Merkel and euroskeptic allies beaten in Berlin (Reuters)

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany's Social Democrats beat Angela Merkel's conservatives in a regional vote in Berlin on Sunday, handing the chancellor her sixth election defeat this year ahead of a key euro zone vote in parliament in two weeks' time.

Merkel's center-right coalition suffered a further setback when their junior coalition partners at the national level, the Free Democrats (FDP), failed to clear the five percent threshold needed to win seats -- for the fifth time this year.

The beleaguered FDP, which had attempted to attract voters in Berlin with its increasingly euro-skeptic tactics, plunged to 1.8 percent from 7.6 percent in 2006, preliminary results showed.

Their eroding support nationwide could destabilise Merkel's center-right coalition, analysts said.

Merkel, under fire for her hesitant leadership in the euro zone crisis, is halfway through a four-year term. But election setbacks for her CDU have hurt her standing before the vote on euro zone measures in parliament on September 29.

"We would be wise to show humility about this result," said a visibly stunned FDP deputy party leader, Christian Lindner. "It's a low-point but also a wake up call. We knew it was going to be a difficult year and that's been dramatically confirmed."

The SPD won 28.2 percent of the vote in Berlin, down from 30.8 percent in 2006 in Germany's largest city with 3.4 million inhabitants, according to an exit poll on ARD television.

SPD Mayor Klaus Wowereit appeared to be headed for a third five-year term, with the Greens as his most likely coalition partner.

"The best part of the result tonight is that the voters showed the FDP they won't get anywhere with populist attacks against Europe," said SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel, celebrating his center-left party's sixth win in seven regional votes this year.

"It shows the voters are smarter than the FDP campaign strategists and that you can't win an election by campaigning against Europe. The FDP tried that and failed."

EUROSCEPTIC MESSAGE FAILS

The CDU won 23.3 percent, up slightly from 21.3 percent in 2006 but well below the 40 percent the party used to win in Berlin in the 1980s and 1990s. The Greens won 17.6 percent, up from 13.1 percent in 2006, and the Left party fell to 11.7 percent from 13.4 percent.

The SPD and Greens have pledged support for boosting the euro zone bailout fund for countries like Greece in a crucial vote in parliament vote on September 29, when Merkel may face a revolt from more eurosceptic members of her coalition.

Greens leader Cem Oezdemir said the FDP had "tried to turn this election into an anti-European plebiscite" after its party leader, Economy Minister Philipp Roesler, said it should not be taboo to debate an "orderly" Greek debt default.

"Losing the election with 2 percent is a dramatic setback for the FDP and I hope they draw the right lessons," Oezdemir said. "Anti-European populism has no support in Europe and in Germany, thank goodness, and that's good news for our country."

The Pirate Party, running on a campaign for reform of copyright and better privacy in the Internet age, came out of nowhere to win a stunning 9.0 percent.

The SPD, in opposition at the national level since 2009, hopes their re-election in Berlin will help build up momentum to oust Merkel in the next federal election in 2013 -- or possibly sooner, if her government were to collapse.

"We're not the successors to the FDP," said Gabriel, when asked if the SPD would be ready to replace the FDP if the government were to fail before 2013.

The SPD has ousted or helped defeat the CDU in Hamburg and Baden-Wuerttemberg this year and remained in power elsewhere.

The CDU has lost six of seven regional votes this year, holding onto power only in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt. The fresh loss in Berlin will add to Merkel's woes before a Bundestag vote on September 29 to give the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) more powers.

Merkel did not make any comments on the Berlin election. But senior CDU lieutenants tried to put a positive spin on the result, noting that it was slightly improved from 2006.

Peter Altmaier, conservative parliamentary floor leader, said the CDU's gains had helped prevent a renewal of the SPD-Left coalition that has ruled in Berlin under Wowereit for the last 10 years.

"This is solid backing ... for Angela Merkel's policies," Altmaier said, adding that Merkel has spoken out unambiguously in favor of euro zone rescue measures.

"Merkel has made it very clear in recent weeks that the CDU stands by its pro European profile and vocation," Altmaier said. "We link stability with European consciousness and that has been honoured by the voters. Some euro skeptic posters were put up in Berlin at the last moment but they had no impact."

(Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum, Stephen Brown, Alexandra Hudson and Natalia Drozdiak)

View the original article here

Democrats’ favorite ‘conservative Republican’ economist is neither Republican nor conservative (Daily Caller)

As the fight over President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act heats up on Capitol Hill, Moody’s economist Mark Zandi would seem like a dream come true for liberal pundits and Democratic politicians alike.

When progressives try to make the case that all the economy needs is more spending to boost economic growth and job creation they often turn to Zandi, a former advisor to Senator John McCain’s 2008 campaign for president, as exhibit A.

“Republican economist Mark Zandi declared the President’s plan would keep the U.S. from sliding back into the recession, add two points to the GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs,” Rep. Judy Chu, a California Democrat, said on the floor last week.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” former President Bill Clinton argued that Zandi’s belief that over one million jobs could be created by the president’s new jobs plan is proof that such rosy predictions are supported “right across the economic board.”

Writing in Slate earlier this month, Jacob Weisberg said that the benefits of a new stimulus package were “received wisdom among economists, including many conservative ones.” Specifically, Weisberg cites Zandi — “John McCain’s economic advisor” — who has argued that the 2009 stimulus prevented unemployment from rising another two percentage points.

