The lawsuit will keep the seat vacant for weeks or months. State law prevents officials from issuing an election certificate until legal matters are resolved.

Coleman, whose term expired Saturday, led Franken by 215 votes in the Nov. 4 count, but the advantage flipped during a prolonged recount. Coleman’s lawyers say recount inconsistencies and election irregularities should be reviewed by a special three-judge panel.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95HSIU00

Other articles that you may enjoy

• September 29, 2008 — $920 Billion more to bail out the world (0)
• August 19, 2008 — Sen. Stevens turns $5,000 real estate investment into $129,250 (0)
• November 9, 2008 — Hamas says it is ready to talk to Obama (0)
• April 17, 2008 — A culture of corruption: The news media (0)
• August 25, 2008 — National Poll: The media love affair with Barack Obama (0)

The surprise selection of Panetta, a former California congressman and chief of staff to President Clinton, would give Obama a CIA director with loyalty to the White House and an experienced managerial hand to steer the administration away from potential intelligence scandals.

But it runs the risk of putting an outsider at the helm of the CIA just as it seems to be regaining its footing after years of criticism over intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, and for aggressive interrogation tactics used in their aftermath.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-cia-panetta6-2009jan06,0,5514283.story

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 1, 2007 — Will Rudy help sink the U.N. Sea Treaty? (0)
• May 7, 2008 — Tribune covers for Obama’s terrorist friends (0)
• February 7, 2008 — Congressman Duncan Hunter demands feds install border fence (0)
• December 19, 2008 — Russian threats may test leadership of Obama (0)
• October 2, 2008 — The Reid-McConnell bailout bribe (0)

Madoff is alleged to have defrauded billions of dollars from people who invested with his Wall Street asset management firm since the 1990s.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, his activities became a massive fraud operation in which returns for existing investors were paid from funds from new investors rather than from actual profits.

As U.S. and global markets plunged, and amid mounting investor requests to redeem their investments, Madoff revealed the scope and nature of his scheme to his two sons who contacted an attorney who alerted federal authorities.

On Monday, lawmakers on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee focused on the damage inflicted on thousands of investors from the Madoff operation.

“It would be almost impossible to over-state the pain his scheme has caused,” said New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Congressman Gregory Meeks added: “We’re dealing with a crook. We’re dealing with an individual who took people’s money and lost it. He is a crook; he deserves to go to jail.”

There is bipartisan concern about the impact of the Madoff scandal on investor confidence, with Democrats and Republicans suggesting there were major failures by the Securities and Exchange Commission to stop it.

SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz pledged a thorough and comprehensive investigation to uncover the facts. He said the probe could expand into a more expansive look at SEC operations. “It is crucial for the commission, the Congress and the investing public that answers be given to the very serious questions regarding the SEC’s efforts relating to Mr. Madoff in a prompt and swift manner,” he said.

Stephen Harbeck heads the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or SIPC, which was created by Congress in 1970 to provide financial protection to customers of failed brokerage firms. “This fraud was of a completely different order of magnitude in SIPIC’s history,” he said.

In addition to examining past complaints against Madoff, the SEC’s David Kotz said the investigation will cover allegations of conflicts of interest between Madoff or his family members and SEC officials, whether warning signs were overlooked, and whether Madoff’s reputation and social status in the investment community, had an affect on the SEC’s actions.

Majority Democrats in the House of Representatives say they will push new legislation to strengthen financial market oversight and regulation.

On Monday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the damage inflicted by the Madoff scandal underscores the need for such steps. “This is one more example of why we need to adopt in this coming Congress a set of rules that will give investors in America the confidence that many of them have lost, unfortunately, because of these scandals and which has to be restored if we’re to have a return to the prosperity that the market functioning well can give us,” he said.

Ranking committee Republican Spencer Bachus said the Madoff affair and concern about similar frauds threaten to further undermine investor confidence as the government attempts to stabilize markets. “The Madoff affair is yet another indication that what is needed is a statutory and regulatory structure for the 21st century. We don’t have that.”

While the Madoff matter exposed regulatory failures, Bachus said he has not yet concluded there is a need for broad new legislative or regulatory mandates on the rest of the securities industry.

