04 21 2015
  2:50 am  
     •     
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • A number of the bills now before the Oregon State Legislature protect parties who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault  
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's been five years since the collapse of Wall Street's largest financial institutions and the ground falling out from under the U.S. economy. The stock market plummeted, unemployment skyrocketed, and the housing market imploded.



On Monday, President Barack Obama will speak from the Rose Garden to tout his successes in turning the economy around.

"Thanks to the grit and resilience of the American people, we've cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis and begun to lay a new foundation for stronger, more durable economic growth," read a 49-page White House report on the economy released Sunday.

The same day, Larry Summers, a leading name to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, withdrew his name from consideration, clearing the way for Janet Yellen, who serves as vice chairwoman at the Fed, to become the leading candidate.

And on Friday, the White House announced that top economic adviser, Gene Sperling, will step down as head of the National Economic Council and be replaced by Jeffrey Zients, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget.

But whether the new players will have any impact economic policy, the president's economic agenda -- plagued by an obstinate Republican House and reluctant Senate, threats of shutdowns and sequesters, the end of two wars and the fears of starting a third -- may still be languishing, even as the economy itself appears to slowly be coming back to life.

It's the economy, stupid

That motto was made famous by political strategist James Carville during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, and it rang true for Obama's first presidential campaign as well.

And the American public agrees. In poll after poll, fixing the economy is a stubborn No. 1 when it comes to the issues the voters most care about.

A CNN/ORC International poll conducted this month indicates that 41% of the public says the economy is the most important issue facing the country right now, with health care at 16% and the crisis in Syria at 15%.

Obama was elected on the premise that he would stop and then reverse the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression.

He came into office with his foot firmly on the gas pedal. Less than a month after his inauguration, he signed into law an $831 billion economic stimulus bill. After a productive first month in office, analysts began to compare Obama to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who transformed the fabric of American society in the face of the Depression.

Then, with the help of a Democratic Congress, the president signed an overhaul of the financial system and the largest expansion of access to health care since President Lyndon B. Johnson created Medicare in 1965.

The jury is still out on whether either of those massive pieces of legislation will harm or help the economy, but most agree that just getting them done were historic accomplishments.

'Poor marks'

But since his first two years in office, some experts say, the president has struggled to keep focused on the economy.

Liberal economist Dean Baker has been highly critical of the president's economic record.

"I give him very poor marks. Five years later, the economy is still very far from recovering," said Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pointing to an unemployment rate that he says would hover around 9% instead of 7.3% if so many people hadn't given up and dropped out of the work force.

And it shows in Obama's approval ratings.

Through much of last year, he had a 30% approval rating on the economy. That number is up this year -- to 43% -- but most still disapprove of his handling of the issue.

A screeching halt

In 2010, many conservatives, led by the tea party movement, sought to stop the president's agenda. They voted out the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and replaced them with conservative Republicans.

Then, those Republicans did what they were sent to Washington to do.

The president has struggled to pass any major economic legislation since 2010. Instead, he's been jumping from one political crisis to the next. Fights over federal budget and spending levels locked Congress in multiple battles in 2011 and 2012 that nearly led to the shutdown of the government.

The narrative didn't always fall in Obama's favor; nor did the policies that ensued. Republicans shifted the conversation from economic stimulus to deficit reduction. The president jumped on the deficit-reduction bandwagon and made that a priority.

Through protracted political battles over the size of the government, forced spending cuts, which sliced up to 10% of most of the federal budget, went into effect. It wasn't the president's favorite idea, however, for how to revive the economy.

He still had hopes of repairing old bridges and building new windmills. So did his supporters, who grew frustrated with the president. "We're getting tired. ... The unemployment is unconscionable. We don't know what the (president's) strategy is," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, said in 2012.

But in the frame of deficit reduction, Obama was able to obtain a few concessions. He won a series of tax increases, including an increase on the top tax earners: those making more than $400,000 per year.

And the needle moved.

The budget cuts, tax increases and a recovering economy will reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over 10 years, according to the White House. The nation's debt ratio to size of the gross domestic product is expected to stabilize in the next decade, which economists hail as good for the economy.

The foreign affairs president

While the president came into office with little experience in foreign affairs and hopes to implement an expansive domestic agenda, overseas conflict has kept his plate full.

He expanded the war in Afghanistan and ended the war in Iraq. He kept his attention on the citizen-led revolts that swept the Arab world and expanded the use of drones. Under his administration, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed and the U.S. joined a NATO campaign to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and Obama is now working on an intense campaign to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

Although presidents are forced to walk and chew gum at the same time, world events have created challenges for Obama's ability to implement his domestic agenda.

"When you look at issues like military strikes in Syria ... it takes the full time and attention of the leaders," Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute said recently.

As the president decided to hold off on a military strike in Syria while Secretary of State John Kerry works with his counterpart in Russia to devise a plan to rid the regime of its chemical weapons, the president attempted to revitalize discussion of his domestic agenda.

"Even as we have been spending a lot of time on the Syria issue ... it is still important to recognize that we've got a lot more stuff to do here in this government," Obama said during a meeting with his Cabinet on Thursday.

Economist Mark Zandi said that, all things considered, the president has been fairly successful on the domestic front.

"It has been a tough road, but I think he did a pretty good job," said Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

But economist Baker offered a more critical perspective, saying the president hasn't shown a willingness to push an economic agenda.

"Let's say Syria didn't happen. What would he be doing right now? I am not sure he has some agenda that is being obstructed by events in the world," he said.

Syria aside, much of the White House's attention this fall will be spent on getting Americans to sign up for the health insurance exchanges, the heart of the Affordable Care Act. Open enrollment begins October 1, and the administration is expected to spend $8.7 million on a media blitz to promote the exchanges.

Second term, second chance

After his re-election, the president hoped to reset his economic agenda. In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama said he will work to "reignite the true engine of America's economic growth: a rising, thriving middle class."

This summer, he launched a campaign to revive his focus on the economy.

In a series of speeches this year, he acknowledged the troubling economic indicators that are keeping the economy from a full recovery, including income inequality and employment disparities.

Americans' real median household income fell from $63,000 to $55,600 between 2000 and 2011, and as of December, 9.1 million jobs were necessary to restore the job market to pre-recession levels, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

"Reversing these trends has to be Washington's highest priority. It has to be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority," Obama said in Galesburg, Illinois, in July.

Job creation, affordable education and home ownership were central to his proposals. Those proposals included expanding development of renewable energy, creating new power grids and expanding access to early childhood education.

But what has the president done since that July speech? Some say, not much.

"Nothing has happened on any front," economist Zandi said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney pushed back against that assessment. He argued that the president is still focused on those economic priorities.

"The president remains committed to pushing forward on an economic agenda that creates a better bargain for the middle class," Carney said Wednesday.

But Zandi said immigration reform, which would be a major catalyst for economic growth, appears to be heading nowhere in the House. And tax and entitlement reform, which would also help to stimulate the economy, have no chance of happening this year.

There's always next year. But 2014 is an election year, which creates an even more difficult environment for passing legislation. After 2014, the president is in his final two years of office, and the political machine begins shaping the next occupant of the Oval Office.

Then, by definition, it can be hard for a lame duck president to get much done.

CNN's Dan Merica, Paul Steinhauser and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

™ & © 2013 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

 

Carpentry Professionals

PHOTO GALLERY

Calendar

About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Portland Opera Showboat 2