It’s true that Zandi supports more stimulus spending. “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus,” Zandi said in a statement released by the White House last week. However, the implication that Zandi is a conservative Republican is, at best, deeply misleading. (RELATED: New Obama plan promises to raise taxes, worry Democrats)

To his credit, Zandi has never tried to hide his ideological beliefs. “I’m a registered Democrat,” he told The Washington Post in a 2009 profile. He worked with McCain not because he agreed with the GOP’s economic agenda but because of his policy of “help(ing) any policymaker who asks, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat.” According Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic advisor, Zandi was brought on to the campaign to provide instant analysis of economic news, not to set policy.

Democrats first began citing Zandi’s tenuous conservative credentials and support for government spending during the debate over Obama’s original stimulus plan. “I’m just saying what Mark Zandi from Moody’s, an adviser to John McCain, is saying: You have to have a package of this robustness if you’re going to make a difference,” then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a press conference in early 2009.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer had referred to him as a “conservative Republican” in an interview with Fox News the month before.

At the time, some in the GOP complained to the media that Democrats were getting away with implying Zandi was a Republican who backed their plans. “He’s doing a press call with Schumer today and he’s advising Democrats on this bill,” said one GOP staffer in an email to The Post, “but he’s always cited as a ‘former McCain adviser’ as if that means he’s a Republican endorsing the Democratic proposal.”

With the Obama administration pushing for a new round of stimulus spending, some conservative advocacy groups are pushing back on the Democrats’ assertion that Zandi is a right-leaning economist.

“Mark Zandi is a registered Democrat and an advocate of Keynesian economics,” says Barney Keller, a spokesman for the influential Club for Growth. “He’s about as conservative as Paul Krugman, and wrong just as often.”

Zandi could not be immediately reached for comment.

Follow Will on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrats' favorite 'conservative Republican' economist is neither Republican nor conservative

Gingers unwanted: World's largest sperm bank turns away redheads

Obama Rose Garden speech reveals route to victory in 2012

Republican legal group files ethics complaint against Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Obama's plan to curb muni bond tax exemptions would hurt local governments

View the original article here

Republican Debate: 3 Things that Surprised This Democrat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | As a registered Democratic voter, I've never watched a Republican debate. So it was with trepidation that I tuned in to the Google-sponsored Republican debate on Thursday. The debate went pretty much as expected: Texas Gov. Rick Perry talked about job creation, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reiterated his belief that "people should not get money for doing nothing" and Ron Paul reminded us all that he basically wants to get rid of the federal government.

But there were three things that stood out for me.

Michelle Bachman changed her tune on Gardasil. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., in attempting to make Rick Perry look bad, slammed the governor for signing an order that required middle-school girls in Texas to get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Bachmann claimed the vaccine, Gardasil, was linked to mental retardation, a claim which medical experts dismissed as bunk, according to the Associated Press. When asked about her assertion that the vaccine was dangerous, Bachmann said, "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement."

Herman Cain wants a national sales tax. His so-called 9-9-9 plan proposes a nine percent business flat tax, a nine percent personal income tax and a nine percent national sales tax, also known as a Value Added Tax (VAT). This is surprising to me because many countries in Europe, Sweden for example, countries that some Republicans might call "socialist," have a VAT.

The crowd booed a U.S. soldier. Openly gay soldier Stephen Hill, who is currently serving in Iraq, asked the potential candidates their feelings on the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Some members of the crowd loudly booed the soldier. Instead of thanking the Hill for his service to our country and reprimanding the crowd for being disrespectful, former senator Rick Santorum answered the question by saying, "Sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," and that, if given the chance, he would reinstate the policy because it gives gay soldiers some unnamed "special privilege."

Did watching this debate make me want to vote Republican? Absolutely not, but it did show me exactly who President Barack Obama will be up against. The responses to the questions were basically what I expected -- canned, safe and extremely conservative--but it was the moments in between the questions that truly showed what this field of Republican presidential hopefuls are about.

View the original article here

House passes measure to avoid government shutdown, but Senate won’t (The Ticket)

Reid (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The House of Representatives early Friday morning passed a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a looming shutdown after the first attempt to pass a resolution failed. But Senate Democrats are strongly opposed to the new measure.

"The bill the House will vote on tonight is not an honest effort at compromise. It fails to provide the relief that our fellow Americans need as they struggle to rebuild their lives in the wake of floods, wildfires and hurricanes, and it will be rejected by the Senate," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement prior to the vote, which resulted in passage 219-203.

Democrats argue the new resolution includes inadequate disaster funds for FEMA, and they oppose spending cuts to programs they say are necessary to stimulate the economy.

"Wake up! Wake up! You can't kill these programs. This is the solution you are killing," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on the House floor, referring to cuts to environmental programs he argues are going to help Americans against natural disasters.

But Republicans who support the measure say that the proposed spending cuts are key to rescuing the economy.

"I'm not one of those people who believe that we have to offset every emergency," Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said on the House floor. " . . . . But in the past, we have not had a 14 trillion dollar deficit!" he shouted. "That's the danger to this country--is the 14 trillion dollar deficit and the 1.6 trillion we add to it every damn year!"

The first continuing resolution that came before the House earlier this week failed when Democrats joined 48 Republican conservative fiscal hawks in the House to defeat it. So House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) appealed to conservatives and made deeper cuts in the current resolution, which drew opposition from just 24 House Republicans. Six Democrats also supported the current bill.

Both parties face a time crunch. The government is currently funded through the fiscal year, which concludes Sept. 30. Democrats say FEMA may require additional funds as early as Sept. 26. And Congress is scheduled to be in recess following today's session in observance of next week's Rosh Hashana holiday.

Reid said Friday he would put the measure up for a vote this morning but that it is dead on arrival.

Update 12:47 p.m. EST: The Senate voted to table the resolution 59-36. Reid has scheduled a vote for Monday evening.

