine and his or her oath to uphold the law true and legitimate.

Pres. Obama, who inherited the reins of the executive branch of government and the problem of prosecuting suspects detained and held by way of legally questionable practices, said to the Nobel committee and the world, in December: “We are not mere prisoners of fate; our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice”. Those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States must follow all of its constraints on their power; to not do so, to argue against the Constitution’s constraints on executive power, is to aid the enemies of democracy.

It is, very clearly, an assault on the US Constitutional order to argue that the executive can simply choose to ignore the mandates of the law. The Supreme Court has said so, and more than two centuries of legal scholarship, legislation and judicial rulings, have established the principle that personal freedoms not explicitly constrained by the Constitution, or by laws that agree with the Constitution’s provisions, are not constrained, but government powers not specifically enumerated in Constitutional law DO NOT EXIST.

But Mr. Cheney’s legal argumentation is flawed for a more specific reason: to stage a legitimate, legally founded and justifiable prosecution of an accused criminal, US criminal law must be followed. The “war crimes” argument, far from granting the US government special authority over terror suspects, requires that some of the responsibility for prosecution be surrendered to international consensus on the legal foundations for war crimes prosecutions.

The most aggressive and substantial method for prosecuting Al Qaeda terrorists and conspirators under the authority of the US executive branch is by way of powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, in which the sovereign People of the United States have actually established what powers the government can legitimately practice.

Because the executive branch is not in fact the highest power in the land, but must be overseen by the legislative and judicial branches, because the Constitution is the highest power, the personal preferences of a former vice president have no weight whatsoever, and we need to consider very seriously whether his arguments are founded in the rule of law.

Since they are not, and since what he calls for is in fact a far less effective and reliable method of prosecution, we need to see the very real harm his ideas could bring to our nation:

1. trumped up Cheney prosecutions could lead to convicted terrorists NOT being jailed;
2. torture could degrade the nation’s image, undermine prosecutions, and risk grievous harm to American military personnel and civilians abroad;
3. surrendering authority over the interpretation of Constitutional law to the executive branch would undermine the sovereignty of the American people, their authority over the government, and thereby erode democracy;
4. prosecutorial abuse, intimidation and torture, would likely undermine the quality of information interrogators can gather from accused terrorist conspirators;
5. past crimes against the Constitution might become a precedent for further future abuses, by officials from either party…

Gen. James Jones (Ret.), a Republican who serves as Pres. Obama’s national security adviser, today told CNN that the US has a “long record of success” in prosecuting terrorists in civilian criminal court, and acknowledged that in fact the record in military tribunals is not as successful. He explained that the Attorney General is a member of the National Security Council, and is right to give his best advice on what the appropriate legal setting is for the prosecution of terror suspects.

Jones also suggested Cheney “might not be informed enough to criticize the White House”, according to CNN, implying Cheney does not have access to the best information or might be distorting the information to suit his agenda. But Jones made no concrete accusations. He limited his remarks to urging people to understand that the issues are serious for the future of the nation and need to be addressed deliberately and “in a respectful way”.

The media and political environment has been poisoned of late by proponents of Mr. Cheney’s pro-torture agenda, many of whom have flagrantly lied about both the nature of the legal requirements for military tribunals and about whether or not Constitutional due process is a viable or effective way of adjudicating guilt and meting out punishment for terrorist crimes.

The truth is: Constitutional due process is the single most effective means of brining accused terrorists to justice. It is one of the fundamental principles on which our nation is founded, and public officials are sworn to uphold that Constitutional order. Yet we are asked to believe that rejecting that system, using shoddy methods, and risking the requirement that judges choose between defending the rule of law, and so our democracy, or freeing terrorists not given fair trials, is somehow preferable.

Mr. Cheney has it backwards, and his personally motivated defense of torture and of legally unfounded ad-hoc tribunals —he believes military tribunals do not need to follow Constitutional law (the law and the Supreme Court say they do)— is a threat to our national security and to our democratic system of government. Every official sworn to uphold the Constitution must first do so, and treat any suggestion they should not as what it is: a dangerous departure from reason or legitimate legal authority.

Newsmax, the ultra-right-wing political propaganda outfit that calls itself a news service, is once again using its news pages to push financial get-rich-quick schemes on its customers. While railing against any politician who happens to be a Democrat and who is struggling to fix the problems 30 years of Republican de-regulation of wrought on the American economy as anti-American, Newsmax has routinely sought to push its readers into risky foreign currency trading schemes. Now, it’s pitching financial services directly.

Citing a non-descript “market timing system”, or referring vaguely to “this system”, the News organization is pushing an article that purports to be able to guarantee high rates of return for investors, in what appears to be a scheme to profit for itself. The wording of the article is careful in specifying that certain investment guesses, if followed, would have turned out to be profitable advice, but focuses on these cases of advice, without specifying what earned money for any real people.

The “promo” article is linked in emails to articles on totally unrelated topics (like global warming conspiracy theory) and appears to operate on the premise that while a specific type of reader engages their fear glands in reading irresponsible Newsmax confabulation, they can be scared into handing over a huge amount of their own personal savings.

In the unbelievable “Full Disclosure” statement, Newsmax pitches the service, instead of giving full disclosure, calling the mystery “system” a “documented, proven, play-by-play track record that anyone can see”. The “Full Disclosure” statement —meant to be devoted to revealing conflicts of interest— tells readers “these are not risky investments”, but then says they are “little-known ‘niche’ funds”.

The language of the promo article clearly suggests you WILL win big if you follow this “system” of investing. But in a flash of human modesty, the Newsmax “shills” —the word they use for people pushing investment schemes or stocks on TV— actually do note that “Naturally, not all of David’s recommendations were winners. He had some losing trades as well. All investments carry risk, but with proper technique and guidance you can eliminate some of that risk.”

It sounds like that language is not just a disclosure, but a comprehensive correction of tone. Their investment “system” engineer is not so much a super-human never lose wealth-maker, but more like a rainmaker who might earn some cash for the firm and who might benefit some of his clients. But who, exactly, is the firm he is making rain for?

It might just be Newsmax itself. The “Full Disclosure” statement suggests it is, but is vague, evasive and immediately resorts to salesmanship. The sixth paragraph of that section of the article reads: “Newsmax launched David’s service on Sept. 18, 2007″, then adding that they did this at “one of the worst periods in the markets in 80 years” and that his “aggressive portfolio has posted a total return of 37.8%”.

This begs the question: for whom? Who made that gain? Who stands to profit from this investment scheme? What amount of risk is there for the average investor? And is Newsmax behaving like an investment bank or a Wall Street trading firm with no license to do so?

The article is signed, dubiously:

Aaron DeHoog
Publisher, Financial Services
Newsmax Media and Moneynews

Publisher is one of the top jobs at a news outfit, depending on how the executive positions are labeled and how responsibilities are handed out. “Publisher, Financial Services” is not a job description for any news oriented executive position. “Editor, Financial Services News” might be, but Mr. DeHoog’s signature appears to suggest he has a dual role: publishing news for Newsmax and running the “financial services” division of the same company.

Is Newsmax a “financial services” company? Is that why its pseudo-news division uses trumped up claims about an apocalyptic collapse of the dollar to scare readers into foreign currency trading schemes that entail massive risk for the small investor and huge returns for the money trader? Is that why its economic news is wildly propagandistic and in many cases specifically oriented toward the promotion of investment schemes to which it appears to have direct financial links?

There are also the specifics of language: the “system” is described as an “aggressive portfolio”, but is said to carry little to no risk and an almost guaranteed high rate of return. Is this possible? Is this credible? Is this not the language of get-rich-quick con-men and hustlers whose rhetoric is geared to box in the doubtful and persuade them to fund what amounts to a scheme to centralize investments to benefit the chief investor?

Even were Newsmax to have no direct financial interest in taking fees for what they call the “system”, there is the distinct possibility that this aggressive backing of specific financial recommendations is designed to allow wealthy investors to capitalize on a rush to invest in those stocks, then bail before they correct. This is one of the most unethical forms of financial reporting possible, and the promo article specifically reveals that at least two top Newsmax figures are using their money to profit from this scheme.

The civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC / DR Congo) has claimed an estimated 6.9 million lives since 1998. The International Rescue Committee has estimated, through a peer-reviewed study, that an average of 45,000 people are dying every month as a result of the ongoing conflict in the eastern DRC. This makes the Congo war by far the deadliest war since World War II, though there is shockingly little energy in the international community to act to stop it.

Award-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof, writing for the New York Times, reports:

… so far the brutal war here in eastern Congo has not only lasted longer than the Holocaust but also appears to have claimed more lives. A peer-reviewed [IRC] study put the Congo war’s death toll at 5.4 million as of April 2007 and rising at 45,000 a month. That would leave the total today, after a dozen years, at 6.9 million.

What those numbers don’t capture is the way Congo has become the world capital of rape, torture and mutilation, in ways that sear survivors like Jeanne Mukuninwa, a beautiful, cheerful young woman of 19 who somehow musters the courage to giggle. Her parents disappeared in the fighting when she had just turned 14 — perhaps they were massacred, but their bodies never turned up — so she moved in with her uncle.

Kristof goes on to explain how just a few months after she sought refuge in her uncle’s home, an extremist Hutu militia, spawned by the same ethnic hate that went ignored and caused the horrific Rwandan genocide of 1994, broke into their home, seized Jeanne’s uncle, then tied him up in order to torture him and murder him in front of the family.

According to Kristof’s reporting, Jeanne, just 14 years old, testified that “They cut off his hands, gouged out his eyes, cut off his feet, cut off his sex organs, and left him like that. He was still alive.” The entire family was forced to watch, then was kidnapped and enslaved. The women were subjected to routine sexual violence and gang rape. When Jeanne nearly died in childbirth, Kristof reports, a courageous doctor held among the captives cut her open to save her life.

The militia left her for dead, as she was delirious from agony and hemorrhaging massively. Somehow she survived, and was eventually rescued from the roadside and treated by Dr. Denis Mukwege, who saved her life through a series of nine surgeries to repair her internal organs. Dr. Mukwege’s work with the victims of this gruesome war has caused some to talk about his nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Jeanne’s plight did not, however, end there. After three years of surgeries, she was released from hospital and returned to her village. After just three days with her grandmother, she was again kidnapped and raped by the Hutu militia. She was reportedly tied to a tree and left naked, tortured and raped repeatedly, reopening the fistulas that caused her body to be unable to contain waste.

