In a related matter, is Congressman Todd Akin still running for the Senate? His last press release on his campaign website is six months old:
Related:
Prof. Larry Sabato:“Because she won in 2006 with just under 50% of the vote and currently has an approval rating hovering in the mid-40s, Sen. Claire McCaskill has a tough road to reelection…If President Obama doesn’t heavily target GOP-leaning Missouri, McCaskill will have a tougher time getting the heavy Democratic turnout that will be vital to her reelection hopes. With all this in mind, we see this as quite the TOSS UP.”
At a press conference this this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, joined by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), John Thune (R-SD), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), David Vitter (R-LA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), called on President Obama to make a final decision on whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline project go forward.
According to Bloomberg News, “At a time when almost one in 10 Americans is unemployed, TransCanada Corp. (TRP) expects to create 20,000 jobs to build the pipeline, Chief Executive Officer Russell Girling told reporters on Oct. 7.” Writing in The Huffington Post earlier this month, even the AFL-CIO’s president of the union’s Building and Construction Trades Department says,“For America’s skilled craft construction professionals, any discussion of the Keystone XL project begins and ends with one word: JOBS. Today, roughly 14% of the American construction workforce is unemployed — which is significantly higher than the overall national unemployment rate of 9%.” He adds, “Throughout America’s Heartland, the Keystone Pipeline represents the prospect for 20,000 immediate jobs, and as many as 500,000 indirect jobs via a strong economic multiplier effect. . . . The privately-financed Keystone XL pipeline project is projected to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in construction and manufacturing, and without one single dollar of government assistance.” CNBC reported in September, ‘We’re building what is the largest infrastructure project in North America,’ said TransCanada spokesman James Miller, expressing confidence the pipeline will be approved. ‘We’re putting a lot of people to work.’”
During the press conference, Sen. Lugar announced his bill (cosponsored by 37 senators) which would require the Secretary of State to issue a permit within 60 days that allows the Keystone XL project to move forward, unless the president determines the pipeline is not in the national interest. The bill also established Congressional affirmation that the project is good for job creation, economic growth, and national security. Further, it contains environmental and states’ rights protections, especially for Nebraska.
So why is President Obama delaying a decision on a project Sen. Thune called a “no-brainer” today? A Houston Chronicle editorial laid bare the answer: “The Obama administration’s decision to postpone a ruling on the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline till 2013 is a poorly disguised political punt. . . . The ruling has 2012 presidential politics written all over it . . . .”Rolling Stone added, “Big campaign donors… pressured the president to deny the permit.” And Reuters wrote last month, “Reeling from months of protests, President Barack Obama’s advisers are worried that administration approval for a planned oil pipeline from Canada could cost him political support from Democrats in 2012.”
If the president really wants “shovel-ready” projects that will enhance American infrastructure and create jobs, there’s clearly no reason to delay or block the Keystone XL pipeline, unless politics are more important to this White House.
Yesterday, MarketWatch reported, “Senate Democrats said Monday they’ll seek a tax of 3.25% on incomes of more than $1 million to pay for a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut, setting up a fresh clash over tax policy with Republicans. ‘Americans want us to cut taxes on the middle class, and ask millionaires to pay their fair share,’ Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Monday.”
And according to Roll Call today, “Reassured by recent polling data on the public’s anger over rising income inequality, Senate Democrats will continue to push for tax increases on the wealthy to offset aid to the middle class — an issue they believe will help define the 2012 elections.”
Democrats are so focused on pushing this surtax, they’ve been proposing measures that include it for months now. Yet they seem untroubled that it would hit small business owners at a time they’re already struggling to create jobs. A month ago, the Chamber of Commerce warned Democrats that the tax increase “would significantly impair the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create jobs and grow the U.S. economy.” The Chamber singled out the tax hike as “a burdensome and onerous tax increase on America’s small businesses, entrepreneurs and other job creators.”
Around the same time, a coalition of jobs groups wrote of Senate Democrats’ favorite tax, “the Obama Administration’s own data demonstrates that 4 out of 5 of the taxpayers who will face this surtax are business owners” and pointed out that “the burden of the proposed tax increases would fall disproportionately on the income of America’s small and mid-sized businesses.”
Americans have seen enough of the status quo. It’s time to drop the political posturing and for Democrats to work with Republicans on bipartisan legislation that can address our economic problems. Democrats’ singular focus on raising taxes on job creators and political gamesmanship is not going to help our economy.