Madoff, who is 70 years old, was formally charged with securities fraud in December and is free on 10-million dollars bail. He remain in his New York home under house arrest.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• December 2, 2008 — Texas judge dismisses Cheney, Gonzales charges (0)
• September 4, 2008 — Have eight years of Bush made the GOP stupid? (0)
• February 14, 2008 — Obama’s global tax proposal up for Senate vote (0)
• March 14, 2008 — McCain, Soros and the new “Global Order” (0)
• October 25, 2007 — Senate Republicans may sink Bush’s U.N. treaty (0)

Since its creation as a Jewish state in the late 1940s, Israel has been one of the main sources of tension and unrest in the Middle East.  Now, more than 50 years later, Israel once again finds itself at odds with its Palestinian neighbors, forcing the hand of the United States to show where it stands on one of the most polarizing issues in modern history.

The tension between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East goes back thousands of years, and there is no easy solution to the issues in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute.  Many U.S. presidential administrations have tried to act as brokers of power or arbiters of peace without any success.

Libertarians aren’t foolish enough to think we have the answer to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  However, we do realize that steps can be taken by the United States to remove itself from injury in the conflict, and perhaps begin the process of long-term stability in the region.

The biggest of these steps is to eliminate all economic and military aid to Israel and all other foreign countries. 

It’s the general opinion of Libertarians that as far as the U.S. government should be involved, Israel should look out for its interests so long as its actions are not subsidized by the American taxpayer and Israel does not look to the U.S. for assistance.  However, because Israel is the top recipient of foreign aid (aside from Iraq), it is reasonable to assume that some of the money given to it by the United States in foreign aid is used to either directly or indirectly support Israeli military operations.

Therein lies the problem.

There are several complications with U.S. foreign aid going to Israel.  One, it makes the United States culpable for the actions of Israel that many times come with international condemnation.  Secondly, it opens up the United States to cries of extreme bias in favor of Israel—a main catalyst for terrorism against U.S. interests at home and abroad.

Critics of removing foreign aid from Israel cite that this is the United States turning its back on a staunch ally.  However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.  The United States is not “giving up” on Israel by removing foreign aid as much as it is adhering to a principle of non-intervention—in Israel and across the world as well.  Israel will still be a trading partner with the United States, and will benefit greatly from this trade.  Additionally, Israel has a strong and effective military along with nuclear arms to deter aggression.

The United States’ top priority needs to be the United States, and our billions of dollars of foreign aid to Israel have hurt our national security and international standing. “Contrary to the warnings of the do-something buffs, U.S. interventions in the Middle East have likely unleashed more anti-American terrorism and more pressure on energy markets than they have prevented,” says Leon Hadar, a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.

In essence, the interests of Israel are not always those of the United States. 

However, it is not an analysis of what we have gotten in return from our relationship with Israel as it is an adherence to the principle of non-intervention.  There is great wisdom in remaining disconnected from the problems facing other nations, especially when these problems are complicated and have negative consequences for getting involved. 

At issue for Libertarians in the current situation with Israel and Palestine is not so much who is right or wrong, but whether the United States should continue to support other countries with foreign aid.  Libertarians may all feel differently on whether Israel is “justified” in invading Gaza, but Libertarians all agree that taxpayer-subsidized foreign aid to other countries is bad for business and bad for peace.

Treating Israel like any other country is not abandoning an ally, but freeing the United States from a cumbersome relationship of the likes George Washington, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson all warned against hundreds of years ago. 

In the words of Jefferson, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 3, 2008 — The moral hazard of regulation (0)
• January 31, 2008 — Why are Ron Paul’s supporters so angry? (0)
• September 10, 2008 — Ethics scandal emerges from Dept. of Interior (0)
• September 29, 2008 — Congress should vote ‘No’ on bailout, says Bob Barr (1)
• July 24, 2008 — As surge ends, how many US troops will remain in Iraq? (0)

Needless to say, Chappelle often takes aim at attitudes about racial matters. He makes liberal use of the “N” word.   