View the original article here

Democrats open fire on Senate candidate Tommy Thompson (Daily Caller)

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson officially entered the U.S. Senate race as a Republican candidate Tuesday. Already, Democrats are pouncing on his record, labeling him as a fiscally irresponsible spender and super lobbyist.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) released a one-page sheet on Thompson taking issue with his record as governor. According to the DSCC, spending in the state of Wisconsin increased 118 percent under Thompson’s tenure, and more than 8,500 employees were added to the government payroll.

It also highlights the fact that the state’s debt grew by $1.8 billion during Thompson’s tenure, and that spending grew at 39 percent higher than the rate of inflation.

“Even rank and file conservatives are disgusted with Thompson’s record as governor and his work as a DC super lobbyist,” said DSCC spokesman Matt Canter in a statement.

“As Wisconsin’s most fiscally irresponsible governor, Tommy Thompson doubled state spending, increased the state debt and expanded Wisconsin government by nearly 10,000 state workers,” he added. “Since then Tommy has cashed in on his cozy relationships within the Bush administration and joined the ranks of Washington, DC’s super lobbyists, greasing the wheels of government to benefit his special interest clients.”

After serving as governor of Wisconsin for an unprecedented four terms, Thompson was appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services by President George W. Bush. In 2008, he ran for president only to drop out early after his poll numbers refused to climb.

Thompson may have a tough road in the campaign to replace Sen. Herb Kohl. In August, the conservative Club for Growth pre-empted his official bid by releasing a negative ad, aligning Thompson with President Obama’s health care bill.

Follow Amanda on Twitter.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Ted Turner: It's time for Rupert Murdoch 'to step down'

Limbaugh: Obama jobs bill is 'nothing more than a wet dream tax bill'

Poll: Warren narrowly leads Brown in Massachusetts U.S. Senate race

I Know How She Does It: With Olivia Munn! [SLIDESHOW]

Round 2: Linda McMahon running to replace Sen. Joe Lieberman

View the original article here

Senate rejects trade promotion authority for Obama (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Democrats banded together on Tuesday to reject a Republican amendment that would give President Barack Obama "trade promotion authority" to negotiate new market-opening agreements.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell offered the measure because he said it was vital for U.S. job creation.

"Without trade promotion authority, there will be no other trade agreements. We all know that," McConnell said.

"And that's why I've been a strong advocate for granting this president the same trade promotion authority that every other president has enjoyed since 1974."

The measure failed on a vote of 55-45.

Obama has not asked for trade promotion authority, which expired in 2007 and also is known as "fast track" because it puts trade pacts on a quick path to congressional approval.

An administration official said Obama will seek the authority "at an appropriate time," but pursuing the measure now would slow down action on South Korea, Colombia and Panama trade deals expected to go to Congress in coming weeks.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee subcommittee on trade, echoed that concern.

He said lawmakers needed more time to craft new negotiating objectives for the White House, rather than just renew the expired law through 2013 as McConnell proposed.

"There is a lot of interest on our side of the aisle in working on this issue, but I would urge colleagues to resist the McConnell amendment," Wyden said.

However, many Democrats are wary of any new trade deals whether Obama or a Republican is in the White House.

Senators have been debating whether to renew two expired trade programs in what business groups hope is a prelude to action on the South Korea, Panama and Colombia pacts.

One, the Generalized System of Preferences, waives duties on thousands of goods from developing countries. The other, Trade Adjustment Assistance, provides income and retraining assistance for workers who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition.

McConnell criticized Obama for insisting Trade Adjustment Assistance be approved before submitting the trade deals.

"Still, I and others have agreed to allow it so we can finally move ahead on these vital trade deals," he said. "And it's my expectation ... that the president will stop dragging his feet and soon submit all three of them for a quick approval."

(Reporting by Doug Palmer; editing by Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

GOP-led states change voting rules ahead of 2012 (AP)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – After years of expanding when and how people can vote, state legislatures now under new Republican control are moving to trim early voting days, beef up identification requirements and put new restrictions on how voters are notified about absentee ballots.

Democrats claim their GOP counterparts are using midterm election wins to enforce changes favorable to Republicans ahead of the 2012 presidential election. They criticize such legislation, saying it could lead to longer lines in Democratic-leaning urban areas and discourage people from voting.

Supporters say bolstering ID rules helps prevent fraud. And at a time when counties face tough budgets, they contend local elections officials don't have the money to keep early voting locations staffed and opened.

The process of changing voting rules may be nonpartisan on the surface but it is seething with politics just below the surface.

"We've had nothing short of a rhetorical firefight for years between the folks who are worried about fraud and folks who are worried about disenfranchisement — a firefight which is pretty much neatly broken down between the two major parties," said Doug Chapin, an election expert at the University of Minnesota.

While states typically adjust voting rules ahead of presidential elections, this year provides an opportunity for new Republican governors and GOP majorities to legislate on election issues.

Put simply, Chapin said: "What's happening in 2011 is just as much about what happened in 2010."

New voting rules recently cleared state legislatures in what have traditionally been presidential battlegrounds, creating partisan rancor.

Plans to reduce the number of days to cast an early ballot cleared the Republican-controlled swing states of Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia also lopped off advanced-voting time. North Carolina has a pending proposal. And Maine has done away with a policy that allows people to register at the polls on Election Day before casting ballots.

Each party, when in control, seeks to rewrite the rules to its electoral advantage.

Although the reality may not be so cut and dried, both parties believe a looser voting regimen benefits Democrats because it increases opportunities for Hispanic, black, immigrant and poor people — harder to reach for an Election Day turnout — to vote.

