Ads 468x60px


Showing posts with label fault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fault. Show all posts

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Republican address: Gas prices are Obama's fault

Republicans hit President Obama with three strikes in their weekly address, arguing he's wrong on gas prices, the budget and the national debt.

Freshman Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma accused the president of contributing to the rise in gas prices by "choking off new sources of traditional American energy and smothering our economy in new energy regulations."

"His latest proposal -- hiking taxes by billions of dollars -- will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse," Lankford said.

At the same time, he blames Obama for the nation's bulging budget deficit and national debt: "The president's proposal protects the status quo: an unsustainable system that will bankrupt Medicare and lead to future deep, painful benefit cuts for seniors, while continuing to pile trillions of dollars of obligation on the backs of future generations."

And as if that weren't enough, Lankford says, the president then wants to increase the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling without attaching spending controls favored by Republicans and even some Democrats -- "to let Washington borrow even more money from the Chinese and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids."

Here's Lankford's full address, delivered on behalf of congressional Republicans:

Hello, my name is James Lankford, and I'm a freshman Member of Congress, working for the people of Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District.

When I listen to my constituents about the challenges they face, skyrocketing cost of gasoline is at the top of the list. Prices at the pump have nearly doubled since President Obama took office, making everyday life like driving to work, buying groceries, picking up kids at school and visiting family more expensive.

Even worse, the rising price of fuel is costing jobs and hurting our economy. Higher energy prices hit virtually every American product and industry, making it more expensive to manufacture products, more expensive to ship goods, and more expensive for farmers and ranchers. In fact, higher energy costs make everything made in the USA more expensive, and send more good-paying jobs overseas.

Americans are looking for leadership to tackle the rising gas prices, but President Obama has only offered a tax increase on energy and the prospect of reduced supply. For more than two years, his administration has knowingly increased energy prices by choking off new sources of traditional American energy and smothering our economy in new energy regulations. His latest proposal -- hiking taxes by billions of dollars -- will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse.

In my state, and in many other states, thousands of people depend directly on American energy production for their paychecks. The President may think he's punishing CEOs of big companies, but his plan will hurt the everyday consumer of energy and imperil the jobs of millions of hardworking people in American-based companies.

There is a better way. Republicans are focused on expanding all American energy production to help lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create millions of American jobs.

Next week, the House of Representatives will begin this process by passing legislation to increase the supply of American energy and create jobs. This legislation is part of our American Energy Initiative -- an ongoing effort to lower costs and allow the private sector to create more American jobs.

Quite simply, if the President chooses to punt on real long-term solutions for energy and gas prices, we will take the lead.

Two weeks ago, I was proud to cast my vote in the House for a budget that promotes economic growth and job creation by putting us on a path to pay down our debt, and preserve Medicaid and Medicare for current retirees and future generations. Our national debt is worse than most people realize. We must solve our budget problem, not just talk about the crisis.

The President's budget proposal fails to offer a credible plan that meets the nation's challenges in a serious manner. He considers it radical and extreme to balance the budget by doing what every American business and family does in tough times -- they reduce spending.

We need to be honest with the American people. Washington should not overspend, then go to the American people and demand a tax increase because we cannot make the tough decisions.

And, we cannot ignore the fact that tens of millions of Baby Boomers are beginning to retire while Medicare is already teetering at the brink of insolvency. We must stabilize, and protect Medicare and Medicaid.

Let me be clear: the Republican plan would not affect current Medicare beneficiaries, or any American 55 or older. To address Medicare's looming insolvency though, we put in place a plan to save Medicare for those under 55. We want them to have access to the same kind of medical retirement options that Members of Congress and all federal employees benefit from.

The President's proposal protects the status quo: an unsustainable system that will bankrupt Medicare and lead to future deep, painful benefit cuts for seniors, while continuing to pile trillions of dollars of obligation on the backs of future generations.

The world is watching to see how we'll handle our debt. Everyone wants to know if we'll just pile up more debt with no plan to ever pay it off, or if we will find a way to permanently work on our national debt.

The President wants us to raise the debt limit with no real reforms to stop future Washington spending binges. To let Washington borrow even more money from the Chinese and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. This would be a stark moment in American history, when a president would intentionally declare: 'times are tough, I think I'll make life tougher on my kids and grandkids' generation to make life easier on me and my generation.'

We have responded differently: the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit unless it comes with meaningful steps to cut Washington spending and start working us out of debt. No more blank checks and huge bills on our children so someone in Washington can retain power.

On gas prices, the budget, and the debt limit, we will continue to offer real solutions to lower gas prices, create jobs, and ensure the next generation still has a shot at the American dream.

Our nation's been through difficult times before. We can do this if we will work together to solve the problems instead of just talking about them. May God bless our families and our great nation.

Thank you for listening.


USATODAY.com


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Republican address: Gas prices are Obama's fault

Republicans hit President Obama with three strikes in their weekly address, arguing he's wrong on gas prices, the budget and the national debt.

Freshman Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma accused the president of contributing to the rise in gas prices by "choking off new sources of traditional American energy and smothering our economy in new energy regulations."

"His latest proposal -- hiking taxes by billions of dollars -- will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse," Lankford said.

At the same time, he blames Obama for the nation's bulging budget deficit and national debt: "The president's proposal protects the status quo: an unsustainable system that will bankrupt Medicare and lead to future deep, painful benefit cuts for seniors, while continuing to pile trillions of dollars of obligation on the backs of future generations."

And as if that weren't enough, Lankford says, the president then wants to increase the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling without attaching spending controls favored by Republicans and even some Democrats -- "to let Washington borrow even more money from the Chinese and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids."

Here's Lankford's full address, delivered on behalf of congressional Republicans:

Hello, my name is James Lankford, and I'm a freshman Member of Congress, working for the people of Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District.

When I listen to my constituents about the challenges they face, skyrocketing cost of gasoline is at the top of the list. Prices at the pump have nearly doubled since President Obama took office, making everyday life like driving to work, buying groceries, picking up kids at school and visiting family more expensive.

Even worse, the rising price of fuel is costing jobs and hurting our economy. Higher energy prices hit virtually every American product and industry, making it more expensive to manufacture products, more expensive to ship goods, and more expensive for farmers and ranchers. In fact, higher energy costs make everything made in the USA more expensive, and send more good-paying jobs overseas.

Americans are looking for leadership to tackle the rising gas prices, but President Obama has only offered a tax increase on energy and the prospect of reduced supply. For more than two years, his administration has knowingly increased energy prices by choking off new sources of traditional American energy and smothering our economy in new energy regulations. His latest proposal -- hiking taxes by billions of dollars -- will not lower gas prices and would actually make the problem worse.

In my state, and in many other states, thousands of people depend directly on American energy production for their paychecks. The President may think he's punishing CEOs of big companies, but his plan will hurt the everyday consumer of energy and imperil the jobs of millions of hardworking people in American-based companies.

There is a better way. Republicans are focused on expanding all American energy production to help lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create millions of American jobs.

Next week, the House of Representatives will begin this process by passing legislation to increase the supply of American energy and create jobs. This legislation is part of our American Energy Initiative -- an ongoing effort to lower costs and allow the private sector to create more American jobs.

Quite simply, if the President chooses to punt on real long-term solutions for energy and gas prices, we will take the lead.

Two weeks ago, I was proud to cast my vote in the House for a budget that promotes economic growth and job creation by putting us on a path to pay down our debt, and preserve Medicaid and Medicare for current retirees and future generations. Our national debt is worse than most people realize. We must solve our budget problem, not just talk about the crisis.

The President's budget proposal fails to offer a credible plan that meets the nation's challenges in a serious manner. He considers it radical and extreme to balance the budget by doing what every American business and family does in tough times -- they reduce spending.

We need to be honest with the American people. Washington should not overspend, then go to the American people and demand a tax increase because we cannot make the tough decisions.

And, we cannot ignore the fact that tens of millions of Baby Boomers are beginning to retire while Medicare is already teetering at the brink of insolvency. We must stabilize, and protect Medicare and Medicaid.

Let me be clear: the Republican plan would not affect current Medicare beneficiaries, or any American 55 or older. To address Medicare's looming insolvency though, we put in place a plan to save Medicare for those under 55. We want them to have access to the same kind of medical retirement options that Members of Congress and all federal employees benefit from.

The President's proposal protects the status quo: an unsustainable system that will bankrupt Medicare and lead to future deep, painful benefit cuts for seniors, while continuing to pile trillions of dollars of obligation on the backs of future generations.

The world is watching to see how we'll handle our debt. Everyone wants to know if we'll just pile up more debt with no plan to ever pay it off, or if we will find a way to permanently work on our national debt.

The President wants us to raise the debt limit with no real reforms to stop future Washington spending binges. To let Washington borrow even more money from the Chinese and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. This would be a stark moment in American history, when a president would intentionally declare: 'times are tough, I think I'll make life tougher on my kids and grandkids' generation to make life easier on me and my generation.'

We have responded differently: the American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit unless it comes with meaningful steps to cut Washington spending and start working us out of debt. No more blank checks and huge bills on our children so someone in Washington can retain power.

On gas prices, the budget, and the debt limit, we will continue to offer real solutions to lower gas prices, create jobs, and ensure the next generation still has a shot at the American dream.

Our nation's been through difficult times before. We can do this if we will work together to solve the problems instead of just talking about them. May God bless our families and our great nation.

Thank you for listening.


USATODAY.com


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Critics fault retired Justice O'Connor over ethics

By Mary Altaffer, AP

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks at a law school in New York last April.

EnlargeCloseBy Mary Altaffer, AP

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor speaks at a law school in New York last April.

O'Connor, 81, was forced to apologize for 50,000 recorded telephone calls made to Nevada voters in which she supported a ballot measure to change the way state judges are selected. O'Connor said she did not authorize the calls featuring her recorded voice, much less their post-midnight delivery. But she also defended her involvement in the campaign that included her appearance in a television commercial.