“Don’t let the liberal media tell you how to think and feel,” Bigsby proclaims from inside his white hood, his identity protected as he rants and raves before a white audience. “If you have hate in your heart, let it out.” When his hood is finally taken off, exposing Bigsby as black, the head of a white person in the audience explodes. Others express shock or disgust. It’s all about confronting racial stereotypes. It is laugh out loud funny. 

I confess that I am the owner of several Paul Shanklin <http://www.paulshanklin.com/>  CDs and Dave Chappelle <http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/chappelles_show/index.jhtml>  DVDs.

Republican Party chairman candidate Chip Saltsman’s distribution of Shanklin’s “Magic Negro” song, which first aired on the Rush Limbaugh show, has been viewed by some commentators in the liberal media as a disgusting indication of how the Republican Party is insensitive on matters of race. Even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich <click here>  has criticized Saltsman for distributing the CD with the song. It is one song among many in the “We Hate the USA” Shanklin parody.

The liberal Washington Post has now weighed in on the controversy, running an editorial <click here>  praising two of Saltsman’s opponents, Mike Duncan and Saul Anuzis, for agreeing that it was inappropriate to distribute such a song.

But if Duncan and Anuzis can’t stand up to the liberals in the media for concocting this phony controversy, how can they take on the liberals in the Democratic Party?   

What if Saltsman had distributed Chappelle’s “Blind White Supremacist” DVD instead of the “Magic Negro” CD? This is far more “offensive” than the “Magic Negro.” The answer may lie in the fact that Shanklin is white and Chappelle is black. Plus, “Chappelle’s Show” airs on Comedy Central, a source of much of the news that amuses the liberals on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In other words, this kind of humor is okay.

Factors such as the color of who is saying what can matter a lot to the liberal intelligentsia. Their peculiar standards of discourse require not a discussion of what is being said, but who is saying it, and why. That is why they are cheerleaders for “hate crimes” legislation, which mandate an inspection of one’s mental condition. But it is the liberal mental condition that bears scrutiny. It used to be called political correctness but in the modern era is also known as Obamamania. It has authoritarian tendencies.

In the liberal world, a white person cannot  under any circumstances use the term “Negro,” even if it originated from a Los Angeles Times article by a black liberal, as it did in the “Magic Negro” case. Here’s how the Post put it: “There is a difference between an African American writer using the word ‘Negro’ in an ironic way and the Limbaughs and Saltsmans of the world thinking it is acceptable in common usage.”

Acceptable in common usage? Remember that Saltsman distributed a funny CD. What’s more, the song notes that the term came from the Los Angeles Times article.

The Post, of course, knows all of this. That is why it is so difficult to take the editorial seriously. But it does demonstrate how a major liberal paper intends to use this made-up “controversy” in order to try to influence the direction of the Republican Party. That is what this entire “scandal” is all about. In the privacy of their editorial offices, the liberals must be laughing at the Republicans who take this controversy seriously. Maybe they do have a sense of humor after all.

Can you believe that we have reached the point in this country that a major liberal paper would devote an editorial to the political implications of somebody distributing a funny song?

By the way, the Shanklin “Magic Negro” CD is about Barack Obama but features an Al Sharpton-type character complaining about Obama’s blackness. This is something worth commenting on, not only because Obama is becoming President of the U.S. but because Sharpton continues to be a major figure in the Democratic Party, even making regular appearances on the “conservative” Fox News Channel.   

In this context, did you notice that Sharpton was in the news recently? Like many others in the media, Keith Richburg of the Post noted that Caroline Kennedy went out to lunch on December 18 with Sharpton in New York, apparently feeling that she needed his help to get an appointment as senator.

But like others in the media, Richburg failed to note that Sharpton makes vile and racist accusations against white people, such as the well-documented case of his involvement in helping perpetrate the Tawana Brawley hoax. That’s when a black woman falsely accused white men of raping her. Of course, all of this is forgiven and forgotten by the liberal media. And they do their best to make sure we forget it, too. But you can bet they will never let the public forget that Chip Saltsman distributed a funny CD about the “Magic Negro.” Thanks to people like Newt Gingrich, they will keep hammering this until the Republican National Committee elects its chairman in late January. 