Looks like the apples didn’t fall too far away from the Montee tree:
The children of Missouri Lt. Gov. candidate Susan Montee became caught up in a melee outside a St. Joseph bar.Capt. Kevin Castle says the daughter failed to disperse and officers charged her with disorderly conduct. Montee says her sons returned to help and approached their sister. Montee says police then used pepper spray and all three were arrested. Read more…
Around this time a year ago, an intoxicated Montee was secretly taped at “Democrats Days” while extolling the potency of the “steelworkers margaritas machine”
Publicly, privately, and at every opportunity, I am a supporter of undoing the Great Divorce of 1876 that separated the City of St. Louis from St. Louis county. Given the Gordian knot of municipalities and other political subdivisions that make up the county, I have proposed the relatively simpler project of the City of St. Louis shedding its status as a separate county and re-entering St. Louis county as a municipality.
So, for the past year or so, I have focused attention on rationalizing economic development efforts in St. Louis. Currently, the city and county have separate economic development agencies, each with its own board of directors and professional staffs. Read more…
The Washington Post reports yesterday, “Just a little more than an hour after some House Democrats recently demanded an inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethics, Senate Republicans stepped up the pressure on Justice Elena Kagan to take herself out of the court’s decision on the health-care reform act. . . . Federal law requires judges, including those on the Supreme Court, to disqualify themselves when their ‘impartiality might be reasonably questioned’ . . . . In addition, it calls for recusal when the judge has served in the government and ‘participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.’”
The Post noted, “The charges against Kagan arise from her work as solicitor general, the government’s top appellate lawyer. If she were still in the job, Kagan would be defending the health-care law at the Supreme Court rather than deciding whether it is constitutional. Kagan was notified by the White House in March 2010 — just before the law was passed — that she was under consideration to be named to the high court. She said during her confirmation hearings that she played no role in preparing for the inevitable legal challenges that were to come. . . . But congressional Republicans say e-mails released to conservative groups under public records requests raise questions about the White House’s contention she had been ‘walled off’ from discussions about the health-care act. One e-mail from then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal says Kagan wanted to make sure her office was involved in strategy decisions, although Katyal said he took the lead and Kagan was not involved. Another e-mail seemed to indicate enthusiasm for the bill. In response to a message at the time of the vote from Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, then working at the Justice Department, Kagan wrote: ‘I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.’ [Rep. Lamar] Smith [R-TX], the [House] Judiciary Committee chairman, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have pressed Holder for more information, which his department has been reluctant to provide.”
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Leader McConnell, and Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Mike Lee (R-UT) wrote, “[E]mails finally produced by your Department in response to lawsuits to enforce the Freedom of Information Act suggest involvement by then-Solicitor General Kagan in the Administration’s preparations for defending the [Obama administration’s health care law]. In January 2010—two months before then-General Kagan was even aware she was being considered as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court—your Department began planning to defend this law against legal challenges. Neil Katyal, Ms. Kagan’s principal deputy, stated he would “speak with Elena” about her office participating in a Department working group that would plan the Administration’s litigation strategy, exclaiming that he wanted the Administration to ‘crush’ those challenging the [health care law].”
The Senate Republicans’ letter summed up their concerns: “President Obama chose to nominate a member of his Administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement—‘litigation,’ Mr. Katyal noted to former Solicitor General Kagan, ‘of singular importance’ to the Administration. Among other involvement in this matter, it appears that she was privy to discussions of legal claims and litigation strategy concerning court challenges to the PPACA. And it is apparent that she herself enthusiastically supported this legislation as a member of the Administration which is now defending it. When a former member of the Administration is in a position to rule on litigation in which she apparently had some involvement and which concerns legislation she herself supports, public confidence in the administration of justice is undermined.”
On Friday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, and Committee member Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) sent what National Review Online’s Ed Whelan described as “a strong letter” to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to comply with Congressional oversight requests regarding former Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Elena Kagan’s role in the Obama administration’s defense of its unpopular health care law.
In their letter to Holder, the senators wrote, “[Y]our Department has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration’s defense of this law. You recently told the Senate, incredibly, that you were not even aware of Congressional requests on this topic . . . we write to underscore the importance to the rule of law of an informed resolution of this question, and to apprise you of the legal and factual bases for our concerns.”
They point out, “President Obama chose to nominate a member of his Administration to the Supreme Court knowing it was likely that, if confirmed, she would be in a position to rule on his signature domestic policy achievement—‘litigation,’ [Neil] Katyal noted to former Solicitor General Kagan, ‘of singular importance’ to the Administration. Among other involvement in this matter, it appears that she was privy to discussions of legal claims and litigation strategy concerning court challenges to the PPACA. And it is apparent that she herself enthusiastically supported this legislation as a member of the Administration which is now defending it. When a former member of the Administration is in a position to rule on litigation in which she apparently had some involvement and which concerns legislation she herself supports, public confidence in the administration of justice is undermined. Your Department’s refusal to provide information to the Congress that could eliminate this apparent conflict of interest only undermines that confidence further.”
