McCain Tries Acting Like a Conservative to Keep His Senate Seat. It's Like a Coat that Doesn't Fit.

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republicans' standard-bearer in 2008, is facing a surprisingly strong primary challenge from the right, evidence that even party leaders aren't safe from the swell of conservative activism heading into the 2010 midterm elections.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Sen. John McCain in October announcing a program to help veterans to become teachers, is facing a primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, below, seen testifying in May at a Senate immigration hearing.

Mr. McCain hasn't faced a serious challenge since joining the U.S. Senate in 1987. But seven months ahead of the primary, he is using tough-guy tactics and calling in conservative chits to fend off J.D. Hayworth, an ex-congressman and radio host. Mr. Hayworth, who lost his House seat in 2006 and who is best known in Arizona for his opposition to illegal immigration, has seized the Tea Party mantel of low taxes and small government.

With the senator's approval, McCain allies filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission essentially alleging that Mr. Hayworth's three-hour radio show—during which he regularly attacked Mr. McCain—was a form of campaign advertising. In January, Mr. Hayworth and the station agreed to drop his program. Smokey Rivers, Phoenix director of programming and operations for KFYI's owner, San Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications Inc., said Mr. McCain wasn't a factor.

Jason Rose, a Hayworth aide, described the move as a "political mugging." Mr. McCain isn't shy about admitting his role in knocking Mr. Hayworth off the air. "I certainly didn't discourage it," he said in an interview. "I'm not saying he couldn't say anything he wanted to, but it's clear that was a political campaign he was running on the radio station."

The 73-year-old Mr. McCain is also bringing to Arizona his 2008 running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to campaign on his behalf in March, a bid to secure his right flank. He can also count in his corner Republican Scott Brown, who shook up the national political scene last month by winning the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Edward Kennedy, a Democrat.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Last week, responding to anger about banks and bailouts—a popular theme on the insurgent right—Mr. McCain voted against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second stint as Federal Reserve chairman. He also stunned Senate colleagues by opposing a special commission to tackle the country's mounting debt; he was a co-sponsor of the initiative but pulled his support when conservatives criticized it as a tax-raising vehicle. "I want a spending commission, not one that will raise taxes," he said. "And the way this was composed, it would have likely recommended an increase in taxes."

The normally feisty Mr. McCain also has been acquiescent in the face of a new Supreme Court decision gutting his signature campaign-finance law, which had been unpopular with some conservatives.

Mr. Hayworth, 51, plans to declare his candidacy on Feb. 15, a spokesman said, but he is already raising money and spending it in an effort to unseat Mr. McCain. One of Mr. Hayworth's first moves was to hold a fund-raiser to pay off legal bills lingering from his tangential association while in Congress with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Hayworth wasn't charged with any wrongdoing.

To bolster his claim that Mr. McCain is insufficiently conservative—a complaint that has dogged Mr. McCain throughout his career—Mr. Hayworth is highlighting the senator's 2008 vote for the $700 billion bank rescue, and his opposition to President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

A Rasmussen poll in November showed the two men in a virtual tie. A more recent poll had Mr. McCain with a 22-point lead, 53% to 31%. Mr. Rose, the Hayworth aide, said the campaign's polling shows the race closer than that, but not as close as November.

"This is not an idle threat that Mr. McCain faces, and the reason has more to do with his history with conservatives than just about anything else," said pollster Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. Mr. McCain's positions on campaign finance and immigration, among other areas, have also set him apart from the party's right.

It is the kind of intramural dodgeball playing out around the country as establishment-backed Republicans find themselves pelted by anti-big government, anti-spending, anti-tax populists. Among the battlegrounds are Senate primaries in Florida, where conservative darling Marco Rubio, a former state lawmaker, is taking on Gov. Charlie Crist, and in California, where Chuck Devore, a conservative state assemblyman, is challenging the establishment choices, ex-congressman Tom Campbell and former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly Fiorina.