She may now never be fully healed from the trauma her body was subjected to. Kristof reports that “About 12 percent of the raped women [Dr. Mukwege] treats have contracted syphilis, and 6 percent have H.I.V. He does what he can to repair their injuries and help them heal — until the next time.” Mukwege says “there is no medical solution” and calls for a much more vigorous international response, to end the fighting and establish a lasting peace in DR Congo.

Kristof’s recommendation is intense pressure on Congolese president Joseph Kabila to arrest Gen. Jean Bosco Ntaganda, a warlord wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ntaganda is just one of a number of militia leaders and warlords who are alleged to be using rape, torture, child slavery and indiscriminate killing, to intimidate rivals, destroy villages, undermine the government and expand their power base in the multi-factional conflict.

The Enough Project is one of many groups seeking to interrupt the flow of capital to militia-leaders and warlords by way of the trade in minerals, including diamonds. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has done extensive reporting on the brutality of the armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and urges immediate concerted action from the international community to obstruct the unmitigated brutality of the warlords and end the conflict.

HRW has also reported on the role of the existing UN peacekeeping force for eastern DRC, urging the UN to require more substantial action to protect civilians, arrest war criminals and combat the spread of the warlord system. In August 2009, US Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for justice for the victims of rape in the eastern DR Congo. The atmosphere of chronic conflict has led to the wholesale brutalization of the female population.

As reported for this publication in September 2009:

Justice for women victimized by corruption, war and impunity, is of primary urgency for societies whose women are so extremely disadvantaged. Whether it is the inability of women to sue to hold onto family-owned land, to fight against powerful local leaders who commit crimes against them, including rape, theft, abduction and forcible indenture, securing women’s right to access the justice system, be treated as equals and enforce their rights before the law, is essential to healing communities, speeding their economic development and stabilizing political systems.

In November, HRW reported on the opening of a new round of war crimes proceedings at the International Criminal Court at the Hague:

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) joint trial of two Congolese rebel leaders offers victims the chance to see accountability for atrocities committed in Congo’s armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said today.

The trial of Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ituri district in eastern Congo is scheduled to start on November 24, 2009, in The Hague. Despite substantial cooperation by Congo, another Congolese warlord sought by the ICC, Bosco Ntaganda, remains at large and now plays a leading role in military operations in eastern Congo backed by United Nations peacekeepers.

Efforts to combat impunity and punish those militia leaders using local resources and extreme violence against civilians to build up a private power base, will be essential to bringing peace to the DR Congo. At present, there is no sustained diplomatic pressure on neighboring governments or world powers, to put a stop to the violence in DR Congo. Despite nearly 7 million people killed, the violence continues nearly unabated, with no sign of viable peace in sight.

Blue Cross has reportedly announced plans for a massive 39% rate-hike on hundreds of thousands of customers, despite earning record profits of $4.7 billion in 2009. The announcement has spurred outrage among healthcare rights activists and public interest groups and raised the ire of the president and the Congress of the United States. The progressive pressure group MoveOn.org has launched a campaign to demand an immediate reversal of the Blue Cross rate-hike.

A mass mailing sent out by MoveOn reads, in part:

Blue Cross has just announced that it’s immediately raising premiums charged to hundreds of thousands of individual customers by as much as 39%—even though their parent company’s profits soared to a record $4.7 billion last year.¹

Even worse, the insurer has so far refused to explain why they’re increasing their rates, and warned that they might do so again this year without warning.

The Obama administration is demanding answers from Anthem Blue Cross, and Congress has opened an investigation.² But Blue Cross is only going to respond if this story becomes a major public-relations problem for them.

So it’s time to turn up the heat. Let’s join the growing call for an explanation and send a powerful public message that these abuses by Big Insurance are unacceptable.

The investigation will likely look into possible illegal price gouging and questions of whether collusion among insurers might be permitting a broader trend in this direction. Insurers are immune to many provisions of anti-trust legislation, but laws against collusion are waived only to permit the sharing of information, not to permit collusion that might allow firms to engage in illegal market manipulation or price-fixing.

NBC’s chief Pentagon corresondent Jim Miklaszewski told MSNBC this morning that in his opinion military trials are “more reliable” in terms of the outcomes they produce. The comment was perhaps an unwelcome introduction of Constitutional questions into the debate over whether to try accused 9/11 terrorist conspirators in a civilian criminal court or before a military tribunal.

The reason for Miklaszewski’s comment is unclear, as his role was simply to report on the possibility of Attorney General Holder being “open to the idea” of using a military setting to try terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay. One of the major criticisms leveled at the military commissions process set up by Pres. George W. Bush was that it gave the air of unfair trial and could spur revenge attacks on military personnel.

Several elements of the military commissions were declared unconstitutional, and more than one lawyer involved, including one judge, have said they believe the process was deliberately set up to circumvent Constitutional constraints on executive power and predetermine guilt. Miklaszewski’s comment this morning on MSNBC again raises the concern that some proponents of military tribunals expect a rigged verdict.

Military justice in the United States has a long a storied history. With a number of concerning exceptions, it is largely a history of deliberately subjecting the forum of military justice to the civilian rule of law set forth in the Constitutional order. In this sense, it is a proud aspect of military justice professionals, lawyers and judges alike, that all military trials adhere to the same strict standards of due process as mandated by the United States Constitution.

Failure to live up to those standards is not so much a way of “getting terror convictions” —the more unfair the process, the more likely appeals to federal law will succeed, putting convictions at risk— as it is an assault on the due process rights of American military personnel. Military courts martial are considered to be more severe than civilian courts mainly because they have unique jurisdiction over military personnel who are required to follow a chain of command.

That requirement means they are responsible to more specific mandates than civilians who are responsible to follow written law. While courts martial may not require military personnel to follow any order that flagrantly violates federal law, criminal punishments can be meted out for infractions that involve ignoring orders or violating military rules or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Because military courts martial can punish military personnel for violations under this expanded legal code, and because the hierarchy of military authority is integral to some questions that are at issue in such cases, military justice is considered to be “more severe”, but in fact, military personnel are supposed to enjoy 100% of their Constitutional due process rights, even when facing military courts martial.

Establishing the precedent —unlikely to hold up in federal court, and already rejected by the Supreme Court— that military justice can ignore key due process protections does more to harm military personnel who must face trial through that system than it does to harm any accused terrorist. US military personnel deserve the same Constitutional protections all other defendants would receive under the US Constitution.

There is no legal foundation for the use of military courts to conduct any kind of criminal proceeding that would not provide all the protections of civilian criminal court. There are essentially two circumstances in which there would be solid legal foundation for using military tribunals to try accused terrorists: 1) to adjudicate the legality of holding a prisoner of war during the conflict in question; 2) to prosecute war crimes, under international war crimes law.

Application of international war crimes law is, according to the United States Constitution, application of the “supreme law of the land”, because all treaties signed and ratified are, essentially, part of the body of Constitutional law. This means that even then, Constitutional due process requirements would still apply. The US Constitution does not provide any means by which the US Congress could legislate ad-hoc military courts, specific to a unique circumstance or accusation, which would not meet Constitutional requirements.

As such, there are serious concerns about the motivations of those who profess open preference for military tribunals over civilian criminal courts for the prosecution of accused terrorists. Some observers have noted that there is a clear overlap between the most vehement proponents of military tribunals and individuals who seek to prevent the release of information about extralegal detentions and intelligence-gathering methods.

This overlap has raised concerns among civil rights groups and human rights watchdogs that there is in the pressure for military tribunals a politically driven campaign to fundamentally alter the application of US Constitutional law in order to allow for the concealing of evidence that could incriminate members of the previous administration, or which could see their actions lead to the failure to convict dangerous terrorists.

One solution would be to stage a thorough, independent criminal investigation of the very methods in question, both to establish whether Constitutional law was violated, or even flagrantly ignored, and to establish further grounds on which the tainted evidence might be admissable in any court of law, military or civilian, following Constitutional standards.

Let down your guard for five seconds, and you will likely find some emanation of the pseudo-conservative hostility market explaining that Pres. Obama is deliberately plotting the destruction of the United States of America, that his administration is lazy and incompetent, and that terrorists are about to seize control of the homeland. Those propagandists, who expect you will not notice their absurd claims are in fact lies, are the ones who are, very deliberately, trying to ruin America.

This claim may need some explaining, so I’ll do my best to reason this out, in case anyone out there finds it a shocking thought. First of all, it’s worth noting that true conservative Americans have about as much in common with these cheats as they do with aardvarks. Then, we have to point out that the “conservatives” are heirs to the British “tories”, the relentless defenders of the old regime, the stately decorum of the monarchy, and centralized church diktat… oh, and enemies of the American Revolution.

Wikipedia explains that “The Tory ethos can be summed up with the phrase, God, King and Country“. If we translate that to modern American conservatism, it might sound more like God, Country and One-party-rule… and anyone who disagrees is evil. This sounds radical, I know, but I think any thinking person who is honest knows this portrait is not far from the true spirit of the vitriolic, unreasoned aggressions being pushed by what calls itself “the conservative movement”.

Anti-tax radical Grover Norquist said in 2004 he was part of a “secret plan to seize power”. He also infamously said he wanted to “drown [the American government] in a bathtub“. The Karl Rove / Tom DeLay axis was known for expressing with outrageous hubris that they sought to establish a “permanent Republican majority” in both houses of Congress.

The wild-eyed language of violence and hostility for government agencies, public services, the legal foundations of consumer protections, labor protections, Constitutional protections, civil liberties and even against the basic worth of human beings who do not espouse their radical political philosophy, are all common among the so-called “conservative” media. Their disdain for American principles of government, American government and the majority of the American people is extreme, and undisguised.

But they call themselves patriots, so they must be. We are expected to believe that though virtually every other word out of their mouths are lies, we should trust them on that one, and by extension, out of fear of being considered unlike them and therefore unpatriotic, we should capitulate, abandon our own principles, and just cede the political ground to them and their cronies.