USA Today notes, “During her Senate confirmation, when Republicans asked about health care litigation, Kagan said, “I attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred.” Kagan also said she had not been asked her opinion on the merits of the case filed by the states and said she did not offer her view on legal strategy. . . . McConnell said he believes Kagan might have been more involved than acknowledged, based on Justice Department e-mails released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests by conservative groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network. . . . McConnell, in urging Holder to reveal more information about Kagan’s role, pointed to a recently disclosed March 2010 e-mail exchange between Kagan and Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, then a Justice adviser, in which Kagan wrote, ‘I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.’”
Related:
Video: Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “We Cut $550 Billion In The Health Care Act From Medicare”
Numerous Sunshine requests have been sent to Mo. Gov. Jay Nixon’s office to obtain records regarding staffer/lawyer Deborah Price, according to the columnist’s Jeff City stringer. Price is headquartered in the governor’s office. Among the requests is Price’s time sheets. Also, curious observers want more information about an auto accident that occurred in August, 2008 on the south side involving Price. “It’s typical that we can’t get a report on the accident. Read more….
More than 10 sunshine requests have been submitted to Gov. Nixon’s office for information regarding Deborah Price. NO RESPONSE. Deborah Price has worked for Jay Nixon since 2004. She started as an assistant attorney general prosecuting civil and criminal consumer fraud cases. She earned her law degree from St. Louis University and a BA from Washington University.
Deborah L. Price is acting director of Boards and Commissions under Governor Nixon. She also serves as liaison to the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration, and is also the Governor’s designee on the Missouri Workforce Investment Board. In the past, she served as liaison to the Department of Health and Senior Services.
Last week, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations about the $535 million taxpayer loan to the bankrupt solar power company Solyndra and other Energy Department loans.
Reporting on Chu’s testimony, The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein noted, “Chu acknowledged before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight panel that if he knew in September 2009 what he knows now, he never would have authorized the $535 million loan guarantee to solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which ended up going bankrupt. But he said he was making the decision based on the information available to him at the time. Earlier in the hearing, asked how much money taxpayers could hope to recover from the failed company, Chu said it ‘remains to be seen’ but acknowledged it would be ‘not very much.’”
Meanwhile, Glenn Kessler, who writes The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog, caught a couple of statements by Secretary Chu that he found questionable. Kessler noted Chu claimed, “Through the loan programs, the Energy Department is supporting 38 clean energy projects that are expected to employ more than 60,000 Americans . . . .” And, Kessler writes, “[Chu] also made the case that the collapse in solar panel prices — which helped sink Solyndra — was ‘totally unexpected’ by most financial analysts at the time when the department went forward with the loan in 2009.”
On Chu’s jobs claim, Kessler points out, “We always warn readers to be wary of claims about the number of jobs created by some government, congressional or corporate initiative. These are almost always suspect and based on dubious assumptions. . . . As it happens, Carol D. Leonnig and Steven Mufson of The Washington Post examined the job-claim figure two months ago and found it wanting. ‘The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies,’ they reported on The Post’s front page. . . . [I]f you dig deeper into the 60,000 number, you find that more than half of it comes from a single program — 33,000 jobs at Ford that were supposedly converted to green technology because of a $5.9 billion loan. The Energy Department translated those as “saved” jobs, even though the number amounts to nearly half of Ford’s total workforce. . . . The Post article had quoted an economist as saying that the 33,000 job estimate for Ford appeared to be the result of “fuzzy math.” Ford spokeswoman Meghan Keck was quoted as saying that the loan provided flexibility in manufacturing that was key to “helping retain” the jobs. That’s pretty fuzzy language for “saved” and in fact appears to relate more to job security than anything else. Translation: A plant that once had a single truck line would now be able to create four different vehicles, allowing jobs to be shifted as demand changed.”
Examining Chu’s claims that the collapse in solar panel prices was “totally unexpected,” Kessler finds, “Chu’s other quote — concerning the unexpected collapse in solar prices — is also open to question. . . . [T]he shakiness in the market was readily apparent at the time DOE pressed the White House budget office to sign off on the Solyndra loan. Note the Aug. 31, 2009 e-mail below, from an Office of Management and Budget official to a DOE official, asking that an announcement of the loan be postponed. The e-mail includes links to articles with headlines like ‘As Prices Slump, Solar Industry Suffers.’ . . . One article mentioned in the e-mail noted that prices had already dropped 40 percent since the middle of the previous year, and ‘many experts expect panel prices to fall further, though not by another 40 percent.’ (It did.)”
Kessler concludes that “the job number” is “inflated by the inclusion of the loan to Ford.” He says, “As we have demonstrated, these are not new jobs or even saved jobs — just people who might, just maybe, have a little more job security, in part because of the loan. Chu’s comments on the unexpected “tsunami” that hit Solyndra are also troubling. The OMB e-mail shows that at least one arm of the government was aware that Wall Street was quickly souring on solar energy and that the tsunami that swept the industry should not have been such a surprise.”
Kessler’s verdict on Chu’s claims? “Three Pinocchios.”