"Arizona's Republicans deserve a choice and an alternative to Mr. McCain's moderate record on taxes, social issues, the border and bailing out the banks," Mr. Hayworth said in a robo-call his campaign said it would place to tens of thousands of Arizona Republicans.

Arizona political analysts say Mr. Hayworth may be able to capture the energy of the small-government conservatives, as well as anti-immigration voters. They are also the people most likely to show up at a primary held in the heat of the Arizona summer, Mr. Rasmussen said.

"Anybody who doesn't take J.D.'s race against McCain seriously is crazy," said Bruce Merrill, professor emeritus of mass communication at Arizona State University, and a former teacher of Mr. Hayworth. He predicted, though, that Mr. McCain will prevail.

With $5 million in the McCain campaign treasury, according to an aide, the senator has hit the Arizona airwaves, portraying himself as "Arizona's last line of defense" against government spending, bloated bureaucracy and government-run health care.

—Neil King Jr. and Stephen Power contributed to this article.

Write to Michael M. Phillips at michael.phillips@wsj.com

via online.wsj.com

With his seat in jeopardy, Sen. McCain is now trying to act like a conservative. But like a 2 year old trying on his older brother's coat it just doesn't fit and it's quite obvious. McCain is no conservative and most likely won't be. He has sold out conservatives and the Republican Party on numerous occasions throughout the years. He is one of the old guard that just needs to go away. Hopefully as quietly as possible. But that doesn't seem to be happening. He has taken Obama's tactics and replicating them for his own benefit just as he has with liberal policies. Neither are good for his constituency or this country. I really hope that J.D. Hayworth can unseat this old liberal in Republican clothing.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Barack Obama’s former mentor criticises ‘complacent Administration’ - This is just classic.

President Obama’s self-confidence borders on complacency. He is ill served by senior staff, especially his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. He does not appear to be learning on the job as he did when campaigning for the White House. His Administration is too deferential to Congress, too reliant on the President’s personal charm, and as a result is regarded by its enemies as weak and ineffectual.

As Mr Obama prepared to release his $3.8 trillion (£2.4 trillion) budget today, this assessment of his first year in office came not from one of his established critics on the Right, but from one of his most respected mentors — his former professor at Harvard Law School, Chris Edley.

“What I fear is that having made history, having won a Nobel prize, having been celebrated around the world, a measure of complacency may have set in,” Professor Edley told The Times. “I don’t mean that the effort is not there, but that the discipline of self-criticism has perhaps faded.”

Professor Edley, who worked in the Clinton and Carter Administrations and is now Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, added: “I wouldn’t give [Obama] as high a grade as President as I gave him when he was my student. I know he can do better.”

Related Links

• Obama's five desperate healthcare options

• Obama: I don't quit - let's start again

• Obama hits the road for job creation

He reserved the harshest criticism for Mr Emanuel, the second-most powerful figure in the White House, who has been pilloried by liberals for appearing to undermine Mr Obama’s healthcare reforms since the loss of a crucial Senate seat to the Republicans.

“You’re not going to reinvent Barack into somebody who delights in pummelling a policy opponent, so his staff need to do that for him. And as far as one can tell from the outside, that is precisely what Rahm Emanuel has failed to do,” he said.

Referring to the prospect of Democratic losses in the mid-term elections, as a result of opposition among independent voters to the stimulus and healthcare Bills, Professor Edley added: “It’s almost as if Rahm Emanuel cares more about the re-election prospects of his friends on [Capitol] Hill than he does about scoring policy victories that reflect Obama’s values.”

Mr Emanuel’s willingness to let health reforms slide could condemn Mr Obama to “a caretaker presidency”, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, has warned.

Congressional Democrats have accused Mr Emanuel of being more visible on television than on Capitol Hill, and there is increasing speculation that he may be the first senior staffer to be eased out of the White House — or that he may resign to run for the Chicago mayoralty.