Again, this sounds radical, but I am just stating what any sensible person observes when tuning in to the self-described “conservative” media environment: hatred for government programs, hatred for equality before the law, hatred for foreigners, hatred for minorities, hatred for people who are unfortunate enough to require public assistance.

That fundamental undercurrent of intolerance and contempt is portrayed as “honest”, “forthright”, folksy, and middle of the road, when it is really just like any other hard core of radical extremism. Even the stars and supporters of the pseudo-conservative media machine try to defend themselves against the charge of being radical extremist by suggesting there is an element of “entertainment” in what they do.

It is not entertainment. It is propaganda. It is a deviant assault on common decency. It is an attempt to vilify the leadership of anyone who falls outside a specific established circle of tory-style power seekers, people defending a feudal order, an aristocratic right to accumulate power and influence to the detriment of the average citizen, family, or community.

Barack Obama is one of those people. He is vilified by this anti-humanist echo-chamber, because he works, because he sees, because he is actually trying to do what our Constitution requires a president to do: represent the will of the governed, ensure the laws are followed, and rein in abuses that undermine the freedoms individual citizens are supposed to enjoy.

Remember, our nation was founded in an atmosphere that held up liberty as the highest of virtues. Today’s pseudo-conservatives like to talk about how they prize liberty above all else. But what they mean is they prize their own freedom to do as they please without a government of, by and for, ordinary people interfering with their whims and appetites.

They would not want  you to hear this in their message, but this is what they are saying, every chance they get, almost as if they can’t help announcing it, so proud are they of their aims. Our nation was founded on the ideal of liberty, which according to the political philosophy of the times, means equality of each before the law (it would take some time before that phrase was actually entered into the Constitution, by amendment), and yet we are asked to believe it is evil to be “liberal”.

Pseudo-conservatives want you to believe that “liberal” means “unwise”, “thoughtless”, “irresponsible”. It does not mean this, any more than “conservative” means “hates pleasure”. It is the pseudo-conservatives, who protest most of all about their fear of moral “relativism”, who are promoting relativist views: “liberal” can mean anything they want it to mean; what liberals actually mean by it is irrelevant.

That is relativism; that is spin; that is poison for fair-minded public discourse. It’s a brainwashing technique. It’s a strategy meant to make people angry about the very ideas they would most benefit from, a strategy that makes sense for Tory monarchists trying to promote their goals in a democratic society, where Tory values are anathema to the revolutionary culture.

Liberal means connected to liberation, freedom, in favor of a process of expanding freedom and working against the encroaching interests of accumulated power and tyranny. The word is virtually synonymous with the foundation of the Republic, the revolutionary spirit. “Give me liberty or give me death!” and “Don’t tread on me!” were not conservative ideas. They were liberal. We are a free country, a liberal country.

But beyond the verbal distortion of the pseudo-conservative echo-chamber, there is the rank hypocrisy, the corruption, the lust for power and the open assaults on the Constitutional order. There are the ties between pseudo-conservative PACs and the worst offenders in Washington corruption in recent memory. There are cult-like organizations that front as “churches”, preach the pursuit of power as a spiritual virtue and move illicit funds to influence members of Congress. Or so the allegations read.

Does it matter that Grover Norquist’s organization was linked to not only Jack Abramoff, but to his money? That allegations of corruption were never fully investigated? Does this in any way affect the validity of the ideas being promoted by the we are moral you are degenerate crowd? No. Because there is no moral principle in what they are pushing, only an us-versus-them bait and switch, a vicious obsession with character assassination, a perverse lust for power gained in ways that erode democracy.

I don’t think we need to understand the psychology of this in order to know that it’s wrong. I don’t think we need to ask ourselves if we can forgive the wrongdoers or reconcile with them. I don’t think we need to examine whether common sense is enough to understand that bipartisan does not mean only one party’s radicals have good ideas. I think we need to own up, stand tall, and speak truth.

Hate is not acceptable. Systematic marginalization of minorities and other groups is not acceptable. The radical pseudo-conservative hatred for immigrants is not acceptable. The use of language that calls for violence against the president is not acceptable. The relentless fabrication of charges of a “liberal” quest to destroy the country is not acceptable.

That whole program is nothing but the aggressive allegiance to a politics of raw power that defends a concentrated elite and openly and deliberately attacks the people as a whole, their interests and the interests of future generations. Again, the agents of that attack take pains to say at every turn this is not what they are doing; they say the speak for the little guy, but then they speak against him.

Don’t we all already know this in our hearts? Is there anyone out there who really believes that multi-millionaire pseudo-conservative shock-jocks like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are speaking for the little guy? They are not. They revile every government program that benefits the little guy, or the average American household; they revile spending on public education, or using government money to make sure poor children can be treated and hospitals can stay open.

They revile the notion that people working 40 to 80 hours a week at low-paying jobs, hard-working middle-class families, should not have to pay a higher percentage of their gross income in taxes than millionaires like themselves. They revile the concept of economic fairness, of true competition in the marketplace (favoring the freedom of big businesses to run roughshod over the small or local is NOT favoring a free market of competitive productive enterprises).

But we are asked to not only tolerate their relentless misuse of broadcast airtime to spread lies and innuendo, to distract Americans from the truths of the political sphere, to cause the people to mistrust the most reliable public servants, to use disinformation as a bludgeon with which to whip up a fever of public protest against the very programs that will most likely protect the freedom and prosperity of individual Americans.

“Liberal” Americans don’t need to search their souls on this question, because they know they stand for freedom from oppression and discrimination, for a society free of hate and violence, for a democratic order founded on the rule of law, and the right of every man, woman and child, to cultivate their own abilities and gain by their merit, not by handouts.

It is the pseudo-conservative political propaganda machine that seeks a perversion of those democratic ideals, that wants ordinary people to believe that 0% tax rates for multinational conglomerates is somehow “fair”, that the wealthiest paying 1/3 as much of their income, by percentage, as the average family is “balanced”, that the concentration of power in one ideologically “pure” party is preferable to the contest of ideas that allows citizens to choose their nation’s future course.

It is conservatives of all kinds who must look inward, challenge their own sense of connection to the media that seek to aggrandize them, but really degrade them and their principles, and decide: do you want to be part of something that has as its central aim the undermining of responsible civic discourse and citizen engagement, or do you want to play a productive role in shaping a future in which your children and your children’s children can live in peace and freedom, in a nation that respects their rights and in which public servants are there to serve?

Truth-First.com :: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has been revealed to be placing a “blanket hold” on 70 of Pres. Obama’s nominees, while demanding an estimated $40 billion in earmarks for his state. The revelation, published yesterday in CongressDaily, is being called one of the most flagrant examples of political corruption in recent memory. According to CongressDaily’s reporting, “While holds are frequent, Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal.”

The fact that Shelby appears so flagrantly to be using this procedural stunt to demand billions of dollars in payments to political or industrial operations in his state has raised the accusation that he is in fact guilty of a kind of extortion. As Dylan Loewe wrote in Friday’s Huffington Post, “This is unconscionably outrageous. If it were occurring anywhere else but the Senate chamber it would be extortion. A felony. It is an egregious misuse of minority power, easily the most flagrant example in years.”

Loewe also argues that the revelation of Shelby’s shockingly unscrupulous activity —a number of the nominations are likely related to vital public services, including national security— is a cue to Democrats to finally stand up and cry foul, to put the Republican party absolutely on the spot, facing the dilemma: do we continue to obstruct and be known for undermining national security and the public good, with overtly corrupt intent, or do we begin to work with Obama and the Democrats?

But the real problem for Republicans now that this unprecedented obstruction has come to light is that some of them are demanding a moratorium on earmarks, in an attempt to accuse the Democratic Congress of overspending on pet projects for home districts, yet they are backing an effort to undermine federal agencies as part of an overt attempt to extort earmarks from the Congressional leadership and the administration.

The obvious question any observer without a vested interest in defending Shelby’s actions must ask is: how can one senator simply assign to himself power superior even to that of the president on the question of filling appointments? There is no such right in the United States Constitution, and surely any rule that would allow for a filibuster was not designed to allow one anonymous member of the Senate to block over 70 appointments to important posts in the executive branch of government.

John Marshal of the Talking Points Memo Editors Blog writes:

This is more like just a stick up. Gimme my money and I’ll give you your Senate back! Worse than a squeegee man and not much better than a bank robber, Shelby is shutting down the president’s ability to appoint anyone to anything until he gets his way.

The Shelby affair has yet more layers of stunning hubris: the $40 billion project he is demanding action for is actually related to a bidding process in which a joint venture between Northrop Grumman and EADS —the European parent of Airbus— is competing against Boeing for a contract to build a new aerial refueling tanker. The Northrop/EADS venture plans to build the tanker in Mobile, Alabama, if it wins, but is threatening to withdraw its bid altogether unless the Air Force makes the conditions of bidding more favorable to its needs.

Shelby is literally trying to undermine the federal government’s ability to do business effectively and have responsible, politically accountable leadership, in order to lobby on behalf of a foreign corporation, against an American corporation. In order to coerce payment of billions of dollars in earmarks to corporations that might do business in his home state, Sen. Shelby is blocking at least five appointments to the Department of Defense, in a time when the United States is involved in two wars, on the other side of the world.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) angrily denounced the blocking of these appointments on the floor of the United States Senate, explaining how the blanket hold can undermine readiness and interfere with a wide array of services related to providing adequate attention and care to the personnel who serve in the armed forces. Even the provision of fully adequate medical resources to the front could be slowed by vacancies at key Pentagon posts.

The hold can also undermine the ability of the Pentagon to have real oversight of technology acquisition, meaning the quality of new technologies adopted is not currently being overseen by a politically accountable official, nor is the issue of cost related to existing and new technologies.

In fact, the hold on the appointment for Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions could be directly linked to the job-description of that post and, by extension, to the billions of dollars Shelby hopes to win for his state, a conflict of interest that implies Sen. Shelby hopes to hide the potential for massive cost overruns that could be associated with the multi-billion-dollar contract he is trying to win, by way of these coercive tactics.