Democratic voters held an edge in early voting during the 2010 elections, despite the unfavorable climate for the party nationally and the eventual Republican gains.

Voters in 32 states and the District of Columbia can cast a ballot in person before Election Day without having to give a reason.

Georgia and Ohio had some of the longest early voting time periods. Georgia had 45 days, while Ohio had 35. The new laws bring the two states closer to the typical timeframe, which is about two weeks before the election.

The move to shrink the early voting window in some states comes as others have pushed to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Five states — Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — recently passed strict photo ID laws. At the beginning of the year, just two states — Georgia and Indiana — required that voters must show a photo ID in order to have their vote counted.

Other legislatures are rewriting their state's election laws in other ways.

Florida rolled back its early voting time to one week from two in an overhaul that also makes it more difficult for groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Boy Scouts of America to conduct voter registration drives.

Ohio's top elections chief, a Republican, acknowledged that changes to voting rules have invited an overreaction from each party.

"Both sides of the political spectrum have found it advantageous from a fundraising point of view, from a motivating their base point of view, to call into question the confidence in the election system," Secretary of State Jon Husted said in an interview.

While Ohio's overhaul bans local boards of elections from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot requests to voters, Husted has agreed to have the state send the requests to voters in all counties in 2012.

Ohio's law is not yet in effect, and opponents are working to get a proposed repeal question on the fall 2012 ballot. The legislation ignited debate early this summer on the floors of the state's GOP-controlled General Assembly.

View the original article here

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad (Daily Caller)

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) will submit a new ethics complaint against Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, The Daily Caller has learned.

The complaint, which will be filed on Thursday with the Office of Congressional Ethics, takes issue with DNC ads that appear to violate House rules.

Thursday’s complaint will be the second the RNLA has leveled at Wasserman Schultz. Earlier this week the group sent a letter to the OCE about a 30-second ad touting President Barack Obama’s jobs plan. The video featured footage from Obama’s Sept. 8 speech to a joint session of Congress.

House ethics rules prohibit members of Congress from using footage of official House proceedings for political purposes.

The letter that will be sent Thursday doubles down on the original complaint, targeting newly-released Spanish-language ads in Tampa, Denver, Miami and Las Vegas. The ads proclaim in Spanish: “In the face of Republicans, the President can’t do it alone. Read the plan. Stand together for more jobs.”

The RNLA letter calls for an immediate investigation by OCE and the House Ethics Committee. (RELATED: Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz for DNC ad)

“The Obama Administration, the DNC and the Democrat leadership in the House believe in rules only as they apply to others,” RNLA Chairman David Norcross said in a statement.

“At a time when the president and the House Minority Leader repeatedly plead for bi-partisanship they spare no effort to be confrontational wherever and whenever possible,” Norcross said. “They certainly don’t let House rules stand in their way.”

Follow Amanda on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad

Rick Perry goes on the attack, refers to Mitt Romney as 'Obama-lite'

TheDC Interview: US ambassador to Syria on what comes after Assad, witnessing regime's brutality

Sam Brownback to endorse Rick Perry Thursday

Google's Eric Schmidt faces barrage of questions from senators

View the original article here

Senate blocks House disaster aid bill (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-led Senate blocked a House bill Friday that would provide disaster aid and keep government agencies open, escalating the parties' latest showdown over spending and highlighting the raw partisan rift that has festered all year.

In a tit-for-tat battle, the Senate used a near party-line vote of 59-36 to derail the measure passed earlier by the Republican-run House. That bill would fund federal agencies and provide $3.7 billion in disaster assistance, partly paying for that aid with cuts in two Energy Department loan programs that finance technological development.

With the support of 10 GOP senators, the Senate had voted last week to provide $6.9 billion in disaster aid and no cuts to help pay for it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., offered a compromise Friday that would accept the House's lower level of disaster spending but lacked the loan program cuts. Republicans refused to let the chamber approve it, but the Senate will consider it Monday, when Republicans seem likely to prevent Democrats from getting the 60 votes they would need to prevail.

The dispute pitted GOP objections that the disaster spending would worsen the government's budget problems unless savings were included against Democratic complaints that cutting the energy loan programs would stifle the economy and cost jobs.

The fresh round of brinksmanship came with lawmakers facing two deadlines. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's fund for disaster victims could run out of money early next week, even as claims from Hurricane Irene and other recent disasters continue to accumulate. And Congress has completed none of the 12 annual spending bills for the federal fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, meaning agencies would have to close their doors that day without fresh funding.

"We've agreed to their number on FEMA," Reid said. "I mean, do they want the government to shut down? Do they want FEMA to close?"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Democrats want to continue the Washington custom of financing emergency spending by adding to colossal federal deficits.

"If there's any lesson we can draw from the debates we've been having here over the last six months, it's that the American people won't accept that excuse anymore," McConnell said. "The whole, `that's the way we've always done it' argument is the reason we've got a $14 trillion dollar debt right now."

Besides its emergency aid, the measure the House passed early Friday would temporarily prevent a federal shutdown by financing government agencies from the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year through Nov. 18. It was approved by a near party-line 219-203 vote.

White House spokesman Jay Carney faulted House Republicans for the deadlock, saying they had passed legislation knowing it would die in the Senate, just as they had during last month's fight over extending the federal debt limit.

"The fever hasn't broken — the behavior that we saw this summer that really repelled Americans continues," Carney said.

Republicans blamed Democrats, saying the House-passed bill had enough money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and that Democratic opposition to it was all about politics.

"The American people are sick and tired of political games," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "Shutting down the government and cutting off essential programs that our people rely on is bad enough, but leaving disaster-stricken families and communities in the lurch in their hour of greatest need is simply reprehensible."

It was unclear how the standoff would be resolved. The House and Senate had both planned to take next week off, but neither seemed likely to risk accusations of ignoring the thousands of Americans victimized by natural calamities or of allowing the government to shut its doors.

House passage represented a reversal from an embarrassing setback the chamber dealt its Republican leaders on Wednesday. On that day, the House rejected a nearly identical measure, shot down by Democrats complaining its disaster aid was too stingy and conservative Republicans upset that its overall spending was too extravagant.

The bill the House approved Friday morning contained just one change — an additional $100 million in savings from cutting a second Energy Department loan program, this one aimed at sparking new energy technologies.

That is the same program that financed a $528 million federal loan to Solyndra Inc., the California solar panel maker that won praise from President Barack Obama but has since gone bankrupt and laid off its 1,100 workers. The Obama administration had praised Solyndra as a model for green energy companies, but now Congress is investigating the circumstances under which the government approved the loan.

The gridlock over the spending bill was the third time this year the two parties have clashed over legislation whose passage both sides considered crucial.

In April with just hours to spare, the two sides reached agreement on a bill that averted a federal shutdown and provided money for government agencies through September. Then this summer, they battled for weeks before finally approving legislation extending the government's borrowing authority and narrowly preventing a historic federal default.

Against a backdrop of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections and angst over the country's dismal job market, this year's clashes have been intensified by the infusion of dozens of tea party Republicans who often show little inclination to compromise.

Wednesday's defeat of the spending bill was only the most recent time they have made life difficult for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. And it underscored the challenges ahead this fall as Congress tackles efforts to fix the economy, create jobs and try to control the $14 trillion national debt.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Hey Democrats -- To Cut Spending You Actually Have to Cut Spending (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | When will Democrats learn that cutting spending means they have to cut spending?

Congress is playing chicken with a stopgap funding bill that will continue to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other disaster-relief agencies through the end of the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Competing bills offered in each house differ in the amount of supplemental funding as well as whether that funding should be paid for with spending cuts in other areas or whether it should be simply added to the debt.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has crafted a $7 billion package and moved it through the Senate with the help of several conservative Republicans. Whether he will be able to count on their support as the Congress reconciles the differences between Reid's bill and the House-approved measure is uncertain, but Reid appears ready to rumble with his political opponents over it.

"We're not going to cave in on this," Reid said according to an Associated Press report.

Nice approach to compromise there, senator.

Disasters cannot be predicted, of course, and the federal government has an obligation to assist whenever possible, but the spending cannot come without cost. Whether the level of supplemental funding is $3.5 billion as proposed by the House or $7 billion as the Senate suggests is irrelevant. Congress always will appropriate whatever is needed in times of disaster. The point here is that it should not be added to the deficit to accomplish it.

For too long, the federal government has just borrowed money whenever needed with no consideration to how it would be paid back. This "$3 billion here, $7 billion there" attitude over the decades has painted us into the debt corner we are faced with today. The days of making the easy decision to simply borrow the money are over. It's time for the difficult choices.

There is definitely a need for additional disaster funding, especially after the wide-spread catastrophes that hit Joplin, Mo., earlier this year, plus the hurricane damages that struck the East Coast and Gulf regions. Whatever added funds Congress may add to disaster relief need to be offset in some other area of the federal budget. It's what the American people have to do when they face an unexpected expense and it's high time to federal government learns to do the same.

View the original article here

Is Congress Capable of Getting Anything Done in a Timely Manner? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | What is Congress doing? That was my first question when I read that the disaster aid bill passed by the House was blocked by the Senate. I know the House is led by Republicans and the Senate is led by Democrats. The Senate voted primarily along party lines. This means Republican's passed the bill in the House and Democrats refused to pass the bill in the Senate. That's got to be a huge blow to everyone suffering from the recent natural disasters.

Of course, it's not so much the refusal to pass the disaster aid bill. It's more Congress' refusal to pass anything. Everything passed this year has been passed just as the clock was set to expire. That's not the making of an efficient government. In fact, I think this is the most inefficient government I've ever seen.

It narrowly averted a shutdown and debt limit breach in August only to have to revisit the high deficit and a potential shutdown in September. If it does pass a measure to keep the government open it will only last until Nov. 18.

Doesn't Congress have anything better to do than keep revisiting the same issues? I don't want to see this budget issue come up again in November, then in December and January. In fact, it could keep doing this until the end of this presidential term. In which case, I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't see a second term. I'm not sure he'll see a second term anyway. His idea of "hope and change" certainly wasn't my idea of hope and change.

I do know that I'm sick and tired of reading about the same issues. The federal deficit, the budget, and the disaster aid relief should have been decided and settled months ago. You'd think with a split party Congress they'd come up with some awesome compromises that would benefit the American people by reducing the deficit, helping those who have been harmed by natural disasters, create jobs, and reduce unemployment. Instead, I guess they're just focused on the 2012 elections, their own salaries, and pork.

Congress is just simply not getting anything done. Along with the disaster aid bill, Congress needs to pass 12 other financial bills before Oct. 1. It has one week to do it. I think it will get it done, but I think it will get it done on Sept. 30 at 11:59 p.m., and I, along with the rest of the American people, will be livid.

View the original article here

Democrats working to undercut Perry, Romney (AP)

WASHINGTON – Democrats are sharpening their arguments against the two candidates leading the Republican presidential field, hoping to soften up Rick Perry of Texas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts before next year's general election.

Democrats want to undercut the economic records that Perry and Romney developed while serving as governors of their respective states. They also hope to tie Republicans to the tea party and raise concerns about their support for Social Security for seniors.

Republicans won't settle on a challenger to President Barack Obama for months, but Democrats are trying to turn next year's election into a choice between Obama and his opponent.

Obama's weakened standings in the polls and a struggling economy make it likely that next year's campaign will turn negative and draw sharp contrasts between the candidates.

View the original article here

House kills spending bill with disaster aid (AP)

WASHINGTON – In a rebuke to GOP leaders, the House on Wednesday rejected a measure providing $3.7 billion for disaster relief as part of a bill to keep the government running through mid-November.

The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.

Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.

The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn't shut down at the end of next week. It also raises the possibility that the government's main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.

Earlier Wednesday, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had confidently predicted the measure would pass.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has only a few days' worth of aid remaining in its disaster relief fund, lawmakers said. The agency already has held up thousands of longer-term rebuilding projects — repairs to sewer systems, parks, roads and bridges, for example — to conserve money to provide emergency relief to victims of recent disasters.

The looming shortage has been apparent for months, and the Obama White House was slow to request additional money.

The White House, a vigorous advocate of greater fuel efficiency for U.S.-made cars, welcomed the result of Wednesday's vote.

"We are pleased that the House of Representatives today rejected efforts to put politics above the needs of communities impacted by disasters," the White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, announced on his Twitter account.

The underlying stopgap funding measure would finance the government through Nov. 18 to give lawmakers more time to try to reach agreement on the 12 unfinished spending bills needed to run government agencies on a day-to-day basis for the 2012 budget year.

Forty-eight Republican broke with GOP leaders on the vote; six Democrats voted for the measure. Some of the Republicans also came from manufacturing states like Michigan, which benefit from the loan program.

The measure was originally designed by GOP leaders to pass with bipartisan support. Last week, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said publicly that they would vote for it reluctantly.

The underlying stopgap measure was opposed by conservative Republicans unhappy with the spending rates set by the measure, which are line with levels set by last month's budget and debt pact with President Barack Obama. That measure provides about 2 percent more money for Cabinet agency budgets than Republicans proposed when passing a nonbinding budget plan in April. More than 50 Republicans recently wrote to Boehner calling on him to stick to the earlier GOP budget.

"This bill was designed to pass with Democrat votes, in part based on assurances from Reps. Dicks and Hoyer," said Erica Elliott, spokeswoman for GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. "Frankly, it's shocking as many Republicans voted for it as did."

Senate Democrats, who muscled through a stand-alone $6.9 billion disaster aid measure last week, called upon House GOP leaders to add additional disaster funding to whatever future stopgap measure rises from the rubble of Wednesday's vote. Unless Congress passes stopgap legislation by midnight on Sept. 30, much of the government will shut down.

"Consider making the disaster relief more robust" in the next bill, said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "Please talk to the Democrats."

Landrieu said FEMA Director Craig Fugate told her Wednesday that the agency's disaster relief fund may run dry on Tuesday. That would mean that there's no money to provide shelter, cash assistance or other help to victims of Irene, thousands of fires across Texas and northeastern states flooded by Tropical Storm Lee.

In the House, Democrats rallied against the measure because of the accompanying $1.5 billion in cuts to an Energy Department program that subsidizes low-interest loans to help car companies and parts manufacturers retool factories to build vehicles that will meet new, tougher fuel economy standards.

Democrats say cutting the loan program could cost up to 10,000 jobs because there wouldn't be enough money for all pending applications.

They estimated that $3.5 billion of loan subsidies has supported loans totaling $9.2 billion that created or saved 41,000 jobs in Tennessee, California, Indiana, Michigan, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. Ford Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. have already received loans; Chrysler Group LLC is awaiting final approval of a loan.

Republicans countered that $4 billion remains in the loan fund, plenty to tackle the 11 loan applications closest to being approved. They also noted that Democrats didn't complain loudly when identical cuts sailed through the House when it passed the FEMA budget in June as part of a homeland security spending bill.

"The loan program ... has had excess funds for years," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "All entities in final loan stages will still get the funding they've worked for."

For his part, Dicks said he was persuaded by fellow Democrats that fighting against the loan program cuts was worth the risk of taking down the must-pass stopgap measure.

"Our people feel very strongly about it. It has created jobs," Dicks said in an interview. "It's working, and so they want us to fight against (the cut)."

View the original article here

Feinstein sues treasurer, bank over campaign fraud (AP)

LOS ANGELES – Sen. Dianne Feinstein's campaign filed a lawsuit Friday against a bank that handled accounts for a prominent Democratic campaign treasurer accused of looting millions of dollars from the war chests of local, state and federal politicians.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, names First California Bank, treasurer Kinde Durkee, Durkee's firm and two business associates, including her husband, who is a partner in her business. The filing comes two days after state financial regulators launched an investigation into how the bank managed the dozens of accounts Durkee maintained at First California, based near Los Angeles in Westlake Village.

"A fraud of the scale alleged herein could not have occurred, and did not occur, without the knowing involvement of First California Bank," the lawsuit reads. "In exchange for fees and profits, First California Bank intentionally ignored dozens of red flags, ignored its duties and obligations under state and federal law and allowed Durkee to perpetuate the scheme."

The bank's chief marketing officer, Diane Dickerson, said the company had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment. Durkee's attorney, Daniel Nixon, also did not return a call.

The longtime treasurer, who controlled more than 400 accounts, was charged earlier this month with mail fraud by federal prosecutors who alleged she siphoned nearly $700,000 from a state candidate's campaign to pay her credit cards, a mortgage, business bills and her mother's care at an assisted-living facility. She then shifted funds from other candidates' accounts in an elaborate shell game to cover up the wrongdoing, prosecutors allege.

She admitted to authorities that she had been misappropriating her clients' money for years, according to the criminal complaint.

The scope of the scandal remains unclear even weeks after Durkee's arrest, but Feinstein estimates in the court papers filed Friday that she lost "millions of dollars" from at least two campaign committees, Feinstein for Senate and Fund for the Majority.

The complaint spells out several examples of alleged wrongdoing, including two instances of illicit transfers from Feinstein's campaign accounts this summer.

In the first, Durkee transferred $80,000 from one of the senator's accounts in two transactions and then re-deposited the same amount in the account three weeks later, the lawsuit alleges.

In the second, she took $100,000 from another Feinstein account and re-deposited it the same day, the court papers allege.

She has not been able to determine her exact losses because First California has refused to give her access to her accounts without a letter absolving the bank of any responsibility — which Feinstein won't sign, said Bill Carrick, her lead strategist.

The bank announced last week that it was seeking to have a judge sort out who owns the money in dozens of hopelessly co-mingled Durkee-controlled accounts — essentially putting a freeze on the money.

"I think our point of view is we want a full accounting of all these bank accounts so we know what happened and then we want to be reimbursed for everything that was wrongfully taken," Carrick said. "All of this happened inside that bank so they had full knowledge .... of this whole scheme."

The growing implications of Durkee's arrest have put the spotlight on an insular political culture that allowed one person to hold the purse strings for a clientele that left no levels of the party unscathed, from local mayoral candidates and small Democratic clubs to state politicians to federal lawmakers such as Feinstein.

Dozens of small Democratic clubs and medium-sized political action committees also may have been wiped out.

Durkee got most of her clients through word-of-mouth within the party. Smaller clubs were often steered toward her independent firm, Durkee & Associates, by local party bosses because she offered grass-roots groups her services at free or dramatically reduced rates.

She has been released on bond and is scheduled to make a court appearance Oct. 19 in Sacramento.

More charges are possible, authorities have said.

View the original article here

50 Democratic House Seats in Play for 2012 After N.Y. Special Election (ContributorNetwork)

The National Review reports, based on the results of the special election in the New York 9th Congressional District, as many as 50 Democratic House seats may be vulnerable in next year's election.

This is not to say that the Republicans will pick up all 50, but the National Review provides a list of seats that are as favorable or more so for a GOP turnover for 2012.

The widespread vulnerability of House Democrats, even after the political tsunami of 2010, parallels the predicament President Obama is facing in formerly safe states. Coupled with the fact Democrats have to defend over 20 Senate seats, 2012 is shaping up to be a history-changing year.

Political strategists charged with deploying resources in a nationwide election always take note of four kinds of House seats. There are seats one's party holds that are safe, seats one's party holds that are vulnerable, vulnerable seats the opposition party holds, and safe seats held by the other party. The best situation to be in is to have few of one's own seats vulnerable and as many of the other party's seats as possible vulnerable.

The Democrats are in the worst of all situations. They have to defend many vulnerable seats and do not have many Republican seats ripe for a pickup. Resources such as money, paid campaign workers, and volunteers have to be spread very thin to defend vulnerable seats. Some very vulnerable seats may have to be given up as hopelessly lost.

Coupled with the president having to campaign in previously safe states and defend many Senate seats, one can see the Democrats are bracing for a bloodletting they have not seen in their history. It is a combination of 1980, when another weak president was suddenly at bay in the face of a conservative Republican candidate, and 1994, when congressional Democrats found themselves suddenly an endangered species.

The stakes cannot be higher. The prospect of a Republican president with a large majority in the House and a healthy majority in the Senate, with a mandate to execute a kind of hope and change the Democrats never imagined, must keep people in that party awake at night.

Source: After NY-9, 50 Democrat-Held House Seats Could Be Competitive, Jim Gergahty, National Review, Sept, 15, 2011

Results of New York Election Points to Obama Vulnerability, Mark R. Whittington, Yahoo News, Sept. 14, 2011

View the original article here

RNC surpasses DNC in August fundraising (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee raised about $8.2 million in August, far outpacing its Democratic rival in a typically slow fundraising month.

The Democratic National Committee reported that it raised $5.4 million last month, including $1.4 million for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the DNC and Obama's campaign.

The DNC finished the month with $16.6 million in cash and $11.1 million in debt.

The RNC ended August with $9.3 million in cash and $15.9 million in debt. Republicans said it was the largest amount of money the RNC has raised during the month of August in a non-election year.

August is usually a difficult month for fundraising because many donors are on vacation and events are limited.

View the original article here

Congress delays budget fight until Monday (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Congress set the stage for another last-minute budget showdown as lawmakers delayed action on a broad spending bill until Monday, shortly before disaster relief funds will run out completely.

This time, the brinkmanship threatens to disrupt assistance to victims of floods, wildfires and other natural disasters in one of the most extreme years for weather in U.S. history.

That money could run out as soon as Tuesday, but Republicans and Democrats appeared no closer to a solution after a week of legislative maneuvering.

A billion-dollar dispute over an electric-vehicle program favored by Democrats is preventing Congress from passing a trillion-dollar bill that would replenish disaster funds and ensure the government keeps running past October 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

"Everyone, once in a while, needs a little cooling off," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said. "We'll come here Monday and more reasonable heads will prevail."

Reid spoke after the Democratic-controlled Senate, by a vote of 59 to 36, rejected a version that had passed the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Lawmakers have tried to lower the temperature on Capitol Hill after a series of acrimonious budget battles rattled markets, spooked consumers and disgusted voters.

Still, the stark partisan divide over spending that has dominated Washington this year once again threatened Congress' ability to pass even the most basic legislation.