Nothing would please Professor Edley more. In late 2007, at Mr Obama’s invitation, he made a dramatic intervention in his presidential campaign, dismissing as mediocre the policy positions drawn up by senior staff and imploring them to give the young Senator from Illinois more time to think.

Asked what he would say if given a similar opportunity one year into the Obama presidency, Mr Edley lamented the failure of the White House to force Congress into line, as President Lyndon Johnson would have done. “You have to be his inner LBJ, the leader who twists arms past their breaking point and is prepared to make some enemies in order to make some progress,” he said.

The professor fears that Mr Obama’s best chance to deliver the change he promised may have been wasted. The White House was overly dependent on the President’s personality as an instrument of persuasion, “and if your only advocacy tool is charm you should expect some pretty strong headwinds”, Professor Edley said.

The Administration’s biggest mistake, he said, has been to pander to Congressional vanities by leaving the two chambers to argue about their own versions of healthcare reform with little concrete guidance from the White House. “As a result the Administration has accomplished less than it might have and is perceived on the Hill as much weaker than it might have been,” he concluded.

Mr Obama will hope for a rosier assessment next time round.

via timesonline.co.uk

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - So much for the limited Govt the Founders envisioned.

Originally published 05:00 a.m., February 2, 2010, updated 04:53 p.m., February 2, 2010

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

Stephen Dinan

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.

The expansion could provide more ammunition to those arguing that the government is trying to do too much under President Obama.

TWT RELATED STORIES:
• Obama acknowledges broken C-SPAN promise
• Liberties oversight panel gets short shrift
• Obama's '11 budget knife takes smaller cuts
• SEC workers investigated for viewing porn at work
• PRUDEN: An Alcatraz solution for Obama

"I'm shocked that the 'tea party' hasn't focused on it yet, and the Obama administration only has a thin sliver of time to deal more directly with it, I believe," said Paul C. Light, who studies the federal bureaucracy as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at New York University. "When you talk about big government, you're talking about a big employer."

The new figures are contained in the budget that Mr. Obama sent Monday to Congress.

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts.

"Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition work force has stayed constant. It's not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be," Mr. Orszag said.

Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008.

The federal work force is older than the private-sector work force, which Mr. Light said raises the possibility of reducing the total number through retirements.

About 31 percent of the private work force is 50 or older, while 46 percent of the federal work force is 50 or older.

Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War.

Mr. Clinton in 1996 declared that "the era of big government is over" and took steps to work with Congress to control spending and cut the work force, which already had been trending lower.

As he left office in 2000, Mr. Clinton boasted that his administration had helped cut 377,000 government jobs, leaving the smallest civilian federal work force since 1960.

Mr. Obama, though, appears to be accepting a larger federal work force.

The administration has called for federal workers to get a 1.4 percent pay raise next year, which Mr. Orszag said, "frankly, I think to a lot of Americans, sounds pretty good."

The American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents many government workers, said it was combing through the budget and did not have a comment.

via washingtontimes.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class - Obama breaks his promise AGAIN.

Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM

By Terri Cullen

ADVERTISEMENT

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

• Email Story
• IM Story
• Printable View
• Save to del.icio.us
• Save to Bookmarks
• Upload photos to FLICKR

U.S.

LATEST HEADLINES

• Geithner says need bipartisan attack on deficits Reuters
• Shadowed by deficits, Obama pitches economic plan Reuters
• Pentagon: 18,000 more troops in Afghanistan by spring Reuters
• Key Democratic lawmaker Murtha in hospital Reuters
• EU-U.S. summit in doubt as Obama decides not to come Reuters
• U.S. News Archive

News Video

• Lawsuit over Lucy the elephant Canadian Press
• GDP good, but long way to go-Summers Reuters

• One Last Push for the Public Option ABC

via ca.news.yahoo.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Early draft of the Constitution found in Philly - This is just the thing us history lovers dream of!!

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: "We The People. . . ."