After dodging questions and refusing to give comment on the issue, Sen. Shelby’s office did confirm he is blocking nominations in direct connection with the two Defense-related programs he wants to come to his state. Sen. Shelby has reportedly made the wildly false claim that if a $45 million FBI outpost designed to study IEDs (improvised explosive devices) is not built in Alabama, it will “impede” the government’s ability to defend against terrorism.

The claim is false, because the Pentagon already conducts the world’s most advanced IED research through a number of explosive ordnance disposal programs, in which engineers and explosives experts stage real tests of real explosives in scenarios designed to mimic both the environment of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as urban combat and potential terrorist attack. Substantive details on the fate of the specific FBI-related earmark Shelby is demanding for his state have not been released in connection with this story.

Even as Sen. John McCain and other top Republicans push for a moratorium on all earmarks of any kind, Sen. Shelby’s action implies the Republican party is supportive of the blanket hold for dollars, or had hoped the nature of the blanket hold would not come to light. Though earmarks and negotiation around pet projects are considered routine business in the Senate, the scope of Sen. Shelby’s apparent abuse of the rules has some asking whether he might be vulnerable to corruption charges, or even impeachment for abuse of office.

While the Constitution lists “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as impeachable offenses, the history of the impeachment process and legal scholarship tends toward the rule that Congress alone can determine what actions constitute impeachable offenses. While the general public tends to view actions like Shelby’s as a kind of solicitation of bribes, if not outright extortion, it is unlikely any member of Congress would be so ready to set that standard on earmarks.

Even the most outspoken opponents of earmarks, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his onetime running mate, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, have consistently sought huge federal investments in their states. Except of course on specific issues where their desire to cry foul over government spending made it necessary to disavow any such ambitions. In fact, on a per-capita basis, Palin and the Alaskan Congressional delegation, tainted by actual corruption charges, were more aggressive in seeking earmark dollars than any other state.

The more likely route members of the Democratic majority in the Senate will take is to accuse Shelby of pandering to corporate interests, putting the security of the nation at risk, undermining the federal government’s ability to rein in cost and oversee spending, maybe even of a kind of non-criminal extortion; he will be pressured to take the fall as the worst offender in a minority of obstructionists and earmark addicts, and the Republican party will be pressured to distance itself from his actions.

The goal would be to lift the hold, confirm some or all of the blocked nominees, secure a serious political victory for Pres. Obama and the Democratic cause, and to show the majority as strong in fighting against corrupt practices, conflict of interest and legislative extortion. Sen. Shelby would be punished politically, as he tries to throw blame in all directions (which his office has already begun to do—attacking the military, the Congress, the president, and anyone other than himself), in a climate where no one wants to be seen as being on his side.

The Republican leadership may also fear the backlash from Sen. Shelby’s actions, because there is already widespread and angry bipartisan opposition to the now blanket use of the filibuster loophole to obstruct legislative business in the Senate. The filibuster is a storied and favorite tool of Senate minority parties, but supporters of both parties have been angered in a visceral way over the last two decades, as the filibuster has expanded wildly in use.

There is significant pressure on Democrats to use any number of procedural options to simply change the rules on filibusters, possibly requiring that any senator making the threat either follow through or face some loss of authority within the Senate, or reducing the number of issues where the filibuster is even applicable to a safely small number. As CongressDaily noted in its report yesterday, Vice Pres. Biden, a long-time senator himself (elected 7 times to the Senate) has been taking a serious look at filibuster reform:

“What I have been doing is spending a lot of time having my staff go back and scrub this, you know, the use of the filibuster and how it’s worked,” Biden said. “This is not a constitutional requirement.”

Biden defended the 60-vote requirement, calling it “a useful tool. It’s legitimate, but from my perspective having served here, having been elected seven times, I’ve never seen a time when it’s become sort of standard operating procedure. … Requiring a supermajority is just not a good way to do business.

That the procedural maneuvers being used by Republicans like Shelby to hijack the process and undermine the federal government are not actually Constitutionally sanctioned does leave obstructionists more vulnerable to the charge that they are abusing their offices in order to win money for special interests or simply to encroach upon the separation of powers. But even so, the fallout will likely remain political, unless some direct communication with an interested party, in which money itself is discussed, were to come to light.

There is talk in the House of Representatives that a “reconciliation patch” could allow the US Senate to pass a small amendment to the Senate healthcare bill, in connection with a budget reconciliation measure, could allow the Senate to provide the House with an overall bill that could pass the House of Representatives. If the Senate is able to make those necessary adjustments, there could be a comprehensive healthcare reform package passed and signed into law in the coming weeks.

With all the rhetorical battling over what exactly that reform should consist of, it may be necessary to simplify the political conversation a bit. One way to do so would be to get back to basics: for a new healthcare reform package to be a success, it would have to accomplish a few key goals, many of which are far more serious and far-reaching than the more controversial and divisive “public option” issue. Here are just a few:

1. A definitive end to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions;
2. A total ban on dropping insurees from coverage due to illness or infirmity;
3. Strong, low-cost exchanges that allow consumers to buy high-quality, affordable health insurance;
4. Legal permission to open regulated multi-state insurance markets;
5. A reinstatement of all federal anti-trust laws against insurance monopolies or oligopolies;
6. A regulatory consumer protection mechanism to prevent collusion and price-fixing;
7. A legislative basis for launching non-profit insurers or publicly backed insurance plans;
8. A ban on linking stock value to “medical loss ratio” (rewarding denial of treatment)…

Any bill that does these things, whether it does so through heavily funded mandates, unfunded mandates, in conjunction with new taxes or by way of new agencies, consumer-protection staffing or existing anti-trust laws, will have a serious impact on the major price-inflating flaws in the American healthcare system. Markets can adjust to new cost projections, if circumstance requires them to adjust. The key to reform is making sure the new priorities are part of the markets that govern pricing, coverage and even treatment.

As Pres. Obama said in his exchange with the Republican Congressional caucus last week, “if you say, ‘We can offer coverage for all Americans, and it won’t cost a penny,’ that’s just not true. You can’t structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage, and it costs nothing.”

Republicans had claimed their proposal would do that; the fact is no “credible economists” would support the Republican claims, so in order to meet the goals of all those interested in healthcare reform, the bills passed by Congress have had to find ways to pay for reform; whether we like it or not, we can’t solve the healthcare crisis responsibly without something that helps to pay for it, and we can’t leave it unsolved. The early months of 2010 are the time when Democrats and Republicans have an absolute moral responsibility to find  a way to achieve the above-stated goals.

Transcript of question-and-answer between President Barack Obama and the Republican House Issues Conference, as delivered at the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland, on Friday, 29 January 2010…

12:10 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. Thank you. Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us for an elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that’s tough. (Applause.)

I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, “Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months.” (Laughter.)

Part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I’m looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn’t end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It’s important to me that we do so. It’s important to you, I think, that we do so. But most importantly, it’s important to the American people that we do so.

I’ve said this before, but I’m a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security — and that’s not something that’s only good for our country, it’s absolutely essential. It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth — that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is — is at the heart of our democracy. That’s what makes us the greatest nation in the world.

So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas, and I guarantee you that after reading this I may challenge a few of yours. (Laughter.) I want you to stand up for your beliefs, and knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don’t want — and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don’t want either — is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks, when we’re in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That’s their obsession.

And I’m not a pundit. I’m just a President, so take it for what it’s worth. But I don’t believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (Applause.) I don’t think they want more gridlock. I don’t think they want more partisanship. I don’t think they want more obstruction. They didn’t send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. That’s not what they want. They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they’re grappling with every single day.

And I think your constituents would want to know that despite the fact it doesn’t get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we’ve acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban’s momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There’s been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we’re all united in our admiration of our troops. (Applause.)

So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand — and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt — whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country. (Applause.)

It’s that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was cosponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We’ve stood together on behalf of our nation’s veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the VA’s budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans’ health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform.

Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a Credit Card Bill of Rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who are out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes.

So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things, we’ve seen party-line votes that, I’m just going to be honest, were disappointing. Let’s start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who’ve lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects.

There was an interesting headline in CNN today: “Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it.” And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed.

Well, that’s what the Recovery Act was. And let’s face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences perhaps on the just the concept of government spending, but, as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity.

Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent — that’s the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren’t seeing positive job growth; we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent.

So you’ve seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades — and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened — as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest — because of some of the steps that we took.

And by the way, you mentioned a Web site out here, John — if you want to look at what’s going on, on the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov — a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor’s idea.

Now, here’s the point. These are serious times, and what’s required by all of us — Democrats and Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (Laughter.) A middle class that’s back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that’s ascendant in the world — that’s more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn’t be shaped by what’s best for our politics; our politics should be shaped by what’s best for our future.

But no matter what’s happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree, because as successful as we’ve been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that’s predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but that’s no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we’ve got to do everything we can to accelerate it.

So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I’ve proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here’s how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They’d get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we’d refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It’s a simple concept. It’s easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.

So I hope you join me. Let’s get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment, and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there’s nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is: What’s going to keep us from getting this done?

I’ve proposed a modest fee on the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers’ money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it’s designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they’ll tell you they want their money back. Let’s do this together, Republicans and Democrats.

I propose that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home — right here at home. Surely, that’s something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats.

We know that we’ve got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade, and threaten our future. That’s why I’ve proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending other than what we need for national security. That’s something we should do together that’s consistent with a lot of the talk both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can’t blink when it’s time to actually do the job.

At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the ’90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of you voted for that, and I appreciate it. And we were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday.

But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day. So I’m going to establish such a commission by executive order and I hope that you participate, fully and genuinely, in that effort, because if we’re going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we’re going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It’s going to require all of us doing what’s right for the American people.

And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there’s not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there is a deficit of trust. So I hope you’ll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let’s require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress. Let’s do the people’s business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats.

I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become. And I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don’t agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can’t get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they’re getting seriously ill. That’s exactly when you need insurance. And for too many people, they’re not getting it. I don’t think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they’re poised to do so again.

I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it’s not working for the American people. It’s not working for our federal budget. It needs to change.

This is a big problem, and all of us are called on to solve it. And that’s why, from the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I’d be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn’t get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn’t my idea, it was Senator McCain’s. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers — that’s an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that’s an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents’ insurance until they’re 25 or 26. I supported that. That’s part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I’m sure from some of you as well. So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let’s be clear: I have.

Bipartisanship — not for its own sake but to solve problems — that’s what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. Just think about it for a while. We don’t have to put it up for a vote today.

Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That’s especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can’t break free from partisan gridlock, if we can’t move past a politics of “no,” if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President. I’ve got to act for the greater good –- because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that’s — that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.

So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it’s represented. But we’ve gotten caught up in the political game in a way that’s just not healthy. It’s dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I’m hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that.

So thank you very much. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Now I’d like to open it up for questions.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: The President has agreed to take questions and members would be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. (Laughter.) The chair will take the prerogative to make the first remarks.

Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican Conference.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [Off microphone.] We are pleased to have you return. (Inaudible) a year ago — House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most of the people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the next four years. And I want to assure you we’re keeping that promise.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [off microphone] Number two, our pledge to you, Mr. President, was that door is always open. And we hope the (inaudible) of our invitation that we (inaudible).

Mr. President, several of us in this conference yesterday on the way into Baltimore stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore. I met a little boy, an African American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter, Jr. When he heard that I would be seeing you today his eyes lit up like I had never seen. And I told him that if he wrote you a letter I’d give it to you, and I have.

But I had a conversation with little David, Jr. and David, Sr. His family has been struggling with the economy.

[On microphone.] His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I’ll never forget. About my age and he said — he said, Congressman, it’s not like it was when we were coming up. He said, there’s just no jobs.

Now, last year about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration, and your party in Congress, told us that we’d have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill. It was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which was — we were told — had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said. Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President; here in Baltimore it’s considerably higher.

Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress, and using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President.

Now we know you’ve come to Baltimore today and you’ve raised this tax credit, which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter. But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing — in the name of little David Carter, Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country — the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a lot packed into that question. (Laughter.) First of all, let me say I already promised that I’ll be writing back to that young man and his family, and I appreciate you passing on the letter.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: But let’s talk about just the jobs environment generally. You’re absolutely right that when I was sworn in the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 [percent], or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists, because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I’m assuming you’re not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I’m assuming it wasn’t my administration’s policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone into effect. So I’m assuming that wasn’t as a consequence of our policies; that doesn’t reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe — in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year — than anybody anticipated.

So I mean, I think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. But those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that’s just the fact, Mike, and I don’t think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that.

Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists — Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative — would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn’t fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we’ve still got to deal with. That’s a lot of people.

The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected — and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren’t — when you say they were “boutique” tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets.

There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn’t be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers.

You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax — not a proposal of mine; that’s not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion.

And then the last portion of it was infrastructure which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that you voted against.

Now, I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it’s simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do — rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in.

And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs — why would I resist that? I wouldn’t. I mean, that’s my point, is that — I am not an ideologue. I’m not. It doesn’t make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn’t say, great. The problem is, I couldn’t find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

Now, we can — here’s what I know going forward, though. I mean, we’re talking — we were talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward. I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that’s already taken place. The jobs credit that I’m discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring.

There may be other ideas that you guys have; I am happy to look at them and I’m happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I’ve already embraced.

But the question I think we’re going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what’s good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November we’re able to say, “The other party, it’s their fault.” If we take the latter approach then we’re probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there’s going to be a lot of overlap. All right?

Q Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?

THE PRESIDENT: Here’s what I’m going to do, Mike. What I’m going to do is I’m going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason I say this, before you say, “Okay,” I think is important to know — what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that.

So I think that we’ve got to look at what specific proposals you’re putting forward, and — this is the last point I’ll make — if you’re calling for just across-the-board tax cuts, and then on the other hand saying that we’re somehow going to balance our budget, I’m going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How’s that? All right?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Thank you. Mr. President, first off, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: It is. This is my daughter Liza, my son Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Say hi, everybody. (Laughter.) I serve as a ranking member of the budget committee, so I’m going to talk a little budget if you don’t mind. The spending bills that you’ve signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.

You’ve also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line-item veto. (Applause.) Problem is, we can’t even get a vote on the proposal.

So my question is, why not start freezing spending now, and would you support a line-item veto in helping us get a vote on it in the House?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent.

Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I’d be hearing this — I’d be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year’s budget, this past year’s budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.

So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul — and I don’t think you’ll dispute that — whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happened automatically.

Now, the reason that I’m not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year — we prepared a budget for 2010, it’s now going forward — is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. That’s why I’ve proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that’s point number two.

With respect to the line-item veto, I actually — I think there’s not a President out there that wouldn’t love to have it. And I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold. I don’t like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I’ve got to sign because it’s a defense authorization bill and I’ve got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need.

I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible.

So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I’d like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I’d like to walk you through that, because we have a version we think is constitutional.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me take a look at it.

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent.

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia.

CONGRESSWOMAN CAPITO: Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us here today. As you said in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.

I represent the state of West Virginia. We’re resource-rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. But our — my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap and trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies. So I’m asking you if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with a high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you’re listening.

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who’s somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I’m President. And I know that West Virginia struggles with unemployment, and I know how important coal is to West Virginia and a lot of the natural resources there. That’s part of the reason why I’ve said that we need a comprehensive energy policy that sets us up for a long-term future.

For example, nobody has been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. Testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.

I’ve said that I’m a promoter of nuclear energy, something that I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don’t think it makes sense. I think that that has to be part of our energy mix. I’ve said that I am supportive — and I said this two nights ago at the State of the Union — that I am in favor of increased production.

So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again with respect to energy, I’m for a lot of what you said you are for.

The one thing that I’ve also said, though, and here we have a serious disagreement and my hope is we can work through these disagreements — there’s going to be an effort on the Senate side to do so on a bipartisan basis — is that we have to plan for the future.

And the future is that clean energy — cleaner forms of energy are going to be increasingly important, because even if folks are still skeptical in some cases about climate change in our politics and in Congress, the world is not skeptical about it. If we’re going to be after some of these big markets, they’re going to be looking to see, is the United States the one that’s developing clean coal technology? Is the United States developing our natural gas resources in the most effective way? Is the United States the one that is going to lead in electric cars? Because if we’re not leading, those other countries are going to be leading.

So what I want to do is work with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there’s going to have to be some transition. We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it’s going to be different. And that means there’s going to be some transition. And that’s where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there’s going to be a transition process — and we’re not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away — that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Jason Chaffetz, Utah.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Thank you, Mr. President. It’s truly an honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Great to be here.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: And I appreciate you being here.

I’m one of 22 House freshmen. We didn’t create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up. You talked a lot about this deficit of trust. There’s some things that have happened that I would appreciate your perspective on, because I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists. Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency. And when you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t. And I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.

You said you weren’t going to allow lobbyists in the senior-most positions within your administration, and yet you did. I applauded you when you said it — and disappointed when you didn’t.

You said you’d go line by line through the health care debate — or through the health care bill. And there were six of us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who sent you a letter and said, “We would like to take you up on the offer; we’d like to come.” We never heard a letter, we never got a call. We were never involved in any of those discussions.

And when you said in the House of Representatives that you were going to tackle earmarks — in fact, you didn’t want to have any earmarks in any of your bills — I jumped up out of my seat and applauded you. But it didn’t happen.

More importantly, I want to talk about moving forward, but if we could address –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, how about –

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: — I would certainly appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: That was a long list, so — (laughter) — let me respond.

Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process — just over the course of the year — overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. I mean, how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place.

Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership. What is true, there’s no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together — that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taking place in one place that could be filmed. How to do that logistically would not have been as easy as it sounds, because you’re shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, et cetera, different legislators. But I think it’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

With respect to earmarks, we didn’t have earmarks in the Recovery Act. We didn’t get a lot of credit for it, but there were no earmarks in that. I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was whether I was going to have a big budget fight, at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let’s keep them to a minimum, but I couldn’t excise them all.

Now, the challenge I guess I would have for you as a freshman, is what are you doing inside your caucus to make sure that I’m not the only guy who is responsible for this stuff, so that we’re working together, because this is going to be a process?

When we talk about earmarks, I think all of us are willing to acknowledge that some of them are perfectly defensible, good projects; it’s just they haven’t gone through the regular appropriations process in the full light of day. So one place to start is to make sure that they are at least transparent, that everybody knows what’s there before we move forward.

In terms of lobbyists, I can stand here unequivocally and say that there has not been an administration who was tougher on making sure that lobbyists weren’t participating in the administration than any administration that’s come before us.

Now, what we did was, if there were lobbyists who were on boards and commissions that were carryovers and their term hadn’t been completed, we didn’t kick them off. We simply said that moving forward any time a new slot opens, they’re being replaced.

So we’ve actually been very consistent in making sure that we are eliminating the impact of lobbyists, day in, day out, on how this administration operates. There have been a handful of waivers where somebody is highly skilled — for example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist; on the other end, has more experience than anybody in figuring out how kids don’t get hooked on cigarettes.

So there have been a couple of instances like that, but generally we’ve been very consistent on that front.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee.

CONGRESSMAN BLACKBURN: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for acknowledging that we have ideas on health care because, indeed, we do have ideas, we have plans, we have over 50 bills, we have lots of amendments that would bring health care ideas to the forefront. We would — we’ve got plans to lower cost, to change purchasing models, address medical liability, insurance accountability, chronic and preexisting conditions, and access to affordable care for those with those conditions, insurance portability, expanded access — but not doing it with creating more government, more bureaucracy, and more cost for the American taxpayer.

And we look forward to sharing those ideas with you. We want to work with you on health reform and making certain that we do it in an affordable, cost-effective way that is going to reduce bureaucracy, reduce government interference, and reduce costs to individuals and to taxpayers. And if those good ideas aren’t making it to you, maybe it’s the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit.

But we’re concerned also that there are some lessons learned from public option health care plans that maybe are not being heeded. And certainly in my state of Tennessee, we were the test case for public option health care in 1994, and our Democrat government has even cautioned that maybe our experiences there would provide some lessons learned that should be heeded, and would provide guidance for us to go forward. And as you said, what we should be doing is tossing old ideas out, bad ideas out, and moving forward in refining good ideas. And certainly we would welcome that opportunity.

So my question to you is, when will we look forward to starting anew and sitting down with you to put all of these ideas on the table, to look at these lessons learned, to benefit from that experience, and to produce a product that is going to reduce government interference, reduce cost, and be fair to the American taxpayer? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I’ve gotten many of your ideas. I’ve taken a look at them, even before I was handed this. Some of the ideas we have embraced in our package. Some of them are embraced with caveats. So let me give you an example.

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is, we’ve got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about basic benefits or what have you, making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example. Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody’s premiums who weren’t healthy, right?

So it’s not that many of these ideas aren’t workable, but we have to refine them to make sure that they don’t just end up worsening the situation for folks rather than making it better.

Now, what I said at the State of the Union is what I still believe: If you can show me — and if I get confirmation from health care experts, people who know the system and how it works, including doctors and nurses — ways of reducing people’s premiums; covering those who do not have insurance; making it more affordable for small businesses; having insurance reforms that ensure people have insurance even when they’ve got preexisting conditions, that their coverage is not dropped just because they’re sick, that young people right out of college or as they’re entering in the workforce can still get health insurance — if those component parts are things that you care about and want to do, I’m game. And I’ve got — and I’ve got a lot of these ideas.

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

And so we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it’s tight. But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we’ve put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I’ve already discussed, making sure that there’s choice and competition for those who don’t have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.

And so I’m thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look, I mean, I’m just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I’m saying is, we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It’s not just on your side, by the way — it’s on our side, as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

Mike.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Dr. Tom Price from Georgia, and then we’ll have one more after that if your time permits, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’m having fun. (Laughter.)

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: This is great. (Applause.)

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: So are we.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, thank you. I want to stick on the general topic of health care, but ask a very specific question. You have repeatedly said, most recently at the State of the Union, that Republicans have offered no ideas and no solutions. In spite of the fact –

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think I said that. What I said was, within the context of health care — I remember that speech pretty well, it was only two days ago — (laughter) — I said I welcome ideas that you might provide. I didn’t say that you haven’t provided ideas. I said I welcome those ideas that you’ll provide.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, multiple times, from your administration, there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions. In spite of the fact that we’ve offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care, specifically in the area of health care — this bill, H.R.3400, that has more co-sponsors than any health care bill in the House, is a bill that would provide health coverage for all Americans; would correct the significant insurance challenges of affordability and preexisting; would solve the lawsuit abuse issue, which isn’t addressed significantly in the other proposals that went through the House and the Senate; would write into law that medical decisions are made between patients and families and doctors; and does all of that without raising taxes by a penny.

But my specific question is, what should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions to the challenges that Americans face and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we’ve offered nothing?

THE PRESIDENT: Tom, look, I have to say that on the — let’s just take the health care debate. And it’s probably not constructive for us to try to debate a particular bill — this isn’t the venue to do it. But if you say, “We can offer coverage for all Americans, and it won’t cost a penny,” that’s just not true. You can’t structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage, and it costs nothing. If –

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, can I — and I understand that we’re not interested in debating this bill, but what should we tell our constituents who know that we’ve offered these solutions and yet hear from the administration that we have offered nothing.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me — I’m using this as a specific example, so let me answer your question. You asked a question; I want to answer it.

It’s not enough if you say, for example, that we’ve offered a health care plan and I look up — this is just under the section that you’ve just provided me, or the book that you just provided me — summary of GOP health care reform bill: The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing America’s number-one priority for health reform. I mean, that’s an idea that we all embrace. But specifically it’s got to work. I mean, there’s got to be a mechanism in these plans that I can go to an independent health care expert and say, is this something that will actually work, or is it boilerplate?

If I’m told, for example, that the solution to dealing with health care costs is tort reform, something that I’ve said I am willing to work with you on, but the CBO or other experts say to me, at best, this could reduce health care costs relative to where they’re growing by a couple of percentage points, or save $5 billion a year, that’s what we can score it at, and it will not bend the cost curve long term or reduce premiums significantly — then you can’t make the claim that that’s the only thing that we have to do. If we’re going to do multi-state insurance so that people can go across state lines, I’ve got to be able to go to an independent health care expert, Republican or Democrat, who can tell me that this won’t result in cherry-picking of the healthiest going to some and the least healthy being worse off.

So I am absolutely committed to working with you on these issues, but it can’t just be political assertions that aren’t substantiated when it comes to the actual details of policy. Because otherwise, we’re going to be selling the American people a bill of goods. I mean, the easiest thing for me to do on the health care debate would have been to tell people that what you’re going to get is guaranteed health insurance, lower your costs, all the insurance reforms; we’re going to lower the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and it won’t cost anybody anything. That’s great politics, it’s just not true.

So there’s got to be some test of realism in any of these proposals, mine included. I’ve got to hold myself accountable, and guaranteed the American people will hold themselves — will hold me accountable if what I’m selling doesn’t actually deliver.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: Mr. President, a point of clarification, what’s in the Better Solutions book are all the legislative proposals that were offered –

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that. I’ve actually read your bills.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: — throughout 2009.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand.

CONGRESSMAN PRICE: And so, rest assured the summary document you received is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mike — well, hold on, hold on a second. No, no, no, no. Hold on a second, guys. (Applause.)

You know, Mike, I’ve read your legislation. I mean, I take a look at this stuff — and the good ideas we take. But here’s — here’s the thing — here’s the thing that I guess all of us have to be mindful of, it can’t be all or nothing, one way or the other. And what I mean by that is this: If we put together a stimulus package in which a third of it are tax cuts that normally you guys would support, and support for states and the unemployed, and helping people stay on COBRA that your governors certainly would support — Democrat or a Republican; and then you’ve got some infrastructure, and maybe there’s some things in there that you don’t like in terms of infrastructure, or you think the bill should have been $500 billion instead of $700 billion or there’s this provision or that provision that you don’t like. If there’s uniform opposition because the Republican caucus doesn’t get 100 percent or 80 percent of what you want, then it’s going to be hard to get a deal done. That’s because that’s not how democracy works.

So my hope would be that we can look at some of these component parts of what we’re doing and maybe we break some of them up on different policy issues. So if the good congressman from Utah has a particular issue on lobbying reform that he wants to work with us on, we may not able to agree on a comprehensive package on everything but there may be some component parts that we can work on.

You may not support our overall jobs package, but if you look at the tax credit that we’re proposing for small businesses right now, it is consistent with a lot of what you guys have said in the past. And just the fact that it’s my administration that’s proposing it shouldn’t prevent you from supporting it. That’s my point.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Thank you, Mr. President. Peter Roskam from the great state of Illinois.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Peter is an old friend of mine.

CONGRESSMAN ROSKAM: Hey, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Peter and I have had many debates.

CONGRESMAN ROSKAM: Well, this won’t be one. Mr. President, I heard echoes today of the state senator that I served with in Springfield and there was an attribute and a characteristic that you had that I think served you well there. You took on some very controversial subjects — death penalty reform — you and I –

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. We worked on it together.

CONGRESSMAN ROSKAM: — negotiated on. You took on ethics reform. You took on some big things. One of the keys was you rolled your sleeves up, you worked with the other party, and ultimately you were able to make the deal. Now, here’s an observation.

Over the past year, in my view, that attribute hasn’t been in full bloom. And by that I mean, you’ve gotten this subtext of House Republicans that sincerely want to come and be a part of this national conversation toward solutions, but they’ve really been stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi. Now, I know you’re not in charge of that chamber, but there really is this dynamic of, frankly, being shut out. When John Boehner and Eric Cantor presented last February to you some substantive job creation, our stimulus alternative, the attack machine began to marginalize Eric — and we can all look at the articles — as “Mr. No,” and there was this pretty dark story, ultimately, that wasn’t productive and wasn’t within this sort of framework that you’re articulating today.

So here’s the question. Moving forward, I think all of us want to hit the reset button on 2009. How do we move forward? And on the job creation piece in particular, you mentioned Colombia, you mentioned Panama, you mentioned South Korea. Are you willing to work with us, for example, to make sure those FTAs get called, that’s no-cost job creation? And ultimately, as you’re interacting with world leaders, that’s got to put more arrows in your quiver, and that’s a very, very powerful tool for us. But the obstacle is, frankly, the politics within the Democratic caucus?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, Peter and I did work together effectively on a whole host of issues. One of our former colleagues is right now running for governor, on the Republican side, in Illinois. In the Republican primary, of course, they’re running ads of him saying nice things about me. Poor guy. (Laughter.)

Although that’s one of the points that I made earlier. I mean, we’ve got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes, because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together, because our constituents start believing us. They don’t know sometimes this is just politics what you guys — or folks on my side do sometimes.

So just a tone of civility instead of slash and burn would be helpful. The problem we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn-style politics. You don’t get a lot of credit if I say, “You know, I think Paul Ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family.” Nobody is going to run that in the newspapers.

Q (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, in case he’s going to get a Republican challenge, I didn’t mean it. (Laughter.) Don’t want to hurt you, man. (Laughter.)

But on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That’s, I think, a failure on my part, is to try to foster better communications even if there’s disagreement. And I will try to see if we can do more of that this year. That’s on the sort of the general issue.

On the specific issue of trade, you’re right, there are conflicts within and fissures within the Democratic Party. I suspect there are probably going to be some fissures within the Republican Party, as well. I mean, you know, if you went to some of your constituencies, they’d be pretty suspicious about it, new trade agreements, because the suspicion is somehow they’re all one way.

So part of what we’ve been trying to do is to make sure that we’re getting the enforcement side of this tight, make sure that if we’ve got a trade agreement with China or other countries, that they are abiding with it — they’re not stealing our intellectual property or making sure that their non-tariff barriers are lowered even as ours are opened up. And my hope is, is that we can move forward with some of these trade agreements having built some confidence — not just among particular constituency groups, but among the American people — that trade is going to be reciprocal; that it’s not just going to be a one-way street.

You are absolutely right though, Peter, when you say, for example, South Korea is a great ally of ours. I mean, when I visited there, there is no country that is more committed to friendship on a whole range of fronts than South Korea. What is also true is that the European Union is about to sign a trade agreement with South Korea, which means right at the moment when they start opening up their markets, the Europeans might get in there before we do.

So we’ve got to make sure that we seize these opportunities. I will be talking more about trade this year. It’s going to have to be trade that combines opening their markets with an enforcement mechanism, as well as just opening up our markets. I think that’s something that all of us would agree on. Let’s see if we can execute it over the next several years. All right, is that it?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Jeb Hensarling, Texas. And that will be it, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Jim [sic] is going to wrap things up?

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: Jeb, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: How are you?

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: I’m doing well. Mr. President, a year ago I had an opportunity to speak to you about the national debt. And something that you and I have in common is we both have small children.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: And I left that conversation really feeling your sincere commitment to ensuring that our children, our nation’s children, do not inherit an unconscionable debt. We know that under current law, that government — the cost of government is due to grow from 20 percent of our economy to 40 percent of our economy, right about the time our children are leaving college and getting that first job.

Mr. President, shortly after that conversation a year ago, the Republicans proposed a budget that ensured that government did not grow beyond the historical standard of 20 percent of GDP. It was a budget that actually froze immediately non-defense discretionary spending. It spent $5 trillion less than ultimately what was enacted into law, and unfortunately, I believe that budget was ignored. And since that budget was ignored, what were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats. The national debt has increased 30 percent.

Now, Mr. President, I know you believe — and I understand the argument, and I respect the view that the spending is necessary due to the recession; many of us believe, frankly, it’s part of the problem, not part of the solution. But I understand and I respect your view. But this is what I don’t understand, Mr. President. After that discussion, your administration proposed a budget that would triple the national debt over the next 10 years — surely you don’t believe 10 years from now we will still be mired in this recession — and propose new entitlement spending and move the cost of government to almost 24.5 percent of the economy.

Now, very soon, Mr. President, you’re due to submit a new budget. And my question is –

THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, I know there’s a question in there somewhere, because you’re making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with, and I’m having to sit here listening to them. At some point I know you’re going to let me answer. All right.

CONGRESSMAN HENSARLING: That’s the question. You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? That’s the question, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Jeb, with all due respect, I’ve just got to take this last question as an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

Now, look, let’s talk about the budget once again, because I’ll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. — $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I’ve got a monthly budget that is higher than the — a monthly deficit that’s higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that’s factually just not true, and you know it’s not true.

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade — had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren’t paid for.

You had a prescription drug plan — the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades — that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That’s $8 trillion.

Now, we increased it by a trillion dollars because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus. I am happy to have any independent fact-checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine in terms of the accuracy of what I just said.

Now, going forward, here’s the deal. I think, Paul, for example, head of the budget committee, has looked at the budget and has made a serious proposal. I’ve read it. I can tell you what’s in it. And there are some ideas in there that I would agree with, but there are some ideas that we should have a healthy debate about because I don’t agree with them.

The major driver of our long-term liabilities, everybody here knows, is Medicare and Medicaid and our health care spending. Nothing comes close. Social Security we could probably fix the same way Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan sat down together and they could figure something out. That is manageable. Medicare and Medicaid — massive problem down the road. That’s where — that’s going to be what our children have to worry about.

Now, Paul’s approach — and I want to be careful not simplifying this, because I know you’ve got a lot of detail in your plan — but if I understand it correctly, would say we’re going to provide vouchers of some sort for current Medicare recipients at the current level –

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: No.

THE PRESIDENT: No?

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: People 55 and above –

THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-five and — well, no, I understand. I mean, there’s a grandfathering in, but just for future beneficiaries, right? That’s why I said I didn’t want to — I want to make sure that I’m not being unfair to your proposal, but I just want to point out that I’ve read it. And the basic idea would be that at some point we hold Medicare cost per recipient constant as a way of making sure that that doesn’t go way out of whack, and I’m sure there are some details that –

CONGRESSMAN RYAN: We drew it as a blend of inflation and health inflation, the point of our plan is — because Medicare, as you know, is a $38 trillion unfunded liability — it has to be reform for younger generations because it won’t exist because it’s going bankrupt. And the premise of our idea is, look, why not give people the same kind of health care plan we here have in Congress? That’s the kind of reform we’re proposing for Medicare. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Right, right. Well, look, as I said before, this is an entirely legitimate proposal. The problem is twofold: One is that depending on how it’s structured, if recipients are suddenly getting a plan that has their reimbursement rates going like this, but health care costs are still going up like that, then over time the way we’re saving money is essentially by capping what they’re getting relative to their costs.

Now, I just want to point out — and this brings me to the second problem — when we made a very modest proposal as part of our package, our health care reform package, to eliminate the subsidies going to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage, we were attacked across the board, by many on your aisle, for slashing Medicare. You remember? We’re going to start cutting benefits for seniors. That was the story that was perpetrated out there — scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.

No, no, but here’s my point. If the main question is going to be what do we do about Medicare costs, any proposal that Paul makes will be painted, factually, from the perspective of those who disagree with it, as cutting benefits over the long term. Paul, I don’t think you disagree with that, that there is a political vulnerability to doing anything that tinkers with Medicare. And that’s probably the biggest savings that are obtained through Paul’s plan.

And I raise that not because we shouldn’t have a series discussion about it. I raise that because we’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized, whatever proposals are put out there, as, well, you know, that’s — the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens; that the other party is doing X, Y, Z.

That’s why I say if we’re going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out, A, who’s to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side. And unfortunately, that’s how our politics works right now. And that’s how a lot of our discussion works. That’s how we start off — every time somebody speaks in Congress, the first thing they do, they stand up and all the talking points — I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front. He’s already polled it, and he said, you know, the way you’re really going to — I’ve done a focus group and the way we’re going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one — I know, I like Frank, we’ve had conversations between Frank and I. But that’s how we operate. It’s all tactics, and it’s not solving problems.

And so the question is, at what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and its long-term liability, or a serious question about — a serious conversation about Social Security, or a serious conversation about budget and debt in which we’re not simply trying to position ourselves politically. That’s what I’m committed to doing. We won’t agree all the time in getting it done, but I’m committed to doing it.

CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Take one more?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’ve already gone over time. But I’ll be happy to take your question, Congressman, offline. You can give me a call. All right, thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you, everybody. (Applause.)

END — 1:32 P.M. EST

Howard Zinn, author of the monumental work, A People’s History of the United States, revolutionized the field of historical research the world over, establishing the principle that true historical narrative must include a genuine reporting of indigenous experience and a more multifaceted factual accounting of events, including the impact of efforts to establish a new civilization on traditional cultures. Zinn died last week of heart failure, aged 87.

Zinn’s contribution to critical analysis and historical research is incalculable, but also fit well with the rising mood of a period in which advanced post-colonial theory spread the demand for an honest accounting of history, including all points of view. Zinn directly challenged the view that all historical “victories” were just and reminded readers that there are facts that complicate all histories, even if the fashion in telling them tends to be to gloss over nuance.

Many have argued that Howard Zinn’s contribution to the culture of the American republic has been to remind us, or perhaps to introduce for the first time the idea —with historical evidence on his side—, that American history is a history of action supported by popular action from the ground up. Zinn saw too much of history obscured by the narrative of powerful men dictating policy and identity, a picture at odds with the true lived history of the nation.

A piece in The Progressive magazine, from July 2009, helps to illustrate Zinn’s daring approach to telling the truth of the historical circumstances that mark the moments we cherish as signs of heroism and inherently virtuous or enlightened collective action. He reminds readers that the American Revolution was not really a war of a united, oppressed people against a cruel tyrant, but rather a chaotic cajoling of popular sentiment to inspire revolt.

The historical circumstances were imposing real injustice on people from various social strata, but not all of those people shared the same interest in going to war to right the injustice. Zinn writes:

In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.

Who actually gained from that victory over England? It’s very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it’s very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That’s one thing we’re not accustomed to in this country because we don’t think in class terms. We think, “Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.

The argument is not necessarily to say that the war was exclusively the result of monied interests wanting war, but rather that the interests of the popular revolution could have been achieved by other means, and in other places were, that the war could have been delayed, or made unnecessary, while the ends achieved. For Zinn, the manner in which the language and machinery of war were precipitated is relevant to understanding what happened, and why, and what the long-term effects of that legacy might have been.

He also explains that native Americans were very negatively impacted by the revolution’s vacating the Proclamation of 1763, which barred any settlements west of an agreed-upon colonial border. African-American slaves were not helped by the revolution, because “Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution.” That unjustifiable aberration was “legitimized” by the same document that gave birth to our democracy.

Ultimately, Zinn’s message in this historical unpacking of the mythology of the revolution, like the message of his illustrious career as a leading historian, amounts to the closing line of that article: “We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities.” Zinn knew, because he served as a bombardier in World War II, and was fundamentally changed by what he experienced.

Zinn’s most resonant contribution to world historical narrative and study is his monumental A People’s History of the United States, a book that reframed what history as a discipline was called to do, and led by example. As Dave Zirin wrote in The Nation, in honor of Zinn:

In Howard’s book, the central actors were the runaway slaves, the labor radicals, the masses and the misfits. It was history writ by Robin Hood, speaking to a desire so many share: to actually make history instead of being history’s victim. His book came alive in December with the debut of The People Speak on the History Channel as actors, musicians, and poets, brought Zinn’s book to life.

Howard was asked once whether his praise of dissent and protest was divisive. He answered beautifully: “Yes, dissent and protest are divisive, but in a good way, because they represent accurately the real divisions in society. Those divisions exist – the rich, the poor – whether there is dissent or not, but when there is no dissent, there is no change. The dissent has the possibility not of ending the division in society, but of changing the reality of the division. Changing the balance of power on behalf of the poor and the oppressed.”

For Zinn, it was a natural truth that power does not trickle down, but rather is determined and directed by the movement of popular will. For that reason, his interest was in fostering a greater individual awareness of the history of real people, as they experienced the great trends and moments of celebrated historical narratives. His true mission, as an historian, might be described as keeping alive the demand that a nation founded on democratic ideals live up to the virtues inherent in those ideals.

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in 1762, in The Social Contract, “It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimise an arbitrary government, that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept or reject it; but, were this so, the government would no longer be arbitrary.” He might balk at the definition of democracy emerging from an Enlightenment figure like Rousseau, but Zinn himself sought to ensure that an alert citizenry could render obsolete the very idea of arbitrary government and choose for themselves.

Pres. Barack Obama yesterday attended a first-of-its-kind question and answer session, as part of a Republican Congressional caucus conference in Baltimore. The president took some aggressive questions, classed by media analysts as “grandstanding”, from some Republicans who pushed the party line on the refusal of Democrats to deal with them. Obama adroitly and with a collaborative attitude dissected and refuted one after another Republican talking point. He admonished Republicans to put forth reasonable ideas that can work as part of passable legislation.

Obama was firm, but friendly and both sides described the debate as candid and constructive. Observers noted the event was an historic innovation in the American president’s engagement with both the Congressional opposition and the American people. It was noted also that this event was the closest the American people have come to enjoying some of the virtues of the British Parliament’s weekly Prime Minister’s Questions. The session is to be re-aired today on MSNBC, under the title President’s Question Time.

Among the remarks that stood out was Pres. Obama’s observation that Republicans have left themselves “very little room” to be bipartisan because they routinely tell their constituents that Obama’s “doin’ all kinds of crazy stuff that’s gonna destroy America”. The president was clearly not willing to accept that such rhetoric is fair in hardball partisan campaigning and urged his opponents to find a more honest, more reasonable way to talk about their policy differences, and leave themselves a little room to work with the other party.

On economics, Obama said “Now, im not a pundit, I’m juat a president, so take it for what it’s worth, but i don’t believe that the American people want us to be thinking about our job security; they want us to be thinking about there job security.” On healthcare reform, he said “The way you’ve been attacking this bill, you’d think it was some kind of Bolshevik plot.” He consistently addressed the need to moderate tone in order to actually speak truth and work together to solve problems.

It’s only through vigorous debate and honest disagreement, he said, that “bad ideas get tossed out” and good ideas come to prominence. While Mike Pence and some other questioners reiterated the Republican campaign point from 2009 that unless Obama adopts their ideas in place of his own he is not bipartisan, but Obama remained firm and was sincere, explaining he would not agree to policies he believes are not the best possible solution.

Rep. Pence specifically sought to suggest the president was at fault because the Recovery Act had been pitched as a way to keep unemployment at or below 8%, while unemployment would reach 10% in 2009. Obama retorted that this in no way reflects on the success of the Recovery Act, and pointed to how the eventually revised numbers for job losses in December 2008 and January and February 2009 were much more severe than anyone had predicted, pointing out that none of his policies could have taken effect before the job-losses were there to render the 8% prognosis obsolete.

The question-and-answer format allowed the president to not only demonstrate deep policy knowledge, but also a fundamental fairness I’m dealing with policy proposals and making executive judgments. He showed that he was aware of Republican proposals, had read them, and differed on substantive issues of long-term thinking and short-term responsibility. The forum laid out a clear demand for substantive engagement on specific and reasonable matters of public policy.

The Democratic party’s biggest communicational deficit is not about the virtues of its policies, but the nature of its founding ideal: “democrat” means one who favors government of, by, and for the people. The absurd and puerile experiment in linguistic brainwashing in which the Republican party is now uniformly engaged —calling the Democratic party (the party of the Democrats) the “Democrat party” in hopes of making the word sound alien and remote— is nothing more than an attempt to rob ordinary Americans of their access to a government that answers to them: Democrats need to be out there saying so every day.

This week, we have even heard the absurd attempt to attack the Democrats by saying that they are “the Democrat party” and therefore not truly “democratic”. The mind game is a cover for a much deeper and more shocking deficit: the ideas deficit that is permeating a Republican party terrorized from within by an ideological simplification that has all but erased the possibility of true creative thinking in the creation of public policy and problem solving. The word democrat means one who believes in and defends democracy. It is not an antonym to democratic and it is not a foreign or alien word; it is only being misused by a propaganda machine that has little else of substance to say.

Even as Republicans seek to engineer a public perception that the Democratic party is not on the side of the people, we have heard in the last several weeks some truly shocking defenses of the most powerful and corrosive corporate interests, both in terms of their right to rig the economy in their favor and to get away with taxpayer money. And now, in the aftermath of the activist pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, we have heard unnerving defenses for the ruling, which Republicans believe will shower their candidates with unprecedented amounts of corporate cash and allow them to slander their opponents without restraint.

The near uniform opposition on the part of the Republican party to any substantive financial reforms that would force banks to not endanger the prosperity and financial security of American families is matched only by the stunning assertion that ordinary people should not have the freedom to exercise their free speech rights, if corporations determine they should spend more to influence an election. The campaign finance ruling means wealthy interests can all but prohibit access by citizens, issue groups or even candidates, to advertising time, simply by buying it all for themselves.

It is the Republican party that is defending this perversion of democracy, and the Democratic party that is proposing action to ensure elections are the right and the domain of the voters themselves, not of corporate interests. It is Pres. Obama who has called for legislation that would require lobbyists and corporate representatives to publish every single contact they have with any member of Congress or anyone in the administration, and Republicans who seek to expand the right of lobbyists to spend money to influence elected officials and the electoral process itself.

Sen. Jon Cornyn, Republican of Texas, remarking on the president’s criticism of the Supreme Court ruling, said it was “over the top”. He suggested that such a statement was impolite to the justices seated in front of Obama, but seemed unconcerned about the manner in which the ruling could turn American elections into the most pervasive experiment in influence peddling the world has ever seen. The Republican priority, apparently, was to defend the justices who gave corporations near infinite spending power to influence elections, while the Democrats appear to be seeking a remedy that protects real people, citizens, and democracy as such.

Now, it’s vital to say that there’s no reason why Republicans, or the Republican party, cannot represent democratic values, fight for the little guy and defend families and communities against the abuses of the powerful. There’s no reason why not, but in the current makeup of the party, there is no credible leadership devoted to those projects. Committed Republicans across the country, who believe in the fundamental values of fair pay for a day’s work, responsibility, family, community and the rights of the individual over the whims of the powerful, should step up and take a leadership role to reform their party.

In the meantime, the Republican party is split between the pro-corporate big money politics and the vitriolic anti-middle-class conservatism that is feeding the push for deregulation, through a misguided devotion to the idea of “small government”. As Barack Obama has often said, it makes no sense to be for small government or for big government; the only thing that makes sense is to be for government that respects people’s freedoms, defends their rights and does its job effectively.

The myth currently being pushed by Republicans that Pres. Obama’s goal is to “collapse the American economy” and establish an irrevocable “big government” that interferes in individuals’ personal choices, is just that, a myth, and it is designed to dissuade people from recognizing the fundamental democratic interest in having a government that works. Democrats need to defend the meaning of the word that in one variation or another lends their party its title. ‘Democrat’ is not a dirty word; it’s an essential word; it’s what all of us claim to be, especially those Republicans who fiercely defend against excessive government.

We have very real, very pervasive crises we need to address as a nation, and formulating and implementing the best policies possible requires genuine cooperation from many competing quarters of the political arena. The refusal to join that process of effective reform and policy response is a failure to serve the people who elect public officials to office. Democrat means democratic; there’s no reason why anyone should think otherwise, unless the Democrats are unwilling to make the case.

• In the interests of disclosure, the author of this piece is a registered independent voter

The following is an official transcript of Pres. Obama’s State of the Union Address, delivered to a joint session of Congress, on Wednesday, 27 January 2010, at the US Capitol…

9:11 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They’ve done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they’ve done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who’d already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I’ve witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They’re tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They’re coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, “We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.”

It’s because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I’d like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there’s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it’s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it — (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we’ve recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That’s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

I thought I’d get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we’re on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That’s right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn’t be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that’s why I’m calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when — (applause) — companies that begin when an entrepreneur — when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it’s time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they’re ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they’re mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I’m also proposing a new small business tax credit
-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities — (applause) — and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They’re hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won’t make up for the seven million jobs that we’ve lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years.

We can’t afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from the last decade –- what some call the “lost decade” -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I’ve been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I’ve been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations — they’re not standing still. These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They’re making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I’m interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can’t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We’ve got to get it right. (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) — an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year’s investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that’s why we’ll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we’ve broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform — reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) — because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That’s why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That’s why we’re working to lift the value of a family’s single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let’s clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn’t choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn’t take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I’ve heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who’ve been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying — Democratic administrations, Republican administrations — we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we’ve taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I’m eager to see it.

Here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it’s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It’s a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that’s been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now — just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I’m absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I’m proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we’ll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we’ll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That’s why I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I’ll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can’t address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree — which is why this freeze won’t take effect until next year — (laughter) — when the economy is stronger. That’s how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don’t take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that’s what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That’s what helped us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. We can’t do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can’t stop there. It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I’m also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You’ve trimmed some of this spending, you’ve embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there’s a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don’t also reform how we work with one another. Now, I’m not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony — (laughter) — and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they’ve been taking place for over 200 years. They’re the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can’t wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of — (applause) — I’m speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn’t be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it’s clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let’s show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I’ll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I’d like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can’t wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I’m not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world. (Applause.)

That’s the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we’ve renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We’ve made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we’re increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. (Applause.) We’re joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government — we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we — that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That’s why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades — last year. (Applause.) That’s why we’re building a 21st century VA. And that’s why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we’re also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I’ve embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April’s Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That’s why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That’s the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We’re working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We’re working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We’re helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That’s why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That’s why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It’s the right thing to do. (Applause.)

We’re going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it’s our ideals, our values that built America — values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values that they’re living by; business values or labor values. They’re American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there. No wonder there’s so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, “None of us,” he said, “…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.”

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, “We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.”

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who’ve dropped everything to go someplace they’ve never been and pull people they’ve never known from the rubble, prompting chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!” when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. (Applause.) Let’s seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END — 10:20 P.M. EST