Notice that Caroline Kennedy is never asked about the propriety of associating with somebody like Sharpton and seeking his endorsement of her Senate bid. This shows, as if we need more proof, that there is one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans. Democrats can do and say almost anything they want on racial matters. Republicans are supposed to be condemned for distributing funny songs.

What is happening in the brouhaha over Saltsman is another attempt by the liberal media to decide what we can talk, write and even joke about. More than that, it is an effort to determine who is entitled to be chairman of the Republican Party. 

But the target is not only Saltsman; it is Limbaugh, who originally aired the parody. If the liberal media can defeat Saltsman’s bid for RNC chairman, on the basis of phony charges, they can then take on the real offender, in their view, who is Limbaugh?and others like him in the conservative talk-radio community. 

It is tragic and pathetic that a figure like Gingrich would join the media lynch mob. It is another indication that Gingrich is in business now to please the liberal media and take the GOP in a left-wing direction. Perhaps he will change his mind on the matter. He changed his position several times on the Wall Street bailout. 

In Chappell’s “Blind White Supremacist” routine, the Bigsby character proclaims, “America is at war with al Qaeda but we’re still losing the war against Al Sharpton.” There’s a lot of truth in that quip. That Sharpton can remain on the political scene as a power broker in the Democratic Party, while a Republican is savaged in the media for distributing a funny CD, illustrates the real problem and danger. The forces on the political left want to give a pass or a blank check to the Sharptons of the world but they want to control what conservatives think, say, write, and even laugh about. Any sensible conservative has to see in all of this the laying of the groundwork for federal measures, including a “Fairness Doctrine,” restricting what can be said or aired in the media. 

The kind of attitude we see in the liberal media should not be pandered to or negotiated with. Nothing can be gained by surrendering to it. It must be confronted and ridiculed. And we should also maintain our sense of humor. Indeed, in the future it would be better to laugh at the media rather than take their phony “scandals” seriously.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• September 28, 2008 — Why Americans can’t get U.S. oil (0)
• January 4, 2009 — U.S. deaths in Iraq decrease in 2008 (0)
• August 23, 2008 — Disarm: The lesson of the Georgia fiasco (3)
• June 24, 2008 — Obama to women: Entitlements coming your way (0)
• December 5, 2006 — GAO investigates impact of Eminent Domain (0)

The president-elect says he wants to “create three million new jobs” — this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

He says the “No. 1 goal of my plan … is to create three million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.”

If you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new government employees.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/prez-elect-make.html

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 17, 2006 — Intel chiefs testify before Senate committee (0)
• October 26, 2008 — Voting for real, meaningful change in 2008 (0)
• September 25, 2008 — The election means almost nothing (0)
• September 9, 2007 — Iraqi government fails to meet mandated benchmarks (0)
• September 23, 2008 — Skepticism on financial bailout plan on Capital Hill (0)

Luntz told Politico that “Obama’s team are the best linguists I’ve ever seen. Republicans aren’t in his league right now.” Those “linguists” include former reporters such as David Axelrod and Linda Douglass.
Explaining the propaganda value of the bill, Luntz said, “Recovery says putting the country back on track, and reinvestment is the next step up from investment.”

Our media are not going to fall for this ploy, are they? 

Even before Obama unveiled the title of the bill, a Washington Post article by Michael D. Shear referred to the proposal as “a massive recovery plan for the nation’s struggling economy.” A New York Times article by Jackie Calmes and Carl Hulse on January 3 called it a “two-year economic recovery package.”

Notice that these two major liberal papers have brazenly adopted the terminology of the Democrats as their own.

Obama’s Saturday radio address <click here> , where he talked about his “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” was as masterful as any professional magic show full of misdirection and illusions.

Explaining why we must spend more federal money and go further into debt, an approach that could spark hyperinflation and even national bankruptcy, Obama said that “We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future.” He declared that “this plan must be designed in a new way-we can’t just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem.” Yet this is precisely what his plan does.

Obama says that “we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down.” The deficit will be increased so that it can eventually “come down?” This is strange logic sometimes called “doublespeak” but also known as lying.

Taking this reckless and dangerous approach one step further, Obama says that, rather than cost money, the spending and debt program will “save” money and “help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year.” For too many families, “debts continue to mount,” he says. So the answer is for the federal government to go further into debt and pass on these costs to those who pay the bills?those same families. This will “save” us money?

Our media faithfully accept and report this dishonest rhetoric without any critical scrutiny. But what will the Republicans do?

Having rolled over for Bush and the Democrats on the $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell now calls Obama’s plan “the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history.”

The liberal blogs are calling McConnell an “obstructionist.” My New Year’s prediction is that this term will start finding its way into the liberal media over the next few days as the “recovery” package is being prepared for passage. The liberal media will attempt to browbeat the Republicans into submission.

“We hope,” McConnell says, “that Democrats in Congress don’t attempt to shut the American taxpayer out of this process by trying to pass a bill that hasn’t been the subject of bipartisan review and that hasn’t been available for public inspection.”

Of course, that is precisely what happened when McConnell joined with the Democrats in passing the Wall Street bailout. That was called the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

The auto bailout bill was called the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.”

Now we get the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. 

Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital warns that a proposal of this kind is comparable to an individual trying to “forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can’t be repaid.”

He explains, <click here>  “Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government doesn’t have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don’t go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won’t lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value of those already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.”

A resolution to be introduced at the upcoming meeting of the Republican National Committee puts the GOP on record against all of this.

The bank bailout bill, whose cost rose to $850 billion after Congress added pork to it, “has neither reversed the economic crisis nor protected the taxpayers, but rather has added $850 billion dollars to their tax bill and raised the national debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion, which has the potential long-term effect of further weakening the economy,” the resolution states.

While the Senate refused to go along with the auto bailout bill, the resolution notes that Bush proceeded to spend the money anyway (illegally and unconstitutionally) by taking the funds out of the bank bailout bill.

Now, the resolution notes, we are being presented by Obama with “a cleverly disguised Government Bailout Plan designed to bail out state and local governments by providing federal tax dollars to repair and rebuild their local infrastructure…” It will be “the biggest earmarked spending program in our Nation’s history.”

It’s up to the GOP to take a stand on this resolution. But the point is that you will never catch the liberal media using the Republican language from this resolution as their own. The Obama proposal will never be described as a government bailout plan.

It’s no wonder the liberal media are losing readers and viewers and going broke. But their Obama worship gets in the way of telling the truth about this man and his agenda.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• December 30, 2006 — Child rapist added to US Marshals 15 most wanted fugitives (0)
• September 29, 2008 — America will adopt Socialism … and die (0)
• July 11, 2008 — Manipulating the media for Obama (0)
• November 10, 2008 — Fed covers up financial crisis (0)
• June 16, 2008 — Iraq or the economy? (0)

Last year’s casualty figure — 314 — marks a sharp reduction from 2007 when 904 troops died. The 2008 tally comes on the heels of a week in which the number of daily attacks in Iraq dropped nearly 95 percent compared to the same time last year.

“This is a dramatic improvement of safety throughout the country,” Army Brig. Gen. David G. Perkins, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, told reporters in Baghdad last week, when the average number of daily attacks in Iraq was 10, compared to 180 a year earlier.

He added that the country’s murder rates have dropped below levels that existed before the start of American operations in Iraq. In November, the ratio was .9 per 100,000 people.

Military and Defense Department officials have attributed security gains over the past year to a host of factors, including the now-completed surge of U.S. forces, Sunni fighters aligning themselves with Iraqi and coalition forces to help purge al-Qaida and maintain security, and a cease-fire pledge by prominent Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who controlled several militias.

Overall violence in Iraq has fallen some 80 percent since the surge of 33,000 U.S. forces began in January 2007.

Speaking in October about the reduced bloodshed in Iraq, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized the role of reinvigorated counterinsurgency tactics.