They had been scribbled upside down by one of the Constitution's framers, James Wilson, in the summer of 1787. The cursive continued, then abruptly stopped, as if pages were missing.

A mystery, Toler thought, until she examined other Wilson papers from the Historical Society's vault in Philadelphia and found what appeared to be the rest of the draft, titled "The Continuation of the Scheme."

The document - one of 21 million in the Historical Society's collection - was known to scholars, but probably should have been placed with the other drafts, said constitutional scholar John P. Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution in the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

"This was the kind of moment historians dream about," said Toler, 30, a lawyer and founding president of the Constitutional Sources Project (www.ConSource.org), a nonprofit organization, based in Washington, that promotes an understanding of and access to U.S. Constitution documents.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

She "found a document that was sort of buried in its right place, but not taken out by an archivist for special treatment," said Kaminski, the constitutional scholar. "This is a valuable document. It is in Wilson's hand, and it was in Wilson's papers, where it should have been."

With so many historical documents "going online, you don't have that kind of discovery in an archives," he added. "I can understand why [Toler] would be excited."

For Nathan Raab, a member of the Board of Councilors of the Historical Society, the documents are reminders "of the great depth of the archives there and the emotional power of holding a piece of history in your hand."

"The Continuation of the Scheme" and countless other documents had been evaluated by scholars decades ago before being carefully filed away at the Historical Society at 13th and Locust Streets.

"Perhaps this one should have been placed with the other drafts," said Lee Arnold, senior director of the library and collections at the Historical Society. "We may do that, but no decision has been made.

"We want to look at it more thoroughly," he said. "In the end, though, [the document] is perfectly fine."

The drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand were removed from his other papers and placed in Mylar and acid-free folios and have been occasionally displayed.

"The Continuation of the Scheme" document "was safe and preserved, but not given the prominence," said Kaminski, chief editor of the book The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.

"Wilson was a great man and one of the great founders and should be respected for that," he said. "We owe him our gratitude for the role he played."

Wilson, who lived in Philadelphia, was selected July 24, 1787, with four other members of the Constitutional Convention to serve on the Committee of Detail.

The committee - which also had John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, and Oliver Ellsworth - used 28 resolutions passed by members of the convention to flesh out the Constitution.

They finished their work and presented it Aug. 6, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention. It included Wilson's famous "We the People" beginning.

Seeing the framers' drafts and thought processes leading up to that point was especially thrilling to Toler, who is studying at Oxford University, where she is seeking a doctorate in U.S. history and specializing in constitutional legal history.

"The Constitution may be the most important document written in modern history," said Toler. "It is the longest-standing written constitution and the basis for most of the constitutions in the world."

After finding the draft, "I felt like an actor in the movie National Treasure, but [actor] Nicolas Cage was nowhere to be found," Toler added.

"However, what I found was a national treasure - the real national treasure."

 

Contact staff writer Edward Colimore

at 856-779-3833

or ecolimore@phillynews.com.

 

via philly.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants - Is she so egotistical to really believe she is the Queen of America? Afraid so.

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry? Mrs. Obama Demands Small Army of Attendants

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

 By Dr. Paul L. Williams  Monday, August 17, 2009

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change”  would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

Sample comments from the hundreds of letters that poured into Canada Free Press are as follows:

Alan from Utah:

”The sad part is that after billions spent “stimulating” the economy, the list of new staffers for the wife of our pretend president represents the only new jobs that have been created.  We’re screwed.”

Laurie from Texas:

”....and not a one of those attendants can help her find something decent to wear…pathetic waste of taxpayer money…..”

Terry from Colorado:

”This is from the family that supports a government run health care system. If they can’t control the spending inside the White House, how can we believe they can save money elsewhere?”

Lanette from California:

”This is OBAMANABLY!!!!  I’ve been laid off….wonder if she will hire me?”

Bobby from Shanksville:

”I didn’t see anyone listed who wipes her ####.”