The bill in question would give the Federal Emergency Management Agency more disaster relief money and ensure that the government can continue operating while Congress debates a full 2012 budget.

Failure to act by then would force the government to suspend everything from space exploration to river dredging. It also would disrupt a flood-insurance program, delivering a further hammer blow to the troubled housing market.

ADDING TO UNCERTAINTY

Analysts and lawmakers said a government shutdown remains unlikely at this point as Congress now routinely resolves budget disputes at the last possible minute. But the wrangling adds further uncertainty to markets that are already on edge.

"Something like this is just a reminder of a lack of policy response by government, not only here in the U.S. but across the globe, in coming up with solutions to the financial and economic problems that we face," said Gary Pollack, managing director at Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management.

Democrats and Republicans remained at odds over a $1.5 billion cut to an electric vehicle program championed by President Barack Obama.

Republicans proposed the cut to partially offset the added disaster costs to avoid adding to the nation's fiscal woes.

Democrats point out that Congress usually exempts disaster money from normal budget rules. They say the cut would threaten thousands of manufacturing jobs at a time when the country is struggling with 9.1 percent unemployment.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on Monday on a version of the bill that would restore the car loan program. The chamber's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, predicted it would fail.

The dispute throws into question lawmakers' ability to find common ground on the more painful choices they will have to confront in the coming months as a special bipartisan committee searches for trillions of dollars in budget savings.

"Any delay that occurs because of inaction in the Senate will only imperil needed disaster relief for these thousands of families all across our country," House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said at a news conference.

Boehner has so far declined to give ground to Democrats as he seeks to control a rebellion from his party's conservative Tea Party faction, which is pressing for deeper spending cuts.

Democrats have shown an increased reluctance to compromise after a year of bruising budget battles has left their liberal supporters feeling like they have already given away too much.

Budget fights in Congress earlier this year pushed the government to the brink of a shutdown in April and the edge of default in August, leading to a cut in the country's top-notch AAA credit rating.

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith, Susan Cornwell and Thomas Ferraro in Washington and Karen Brettell, Rodrigo Campos and Richard Leong in New York; editing by Ross Colvin and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Obama Proves He's a Typical Tax-and-Spend Democrat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama today removed all doubts about his tax and spend roots proposing $1.5 trillion in new taxes over the next decade on the wealthiest Americans, while proposing a similar amount of cuts.

The problem with Obama's proposal is that is cannot pass. Since it generates revenue, the Constitution requires the bill to originate in the House of Representatives. The Republican majority in that chamber will never pass a bill like that. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has been clear throughout the year that there will be no new taxes passed by the Congress and was quick to condemn the new tax proposal shortly after Obama's speech.

Multiyear budget cuts are a political fantasy in Washington. No action of this Congress is binding on another Congress, so any deal to cut spending in future years would have little weight after the next Congress is elected. Budget cuts projected over a 10-year span are simply political theater that would never see the light of day by time they roll around.

Obama said deficit savings cannot be accomplished by budget cuts alone. Wrong!

Every budget submitted to Congress has the opportunity to reflect significant budget cuts. But Obama is especially astute at creating programs that have future effective dates either when he is safely re-elected to a second term or so far into the future that it would have no effect on his presidency. Those aren't the type of cuts the federal budget needs right now.

Obama clearly punted on the issue of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid reform. His proposal would trim provider-related reimbursements, but not touch beneficiary costs or benefits. There can be no meaningful reduction in deficit spending without looking at these type of mandatory spending programs regardless of how politically hot they may be.

Some of Obama's proposals warrant consideration. He forecasts $1.1 trillion in savings from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It's about time. The U.S. has never fought a war for 10 years -- sustaining that fight has broken the U.S. treasury. If he can bring the troops home - and avoid handing out foreign aid to the same countries -- he will accomplish that part in future savings.

Congress will have to consider these proposals -- not just the super committee charged with finding budget cuts before Thanksgiving. Because of that, there is no chance it will ever become law.

View the original article here

Republican legal group files ethics complaint against Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Daily Caller)

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is the subject of a new ethics complaint filed in the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) filed the complaint in response to a video the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which Wasserman Schultz chairs, released last week.

As The Daily Caller previously reported, the DNC ad promoting President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act appeared to violate House ethics rules that prevent footage of floor proceedings from being used for political purposes. The 30-second ad, however, featured only footage of the president’s recent speech to a joint session of Congress — not speeches of members of Congress themselves.

Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem for the DNC. But since Wasserman Schultz is a member of Congress, some say the House ethics rules now apply to the DNC.

“This carefully orchestrated political campaign is consistent with a disturbing pattern of President Obama’s misuse of official resources for political purposes,” read the RNLA’s complaint. “Now it appears he has not only misused the resources of his own office, but he has engaged Representative Wasserman Schultz in the misuse of coverage of House proceedings, in direct violation of her ethical duties as a Member of Congress.”

The rule in question is House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1), which says, “Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose.”

Additionally, House Rule 11, clause 4(b) says that “radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be use, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office.” (RELATED: Does a new DNC ad violate House ethics rules?

According to the Office of Congressional Ethics website, once a complaint is filed, two board members may conduct a preliminary review – a process that takes 30 days – to determine if all information available provides a reasonable basis that a violation occurred.

Follow Amanda on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Winning the White House: Obama's renewed communications effort

Republican legal group files ethics complaint against Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Obama's plan to end muni bond tax exemptions would hurt local governments

Ex-campaign manager: Bachmann 'doesn't have the resources or the ability' to go beyond Iowa

Kat Dennings: 'I'm still wearing Target and hand-me-downs'

View the original article here