Put simply, counterinsurgency is a form of warfare in which a civilian population is in the center of a tug-of-war between an insurgency and the forces attempting to stop it. The Army and Marine Corps in late 2006 published a counterinsurgency strategy written by a host of contributors, including Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who implemented its tenets while serving for 20 months as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

“In my view, what really turned it around was the counterinsurgency tactics our troops embraced and perfected,” Mullen said Oct. 8 at the annual Association of the U.S. Army conference.

While the security gains are significant, Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Multinational Force Iraq commander, warned in an interview with reporters in Baghdad last month against becoming complacent amid Iraq’s improved security, a transfer of authority to Iraqi forces and an upcoming election.

“In military terms, transitions are the most dangerous times,” the general said Dec. 23. “What we’re trying to do is make sure we don’t have any seams in our transition.”

A piece of legislation hammered out by Washington and Baghdad — known as the Status of Forces Agreement — went into effect yesterday. The agreement supersedes the United Nations mandate for the coalition presence in Iraq, and transfers military operational authority to Iraqi forces with U.S. forces assuming a support, or “overwatch,” role.

The deal becomes effective ahead of the scheduled Jan. 31 provincial elections in Iraq, which Odierno characterized as the next security test for combined forces.

“Al-Qaida will try to exploit the elections because they don’t want them to happen. So I think they will attempt to create some violence and uncertainty in the population,” he said. “The next 60 days are a critical period.”

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 9, 2008 — Dems want treasury to extend handout to autos (0)
• September 10, 2008 — Bob Barr asks Ron Paul, again, to run as VP (2)
• September 18, 2008 — Another federal bailout: “I told you so,” says Bob Barr (2)
• July 17, 2008 — Senate passes Obama’s AIDS bill (0)
• September 3, 2008 — Palin’s “bridge to nowhere” may actually lead “somewhere” (0)

The incoming president says lawmakers should pass his American Recovery and Reinvestment plan, which he hopes will create three million jobs. Aides say the program could cost as much as $775 billion, but Mr. Obama says American families need help now.

“For too many families, this new year brings new unease and uncertainty, as bills pile up, debts continue to mount, and parents worry that their children will not have the same opportunity they had,” he said.

Mr. Obama made the comments in an address recorded Friday, then distributed on radio and posted on YouTube Saturday.

He plans to meet Monday with the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The president-elect also expects to meet with opposition Republican leaders in Congress in the coming week.

Mr. Obama’s aides had hoped to have an economic plan approved by the House and Senate before the new president takes office on January 20. But some Republicans have urged a delay to review the plan, and the legislation is not likely to pass before Inauguration Day. Mr. Obama says there is an urgent need for action.

“Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we do not act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn, that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach,” he said.

In his Saturday address, Mr. Obama made an effort not to blame his predecessor, President George Bush for the country’s economic problems, which he said “are not Democratic problems or Republican problems.” And he tried to reassure hesitant Republican lawmakers that his administration would keep a close eye on how the money is spent.

“We must demand vigorous oversight and strict accountability for achieving results, and we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices, so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down,” said Mr. Obama. “That is how we will achieve the number one goal of my plan, which is to create three million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.”

Mr. Obama said more than two million Americans lost their jobs in 2008, and the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, estimates that one in every ten U.S. homeowners is delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 17, 2008 — Taxpayers tell Congress: No state bailouts! (0)
• October 1, 2008 — New bailout bill may surpass $700 billion (0)
• September 23, 2008 — Lying by media knows no bounds (1)
• October 27, 2008 — What happened to Illegal Immigration? (8)
• October 3, 2008 — US stocks decline after bailout passage (0)

The governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin — all Democrats — said the initiative for the two-year aid package was backed by other governors and follows a meeting in December where governors called on President-elect Barack Obama to help them maintain services in the face of slumping revenues.

Gov. David Paterson of New York said 43 states now have budget deficits totaling some $100 billion as tax revenues plunge.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5014F120090102

Other articles that you may enjoy

• November 17, 2006 — Intel chiefs testify before Senate committee (0)
• October 29, 2008 — US considers another bailout - for autos (0)
• September 20, 2008 — Government financial bailout plan to cost $700 billion (0)
• August 14, 2008 — US military team arrives in Georgia (0)
• June 24, 2008 — Media excuse Obama’s false advertising (0)