In September, federal judges in Iowa stayed away from a conference on judicial elections at which O'Connor spoke in the midst of another campaign over ballot issues. The judges had received an informal opinion that their presence would violate the judiciary's ethics code.

Most recently, O'Connor hosted an after-hours reception at the court that was billed as a celebration of Bristol Bay in Alaska. But the featured speakers, other than O'Connor, were opponents of a proposed Alaskan copper and gold mine. They were in Washington to lobby lawmakers and regulators against the proposed Pebble Mine.

Arthur Hellman, an ethics expert at the University of Pittsburgh law school, said O'Connor should consider stopping her participation in court cases if she "wants to engage in this level of political or politically related activity."

Partisan-tinged questioning of conduct by high court justices has grown.

Liberal interest groups have faulted Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for speaking at a private dinner hosted by Charles Koch, one of two energy-company-owning brothers who, liberal groups say, have too much sway on policymakers.

Some liberals have called on Thomas to sit out the expected high court fight over the health care law because of his wife's public criticism of the law. Some conservatives say Justice Elena Kagan should not take part in the health care case because of her work in the Obama administration before joining the court.

O'Connor has traveled the country since her retirement in 2006 to criticize costly election campaigns for state judges, promote enhanced civics education for schoolchildren and advocate for Alzheimer's research. Her husband, John, died in 2009 of complications from Alzheimer's disease.

Her primary focus has been on judicial independence, which she believes is harmed by electing judges.

At the same time, she has heard cases on appeal since her retirement. It is not uncommon for retired justices to sit with federal appeals courts from time to time. Justice David Souter, who left the court in 2009, has heard cases with the Boston-based court.

Through the end of March, O'Connor had written two appellate decisions and joined the majority in a half-dozen others this year. None of the cases involved judicial elections or the fate of the Alaska bay.

The continuing judicial work allows O'Connor, who earns $213,900, to receive salary increases that are tied to inflation. Judges who stop hearing cases receive a pension equal to their final annual salary as a full-time judge, but are excluded from subsequent cost-of-living increases.

Last week, O'Connor was the host of a Supreme Court reception "to celebrate the economic, cultural and ecological values of Alaska's Bristol Bay Watershed."

Opponents of the proposed huge mine near the bay fear it will devastate the world's largest wild sockeye salmon fishery. The Environmental Protection Agency recently said it would study potential effects from the mine. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson attended and briefly spoke at the reception.

O'Connor declined to answer questions for this story. But the head of the Wild Salmon Center, lead sponsor of the event, said O'Connor's participation came about because of their friendship and her love of fly fishing.

Guido Rahr, the center's president, said his group hasn't taken a position on the mine and that the speakers were careful to "make sure we were respecting the location" of the reception at the court.

Rahr said participants mainly "ate yummy salmon treats" and looked at National Geographic photos of the bay.

But one speaker was a former Alaska state Senate president, Rick Halford, who told reporters the next day that the proposal was a "very, very dangerous kind of mine."

Supporters of the project made their own visit to Washington a couple of weeks earlier. They were not received at the high court.

Hellman, the Pittsburgh ethics expert, said he finds the court reception particularly troubling because "we're talking about political activity. It's a lobbying effort and she is lending her considerable prestige to that effort."

Another ethics professor, Stephen Gillers of New York University, said that if the speeches were not about advocacy, then the event itself probably does not pose an ethical problem for O'Connor. On the other hand, Gillers said it is possible O'Connor would have to step aside from any appellate case involving the groups that sponsored the reception.

The court hosts 50 to 60 after-hours events a year, many related to the court. Guidelines for use of the building forbid partisan political activity and fundraising, and require a justice to sponsor an event. A cash bar and dancing are not permitted.

Supreme Court justices are not covered by the ethics rules that apply to all federal judges. Still, justices generally adhere to those rules, Hellman said.

O'Connor's involvement in last year's ballot issues in Iowa and Nevada also drew a rare rebuke from another federal judge.

Senior Judge Laurence Silberman of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said "the issue of whether state court judges should be chosen or ratified by election or solely by appointment is a political issue on which serving federal judges should not publicly advocate, one way or the other."

Silberman said that unlike the criticism of Scalia and Thomas, which he termed phony issues, O'Connor's advocacy "is a real ethical issue."

O'Connor took part in a conference in Des Moines, in September on the topic of judicial elections. That appearance came during a contentious campaign about whether voters should retain three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of a unanimous court ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Federal judges in Iowa had been invited to attend by the Iowa State Bar Association, according to Chief Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa

But Pratt wondered whether their attendance would be improper.

Lacking the time for a formal opinion from the judiciary's ethics committee, the judge took advantage of a less formal process and called an ethics committee member for his views.

Pratt said the committee member, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, informally advised the judges to stay away.

They did, but O'Connor attended and said voters shouldn't punish judges when they disagree with their decisions. In the end, the three justices were ousted.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article