Lyle from Ilinois:

”This is a crime. I am sure not one of those aides comes close to earning what they are paid. How could they? What is there for them to do? I can’t believe Michelle will end up being a great first lady regardless how many aides she has. How will she ever survive at the end of his four-year term when she has to go back to being a civilian again. No way will the government pay for all these lackies for a civilian, no matter how hard she may try to make it happen. I recall a high school English teacher saying “like begets like” and it sure shows up with the Obama couple. They’re both in it for as much as they can get for themselves.”

Michelle from Michigan:

How can my nephew, who has been out of work for almost a year, get a job on Michelle’s staff? The pay is better than anything available here and he is colleged educated.

Betty from Pennsylvania:

My husband and I have worked hard all our lives. We are people of integrity. And yet when I read of spending like this my blood boils. How dare she use my hard-earned money like this. How dare she take advantage of her position. She did not earn her position because of who she is or how hard she has worked. I don’t know how she can sleep at night. Somehow, we need to get this President out of office before we lose all our rights.

The allegations within the July 7 article seemed so outrageous that many readers questioned their accuracy.

Does Mrs. Obama have an unprecedented number of staffers in a time when 34 million Americans - - a record number - - rely on food stamps to feed their families?

The answer, as D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org discovered, is yes.

When questioned by Mr. Gore, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, said that the First Lady does retain a staff of more than twenty who remain at her beck and call. But the actual number is 24, not 22, as the article reported.

Mrs. Lelyyeld failed to provide the names of the two additional attendants to Mrs. Obama. But she did confirm that six staffers who do not have “first lady” in their title but are a part of the First Lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, who bears the title “Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary,” and Natalie Bookey, who is listed as a “staff assistant.”

What’s more, even a list of 24 would be incomplete since it would fail to include the names of makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travel aboard Air Force One and provide Mrs. Obama with daily attention.

This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn’t include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama’s Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama’s attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.

For comparison, let’s remember that poor Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salaries for 5 of their personal secretaries from their own pocketbooks. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, says that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was “headed” by one person who supervised a staff of approximately nine full and part time workers (including the White House cooks and chambermaids).

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, says that it is difficult to nail down a precise count of staff because “White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time.” But she points out that a White House telephone directory indicates that Hillary Clinton had a staff of thirteen in 1993 - - this is telling since Mrs. Clinton intended to serve as a co-executive in the Oval Office by spearheading a health care reform program.

Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush’s staff attendants is as follows:

1. McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00
2. Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00
3. Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00
4. Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00
5. Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00
6. Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00
7. Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00
8. Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00
9. Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00
10. King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00
11. Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00
12. Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00
13. Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00
14. Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00
15. Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00

This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00. Laura was no piker when it came to spending. But she pales in comparison with Miz Michelle, who requires eight to ten additional attendants at an extra cost to taxpayers of $700,000 and change - - the only change American taxpayers can believe in.

CFP Tools

(24) Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us | Send this page to a friend! |

via canadafreepress.com

This is truly no surprise just sad verification. She apparently thinks that her position equates to actual royalty. Queen Michelle goes around slamming those who have been unbelievably successful and yet she has 26 attendants. Can you say hypocrite? I can.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation & magazine article- And these are experts?

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

Comments 234 | Comment on this article

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

Related Articles

• World's most powerful climate scientist writes racy novel

• Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling find scientists

• Call for climate change 'honesty'

• United Nations defends climate change evidence

• IPCC: climate change scientists are 'only human'

• Second blunder by UN climate science panel

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.

via telegraph.co.uk

This would explain a lot of the outrageous accusations and claims from this supposed group of experts. Maybe they need to go back to college and learn how to do proper research. I am only finishing up a Master's Degree and even I know that it takes more respectable sources than this!!!

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year. So much for fiscal constraint from O and the gang!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131#

Well so much for the fiscal constraint and the spending freeze proposed by O and the gang.  Not that this is a big surprise.  The only question that remains is who will buy all of the treasury bonds that will be required for this excessive spending?

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous