TRUMP'S FREE TRADE SPEECH REMINDS VOTERS ITS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY (STUPID)

TRUMP'S FREE TRADE SPEECH REMINDS USA ITS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY 

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID.

Sources: Reuters, CNN, TIME, YouTube

Video Highlights: 

2016 Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump's FREE TRADE SPEECH delivered 6-30-2016 in New Hampshire was very encouraging and really made Trump appear as an Intelligent leader.

His speech was strongly focused on renegotiating current Free Trade agreements and bringing American jobs back from overseas.

Without more jobs there will be no MIDDLE CLASS within the American workforce.

**** Trump vows to reopen, or toss, NAFTA pact with Canada and Mexico

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Tuesday vowed to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the NAFTA trade agreement with the United States if elected, as part of an effort to protect and restore American jobs.

Trump criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement as a U.S. job killer, saying he would be willing to scrap the pact if Canada and Mexico were unwilling to budge. He also tried to link Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to the deal on the eve of a meeting in Ottawa of the "three amigos," the leaders of the three NAFTA signatories: the United States, Mexico and Canada. 

In his most detailed speech on trade, the presumptive Republican nominee said he would pull the United States out of negotiations for a deal among 12 Pacific Rim nations and promised to use executive power to resolve trade disputes with China.

Trump also pledged to revive the U.S. steel and aluminum industry, speaking at an aluminum scrap company in Monessen, Pennsylvania, nearly 30 miles (50 km) south of Pittsburgh, the one-time American steelmaking capital.

Trump has identified Pennsylvania as a state he believes he can wrest from the Democrats in the Nov. 8 election. He also campaigned on Tuesday in Ohio, which like Pennsylvania is a Rust Belt state. 

Democratic President Barack Obama won both states in 2008 and 2012, but manufacturing job losses have led to voter anxiety in the region.

"I'm going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don't mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better," Trump said in Pennsylvania.

If Canada and Mexico do not agree to renegotiate the pact, Trump said he would notify them under the agreement's terms "that America intends to withdraw from the deal."

He tried to tie his Democratic rival to the pact, approved in 1993 during the administration of her husband, President Bill Clinton, as he called NAFTA one of the "worst legacies" of the Clinton years.

On MSNBC after Trump's speech, Clinton spokeswoman Kristina Schake called the wealthy New York businessman the "king of outsourcing," in an apparent reference to Trump-branded products such as suits and ties made overseas. 

"It was full of hypocrisy and misstatements and outright lies," Schake said.

Trade has been a vulnerability for Clinton, who struggled for white, blue-collar votes in her Democratic primary race against U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who criticized her for supporting trade deals and said she was too close to Wall Street. 

TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

Trump echoed Sanders' criticism on Tuesday, saying Clinton supported the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, while she was secretary of state and only opposed it once she was running for president. Clinton's campaign said she opposed the agreement because it was not strong enough on currency manipulation and other areas. 

Clinton has said she will evaluate each trade deal on its merits but does not believe the TPP is good for U.S. workers. Sanders now says he will vote for Clinton in November, although he has not formally withdrawn from the race.

Trump said he saw no way to fix the TPP, calling it a "death blow" for American manufacturing. Although China is not part of the agreement, Trump said Beijing might try to enter it "through the back door" later on.

Later, during a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio, Trump said the deal was "just a continuing rape of our country."

Just hours before Trump spoke, Clinton allies sought to pre-empt the planned trade speech by saying Trump's policies amounted to empty promises.

Earlier, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told a trade conference in Washington that "Trump embodies everything that is wrong with our current trade policy. He has consistently sent American jobs overseas to line his own pockets."

The AFL-CIO, which collectively represents more than 12 million workers, making it the largest U.S. labor federation, endorsed Clinton this month.

POPULIST ANGER

Both Clinton and Trump have acknowledged that Britain's vote to leave the European Union signaled a global economic frustration among working-class voters that could reverberate in the U.S. election.

"There is a lot of legitimate anxiety, fear and even anger in many parts of our country because people feel like the economy has failed them," Clinton said in Denver on Tuesday. "I think this is going to be one of the defining issues in this election."

Trump has seized on the historic Brexit vote to bolster his argument that voters are rising up against establishment leaders, saying Americans would reject the "global elite" and support his presidential candidacy.

But Trump has broken with Republican Party orthodoxy in criticizing trade deals, and has threatened to slap tariffs on Mexican and Chinese imports. His rhetoric has drawn criticism from many economists, who say such practices could spark trade wars.

As Trump spoke, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is usually in sync with prominent Republicans on trade policy, said on Twitter: "Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy."

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

#‎parisagreement‬

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

"PARIS AGREEMENT" IS NOT REALLY ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

GOOD-BYE FOREVER TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

~ Climate change pact adopted by delegates of nearly 200 nations

LE BOURGET, France -

Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don't.

The "Paris agreement" aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.

The countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound and costly changes.

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments - at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions - before taking effect.

The White House is calling the Paris accord "the most ambitious climate change agreement in history" and says it establishes "a long-term, durable global framework" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is praising the new accord on global warming as a deal that will save the world for generations to come, saying "it's a victory for all of the planet and for future generations."

Kerry told fellow negotiators Saturday in Paris that "it will help the world prepare for the impacts of climate change that are already here and also for those that we already know are on our way inevitably." He added the pact would "prevent the worst most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening."

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says "years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity's moral courage to solve the climate crisis. And they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act."

Nicaragua's U.S.-born climate envoy, Paul Oquist, told climate negotiators that his country is "not able to support the consensus." He said the agreement does not go far enough and leads to twice as much global warming as the stated goals.

South African environment minister Edna Molewa calls the pact "the best we can get at this historic moment."

She says it "can map a turning point to a better and safer world" but she added that developed countries still have to cut emissions more and help poorer nations to counter the effects of global warming.

Post Sources: AP, WTHR, PBS, YouTube

Afghanistan Becomes U.S. Ally; American Troops Still Slated To Exit In 2014

U.S. Grants Special Ally Status to Afghans, Easing Fears of Abandonment

The United States declared Afghanistan a major, non-NATO ally on Saturday, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other close Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

The move, announced as Mrs. Clinton stood with President Hamid Karzai amid the rose beds and towering trees on the grounds of the presidential palace here, was part of a broad strategic partnership deal signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May, she said. The pact went into effect last week.

“Please know that the United States will be your friend,” she told Mr. Karzai. “We are not even imagining abandoning Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. We are building a partnership with Afghanistan that will endure far into the future.”

The designation by the United States grants a country special privileges, like access to American military training and excess military supplies, Mrs. Clinton said.

In a separate statement, the State Department said Afghanistan would also be able to obtain loans of equipment from the United States and financing for leasing equipment. The agreement does not, however, “entail any security commitment” by the United States to Afghanistan, the State Department said.

Iraq was never given the status of a major ally, and American troops withdrew last year.

Afghanistan’s designation as a formal ally was the latest in a series of recent American moves that have eased — though not erased — Afghan fears of being abandoned at the end of NATO’s combat mission in 2014.

The moves also appear to have already yielded one dividend for the United States: Mr. Karzai has not recently lashed out at his backers, as he has in the past, at one point calling Americans “demons.”

On Saturday, he welcomed Mrs. Clinton, calling her “my old American friend” in his remarks. “We appreciate your concern and good will toward Afghanistan,” he said.

Later, as Mrs. Clinton said she was sorry to have to leave so soon, Mr. Karzai offered what he said was an old saying in Persian: “When a friend is alive, they will meet again.”

American and Afghan officials say they now must turn to working out a deal that would keep a residual American force here to continue training Afghan soldiers and tracking down insurgents after 2014. Talks on the arrangement have not yet begun, American officials say. Estimates of the number of troops that could stay vary from as little as 10,000 to as many as 25,000 or 30,000.

But Mrs. Clinton reiterated on Saturday that Washington did envision keeping American troops in Afghanistan, where they would provide the kind of air power and surveillance capabilities needed to give Afghan forces an edge over the Taliban.

“This is the kind of relationship that we think will be especially beneficial as we do the transition and as we plan for the post-2014 presence,” she said. “It will open the door to Afghanistan’s military to have a greater capability and a broader kind of relationship with the United States and especially the United States military.”

Mrs. Clinton made a short stop in Kabul en route to Tokyo, where an international conference will be held to raise money to support the Afghan government after 2014. At the American Embassy, she praised the work done by civilians in the war. State Department officials said that her remarks were intended to rebut what many in the State Department consider unfair criticism of their work in Afghanistan, where they have often been portrayed as not carrying their weight compared with the military.

But American soldiers and civilians alike have faced one common struggle: assuaging Afghan fears of abandonment. Many here fear that the country is headed toward a repeat of the early 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet-backed government, coupled with an American pullback from the region, left Afghanistan mired in a brutal civil war.

The Taliban grew out of the chaos, and they quickly took over much of the country.

Along with reassuring Afghans, Mrs. Clinton made clear that she was also sending a message to the Taliban.

The alliance and other American commitments to Afghanistan “should make clear to the Taliban that they cannot wait us out,” she said, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. “They can renounce international terrorism and commit to an Afghan peace process, or they will face the increasingly capable Afghan national security forces, backed by the United States.”

At the same time, Washington remains committed to the stalled Afghan peace process, she said. The insurgents suspended talks in March — halting negotiations before they really began — over delays in a proposed prisoner swap that would have the United States release five Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier known to be held by the insurgents.

Designating Afghanistan an ally, however, has the potential to raise awkward issues for the United States. There is Afghanistan’s hot-and-cold relationship with Pakistan, also an ally, and the possibility the two neighbors could have a falling-out, especially if Afghan officials believe in the years after 2014 that their Pakistani counterparts continue to aid the Taliban.

Afghanistan, one of the 10 poorest countries in the world, is also the least developed of America’s major, non-NATO allies by a wide margin. Other allies — like South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Thailand — are far more capable of defending themselves and policing their own territory; Afghanistan is capable of doing that now and for the foreseeable future only with ample American help.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Visits Afghanistan To Sign 10-Yr Agreement; Romney & McCain Approve

Transcript: Obama hails 'light of a new day' in Afghanistan

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home, but for over a decade it has been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed an historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries -- a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I'd like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe-haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, ten years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda's extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban's momentum. We've built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

The goal that I set -- to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild -- is within reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I'd like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we have begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

Second, we are training Afghan security forces to get the job done. Those forces have surged, and will peak at 352,000 this year. The Afghans will sustain that level for three years and then reduce the size of their military. And in Chicago, we will endorse a proposal to support a strong and sustainable long-term Afghan force.

Third, we are building an enduring partnership. The agreement we signed today sends a clear message to the Afghan people: as you stand up, you will not stand alone. It establishes the basis of our cooperation over the next decade, including shared commitments to combat terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions.

It supports Afghan efforts to advance development and dignity for their people. And it includes Afghan commitments to transparency and accountability, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans -- men and women, boys and girls.

Within this framework, we will work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014: counter-terrorism and continued training. But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people.

Fourth, we are pursuing a negotiated peace. In coordination with the Afghan government, my administration has been in direct discussions with the Taliban.

We have made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the Taliban -- from foot soldiers to leaders -- have indicated an interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before them. Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies.

Fifth, we are building a global consensus to support peace and stability in South Asia. In Chicago, the international community will express support for this plan, and for Afghanistan's future. I have made it clear to Afghanistan's neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions.

In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.

As we move forward, some people will ask why we need a firm time line. The answer is clear: our goal is not to build a country in America's image, or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban. These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars, and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that. Afghans want to fully assert their sovereignty and build a lasting peace. That requires a clear time line to wind down the war.

Others will ask why we don't leave immediately. That answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize. Otherwise, our gains could be lost, and al Qaeda could establish itself once more. And as commander in chief, I refuse to let that happen.

I recognize that many Americans are tired of war. As president, nothing is more wrenching than signing a letter to a family of the fallen, or looking in the eyes of a child who will grow up without a mother or father. I will not keep Americans in harm's way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan and end this war responsibly.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm's way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda.

This future is only within reach because of our men and women in uniform. Time and again, they have answered the call to serve in distant and dangerous places. In an age when so many institutions have come up short, these Americans stood tall. They met their responsibilities to one another, and the flag they serve under. I just met with some of them, and told them that as commander in chief, I could not be prouder. In their faces, we see what is best in ourselves and our country.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians in Afghanistan have done their duty. Now, we must summon that same sense of common purpose. We must give our veterans and military families the support they deserve, and the opportunities they have earned. And we must redouble our efforts to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice.

As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.

Here, in Afghanistan, Americans answered the call to defend their fellow citizens and uphold human dignity. Today, we recall the fallen, and those who suffer wounds seen and unseen. But through dark days we have drawn strength from their example, and the ideals that have guided our nation and lit the world: a belief that all people are created equal, and deserve the freedom to determine their destiny.

That is the light that guides us still. This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end. With faith in each other and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand, and forge a just and lasting peace. May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.


Romney Praises Obama’s Afghanistan Visit

Putting aside recent political battles over last year’s Osama Bin Laden raid, Mitt Romney issued a statement praising President Obama’s visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday and echoed his commitment to preventing Al Qaeda from re-establishing a foothold in the wartorn nation.

His statement, in full:

“I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our President about what is at stake in this war. Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation’s security. It would be a tragedy for Afghanistan and a strategic setback for America if the Taliban returned to power and once again created a sanctuary for terrorists. We tolerated such a sanctuary until we lost thousands on September 11, 2001. Many brave Americans have sacrificed everything so that we could win this fight for a more secure future. Let us honor the memory of the fallen, not only by keeping them in our daily thoughts but also by staying true to their commitment. We are united as one nation in our gratitude to our country’s heroes.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, TPM, Google Maps

Obama's Debt Ceiling Deal Announced! Devil Is In The Details: Cuts & Taxes

So Pres. Obama Has Announced Another Debt Ceiling Deal.

Isn't This Like The 10th Deal Since He First Requested An Increase 5 Months Ago?

I Won't Hold My Breath On This One, Nor Will I Celebrate Yet.

As Nancy Pelosi Says: "The Devil Is In The Details".

I Want To Know What's In This Compromise/ Deal!

NOT Bits & Pieces!

EVERYTHING!!!!

Did Pres. Obama Throw BLACK Middle Class Voters, Veterans, Senior Citizens, College Students & Low Income Citizens Under The Bus Again?

Or Will He Finally End The Bush Tax Cuts?

Stay Tuned!




Obama and Leaders Reach Debt Deal

President Obama and Congressional leaders of both parties said late Sunday that they had agreed to a framework for a budget deal that would cut trillions of dollars in federal spending over the next decade and clear the way for an increase in the government’s borrowing limit.

With the health of the fragile economy hanging in the balance and financial markets watching closely, the leaders said they would present the compromise to their caucuses on Monday morning in hopes of enacting it before a Tuesday deadline to avert default.

Even as the president was speaking from the White House on Sunday night, Speaker John A. Boehner was on a conference call with House Republicans, trying to sell them on the proposal he had signed off on only minutes before.

Since he is likely to lose the most conservative elements of the caucus, Mr. Boehner faces the task of framing the pact as friendly enough to Republican principles to win over a significant group of his rank-and-file without alienating Democrats he will need to push it over the top.

President Obama, in a hastily called appearance with reporters that ended a day of uncertainty, said that the compromise would “allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America.”

“It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months,” he said. “And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.”

Just before Mr. Obama spoke on television, the two Senate leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, took the floor to endorse the pact as well.

“I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff,” said Mr. Reid, the majority leader.

The tentative agreement calls for at least $2.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, a new Congressional committee to recommend a deficit-reduction proposal by Thanksgiving, and a two-step increase in the debt ceiling.

The announcement concluded a tumultuous 24 hours that saw hopes rise Saturday night over the prospects of a deal that might have concluded the budget stalemate. By Sunday, worry set in again as lawmakers and White House officials struggled to hammer out the fine points of an agreement that must clear a Senate controlled by Democrats as well as by the Republican House.

If the deal clears Congress, with its new special joint committee to explore deficit reduction, it will ensure that the size and scope of the federal government and the tension between spending and taxes will remain front and center in the Washington debate headed into the 2012 election.

Markets reacted favorably to the announcement. Asian markets jumped on news of the deal. The Nikkei was up 1.7 percent in early trading; the dollar rose about 1.4 percent against the Japanese yen.

The agreement came after a day of wrangling over Pentagon cuts, and it still must win majority support in the Senate and the House, with the House providing a particular challenge.

On the conference call, Mr. Boehner sought to portray the new agreement as one heavily tilted toward the Republican call for no new revenue, and he said it met the goal of instituting cuts greater than the amount of the debt limit increase. In a presentation, he said the pact would prevent a “job-killing default” — a warning to lawmakers that failure to raise the limit could add to the bleak employment picture.

“Our framework is now on the table that will end this crisis in a manner that meets our principles of smaller government,” said Mr. Boehner, who said he hoped to get the legislation onto the House floor as quickly as possible.

As conversations flowed between the White House and Capitol Hill, Mr. Reid earlier Sunday publicly embraced the compromise that would tie deep spending cuts to a debt ceiling increase, though his plan to bring it to a vote as early as Sunday was put off, as was a tentative meeting of Senate Democrats to review it.

According to Congressional and administration officials, the delay was attributable to efforts by Mr. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, to limit immediate reductions in the Pentagon budget and better protect it from future cuts in order to cement votes from defense hawks. He needs those votes to win approval of the plan in the House.

The tense, last-minute negotiations were taking place against a backdrop of uncertainty, with a looming threat of a costly downgrade of the nation’s credit rating and with investors worried about the global economic impact of a possible default. The political stakes were unusually high as well, with leaders in both parties staking out positions that may well be central to their re-election chances in 2012.

If the compromise were to be nailed down, attention would immediately turn to selling it to the rank-and-file. The leadership was anticipating objections from Republicans that the plan did not go far enough while Democrats were wary that Medicare spending would take a hit.

Despite the remaining political and procedural hurdles, the predominant mood on Capitol Hill was one of cautious relief that the gears were turning to produce legislation that would eliminate the threat of a potential government default after Tuesday.

Referring to the tortuous negotiations, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said: “Sausage making is not pretty. But the sausage we have, I think, is a very different sausage from when we started.”

She noted that the proposed caps on federal spending, combined with creation of a new evenly divided panel to cut the deficit further, could fundamentally change federal finances.

But not everyone was pleased. “It may be the best we can do,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee. “But I do not think it’s enough.”

With the talks appearing to make progress, the Senate blocked a Democratic proposal for a debt limit increase on a vote 50-49, falling 10 votes short of the 60 required to limit debate. But all attention was on the negotiations.



White House aides were in a flurry of meetings as they prepared for the prospect of announcing a deal. After weeks of political theatrics and Congressional votes that appeared to go nowhere, the mood at the White House on Sunday afternoon was one of cautious optimism.

But Obama administration officials are also aware of the precarious risk the president was running if he strikes a deal that Congressional Democrats find hard to swallow. Mr. Obama’s top political aides, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the senior White House adviser David Plouffe, were on the phone Sunday afternoon with Democratic leaders, who gathered in the Capitol Sunday afternoon to explore the outlook for the measure.

A major question mark remained the House of Representatives, where a vote on the agreement could occur Monday and where Mr. Boehner has found it difficult to corral the most conservative wing of the rank-and-file. While the bipartisan deal would be expected to attract significant Democratic support, Mr. Boehner must still persuade many of his members to get behind it and would be pushing for at least half of the House Republicans to back it.

In an e-mail to Republican House members, Mr. Boehner noted that “discussions are under way on legislation that will cut government spending more than it increases the debt limit, and advance the cause of the balanced budget amendment, without job-killing tax hikes.”

“Those talks are moving in the right direction, but serious issues remain,” the speaker wrote.

Under the plan as described by officials briefed on its outline, the debt limit would be increased by $900 billion in the first installment, subject to a Congressional vote of disapproval that Mr. Obama would be able to veto. To prevent a default, $400 billion would be added immediately.

A second increase of $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion would be available subject to a second vote of disapproval by Congress. At the same time, a new joint Congressional committee would be created to find a like amount of cuts.

If the evenly divided committee failed to agree on a plan, Congress would either have to approve a balanced budget agreement or accept an across-the-board cut in spending in line with the committee’s goal, with 50 percent of the savings coming from the Pentagon beginning in 2013. Medicare would also sustain cuts, though the reductions would be capped.

The rationale for picking such favored programs as the Pentagon for Republicans and Medicare for Democrats was to provide a strong incentive for the new committee to avoid a deadlock and deliver a deficit reduction plan that could clear Congress.

According to Democratic officials close to the talks, among the final sticking points that were worked out were efforts to exempt the Medicaid program from reductions under the automatic spending reductions and make certain that the Medicare cuts hit health care providers, not beneficiaries.

Negotiators did agree that any deal would not include language that could lead to a new formula for the annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries that could save more than $100 billion in the first 10 years. While many economists have long said the existing formula overstates inflation, many Democrats oppose any change that would reduce benefits from current law.

Dropping the proposal from the White House-Congressional talks reflected in part the influence of Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader, whose negotiating hand has been strengthened since she will have to deliver a significant number of Democratic votes for House passage of any solution given the likelihood that Mr. Boehner will face significant loss of Republican votes.

Senators said they expected that the plan as it was being portrayed would attract a bipartisan vote even though both Democrats and Republicans would have reservations.

Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said that from the terms of the deal described to him, “I think I will be satisfied and supportive.” After years of work, he noted, Congress has become “serious about cuts in spending.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, NY Times, Google Maps

Obama Seals $30 Bil COP 15 Climate Deal

"Meaningful" Climate deal reached


The United States, China, India and South Africa have reached a "meaningful" climate change deal that sets a cap on worldwide temperature increases at no more than 2 degrees, contains no binding emissions standards — and a deal one senior administration admitted "is not sufficient" to combat long-term global warming.

The deal was struck after a day of frantic talks — and following a hastily organized multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Indian Prime Minister Singh and President Zuma.

"[A] meaningful agreement was reached," the official said. "It's not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it's an important first step... No country is entirely satisfied with each element, but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress."

The official added: "We entered this negotiation at a time when there were significant differences between countries. Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of 2 degrees Celsius and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines."

It's not clear how many nations — particularly poorer nations who felt shut out of the process — were included in the final deal or how they will react to the announcement.

Earlier Friday, a visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come "not to talk but to act" on climate change.

Obama’s public ultimatum kicked off a furious round of bilateral negotiations between the world’s two largest pollution emitters as the conference entered its final hours, with Obama plunging into a pair of bargaining sessions involving Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who had earlier boycotted a larger, multi-nation meeting with Obama.

As night fell in the Danish capital, the talks dragged on, with Obama extending his visit to complete a deal even as a big snowstorm closed in on Washington, D.C.

The outlines of a relatively vague “political” agreement seemed to be taking shape, according to three drafts of possible statements leaked to the press Friday. The latest draft contained a goal of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 percent — a tougher standard than the previous 2 percent threshold in earlier drafts.

Still, there was no hint of the emissions caps that were thought to be critical before the conference began two weeks ago.

On Friday morning, Obama warned delegates that U.S. offers of funding for poor nations would remain on the table “if and only if” developing nations, including China, agreed to international monitoring of their greenhouse gas emissions.

"I have to be honest, as the world watches us ... I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt and it hangs in the balance,” Obama told the COP-15 plenary session, as hope faded for anything more than a vague political agreement.

“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor, or we can choose delay,” he said.

He added, “The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. … We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years.”

Back home, senators critical to getting a climate bill through Congress have stressed that developing nations must submit to international monitoring — particularly if they want the U.S. to pay hundreds of billions to help combat the destructive impact of climate change.

"The only way we'll be successful in America is for countries like China and India to make an equivalent commitment," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is crafting a bipartisan climate bill. "We're not going to unilaterally disarm."

While Obama emphasized the U.S. commitment to taking action on climate change, he did not set a deadline for specific Senate action on the climate bill.

Former Vice President Al Gore and other environmental activists have pushed the Senate to pass legislation by April 22, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, in hope of providing momentum to international talks next year.

The lack of specific domestic and international commitments in Obama's address indicated that an international agreement still hung in the balance — even as the talks moved into the final weekend.

Overnight reports that world leaders had agreed to a tentative final climate change deal in Copenhagen were greatly exaggerated — and the outcome of the COP-15 conference was still very much up in the air when Air Force One touched down at 9:01 a.m. local time.

“What’s on the table still has large gaps and unanswered questions," said David Waskow, climate change program director at Oxfam America. "The United States must get more specific to make a real deal possible.”

After addressing the delegates, Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao for close to an hour to discuss emissions goals, verification mechanisms and climate financing. The lack of agreement between China and the U.S. — the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters — has been a major stumbling block in the talks.

A White House official described the discussion as “constructive” and said that the two leaders asked their negotiators to get together one on one after the meeting.

Obama had been expected to meet one on one with Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen immediately after landing in Copenhagen Friday morning, followed by an 11 a.m. speech to the conference's plenary session. But recognizing the urgency of the situation, he quickly canceled those plans to sit in on a much larger session with Rasmussen, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a Chinese representative, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and others.

"There are big problems, it is moving very slowly, and China and India are blocking," Sarkozy told the Danish daily Politiken after leaving the meeting, which broke up at 11:30 a.m.

Weary and frustrated negotiators described a process that still involved the nibbling of policy appetizers at a time when prior conferences were already on to the coffee and dessert of their valedictory speeches.

They warned that none of the several drafts circulating in Copenhagen represented even the bones of a final deal, with many key issues still in flux and time running out. Moreover, U.S. predictions that roadblocks could be thrown up by smaller countries seemed to be coming true, with last-minute objections voiced by Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, according to people familiar with talks.

"There are deep differences in opinion and views on how we should solve this. We'll try our best, until the last minutes of this conference," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told reporters as overnight talks ended.

Negotiators from nearly 200 nations, working around the clock, did agree to a broad mandate to cap the global temperature increase from pre-industrial levels at 2 degrees Celsius. But there was no deal on emissions caps or specific carbon cuts, according to officials briefed on the talks.

One key sticking point: a demand by industrialized nations that the document produced here be legally binding, the so-called operational agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about yesterday.

Developing countries, led by China, India and the African Union, still seemed unwilling to sign off on a final document, despite a new deal sweetener that could add as much as $30 billion to the $100 billion annual international fund for poor nations by 2020 outlined by Clinton on Thursday.

An official with a developing nation told Reuters that rich nations were offering to cut their carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, a proposal that had been rejected by developing nations. Developing nations have always insisted on the need for midterm targets.

"The situation is desperate," a top Indian negotiator told the wire service. "There is no agreement on even what to call the text — a declaration, a statement or whatever. They (rich nations) want to make it a politically binding document, which we oppose."

And the U.S. was still wrestling with China and India over international monitoring of their emissions cuts, a sticking point that ground the entire conference to a halt early Thursday.

Danes monitored the progress of Obama's arrival obsessively, with cabbies craning at dashboard TV sets to monitor the approach of Air Force One from distant dot to Obama's arrival. He was accompanied by environment czar Carol Browner, aide Valerie Jarrett, press secretary Robert Gibbs and National Security Adviser Jim Jones.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, The Daily Beast, Google Maps

Dems Reach "Agreement" On Health Care Reform, Next CBO's Report

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reid: Dems reach "Broad Agreement"



Senate Democrats have reached a "broad agreement" on a health reform bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday night — a plan that would replace the public option in the current Senate bill with a new national insurance plan offered by private insurers, and a chance for older Americans to “buy in” to Medicare.

Democrats on Tuesday night took a major step forward on a plan by agreeing to ask congressional scorekeepers to give them cost estimates on a possible compromise that would break the impasse over health reform in the Senate.

In doing so, Senate negotiators moved decisively away from including a government-run health insurance plan that would start on Day One in any final compromise, a major disappointment for the Democratic base but one that is likely to prove necessary to win over fiscally moderate senators.

Instead, Democrats are considering including a “trigger” that would allow a public plan to kick in – but only in the event that private insurers didn’t step up and offer policies for the new national health insurance plan, which seemed unlikely.

To win over liberals disappointed at losing the public option, Democrats would allow older Americans starting at age 55 to buy into Medicare, the popular program for the aged. The Medicare expansion would be a significant victory for Democrats, who spent years pushing for it. The proposal would in effect create a public health insurance option for older Americans, since Medicare is government-funded and government-run.

If the Senate reaches a compromise based on these principles, it would set up a major clash with the House, which included a pure public option in a bill passed last month. Some House progressives, like Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), have been critical of the Senate’s national plan idea, calling it “a "whitewash" and "not even reminiscent" of the public option.

The broad outlines of the Senate deal had been discussed for days, but Democrats emerged from a closed-door session about 8 p.m. with news of the breakthrough. Some were reluctant to call it a deal until hearing back from the Congressional Budget Office about how much the proposed new provisions would cost.

“This is a consensus that will help insure that the American people win in a couple different ways. One, insurance companies will certainly have more competition. And two, the American people will certainly have more choices," Reid told reporters in the Capitol, but refused to divulge details of the agreement.

“Not everyone will agree to every piece we sent over there,” Reid said. “But believe me that we've got something that's good...it moves this bill way down the road."

Reid also disputed that the public insurance option would be eliminated under the proposed agreement, but he did not elaborate.

The state “opt-out” public option in the current Senate bill is no longer in play. But the group sent a proposal to the Congressional Budget Office for the public option “trigger,” according to people familiar with the talks.

The group also reached a consensus to expand access to Medicare, allowing people 55 to 64 to purchase coverage in the program. Details of who would be eligible within that age group were unclear Tuesday.

The “buy-in” period could kick in as early as 2011 – three years ahead of when the larger set of reforms would begin – although the coverage for the interim period would not be subsidized.

The national insurance plan would be administered by the same federal agency that oversees the respected Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But the insurance options within that plan would be offered by private, nonprofit entities.

There was movement towards placing tighter regulations on the insurance industry. At the top of the list was a proposal from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) requiring insurers to spend at least 90 percent of premium money on medical care, rather than on administrative costs or profits.

The agreement also includes a proposal from Rockefeller to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was set to expire in Oct. 1, 2013.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) was described by sources as one of the last holdouts within the room on the public option. He released a statement Tuesday indicating that he has not signed onto the proposal.

“While I appreciate the willingness of all parties to engage in good-faith discussions, I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” he said. “We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars. I will base my vote on the bill on the entirety of what is in the bill, and whether I think the bill is good for Wisconsin.”

Other key progressives did not respond as critically.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who supports the need for a public option, said: “Do I like it? No, but I'm going to support it to the hilt.”

On MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), perhaps the most ardent public option booster, said the proposal was a “tradeoff.”

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, had repeatedly called for the bill’s defeat without a pure public option. But on “Countdown,” he said the Medicare expansion was a “big deal.”

The Senate breakthrough came as the clock was already winding down on Reid’s hopes of getting a bill done by Christmas. He had told negotiators – five liberal and five moderates – that he needed a deal by Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

Reid credited Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) with helping the group of 10 complete what the majority leader called an "impossible job."

With a deadline imminent, Democratic senators had scrambled Tuesday to break a months-long impasse over the public option, but stubborn political obstacles emerged as details of the possible compromise took shape.

As quickly as the outline of an agreement seemed to emerge Monday, parts of it had fallen away by Tuesday afternoon — the casualty of opposition raised by moderates. At the same time, progressive senators were still resisting pressure to give up entirely on the public option, while some moderates were balking at the trigger, according to an official briefed on the meetings.

There was also pressure not to further expand a proposal from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that would allow states to negotiate with private industry to provide group coverage for low-income people. The bill limits states to negotiating for people who earn up to twice the federal poverty line.

By Tuesday evening, the group was no longer considering opening Medicaid to people with incomes 150 percent above the poverty line, according to senators involved in the talks. It faded as a realistic option amid concerns among moderates and many governors that it would put too much of a burden on state governments, which pick up a portion of the coverage costs.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who is still being wooed by Democrats, expressed strong skepticism toward another key element, the expansion of Medicare to people between 55 and 64. She said she was concerned the bill would rely too much on government to fill gaps in insurance coverage that the private sector should handle.

Reid said he had not spoken to Snowe since the Democratic group concluded its talks.

An added difficulty was the Senate’s rejection Tuesday of an amendment by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to strengthen restrictions on federal funding for abortion coverage. He has said he would filibuster the bill if it didn’t provide adequate restrictions but Tuesday would only say that the defeat of his amendment “makes it harder to be supportive.”

“I had no Plan B, and I’m not looking for a Plan B,” Nelson said.

Nelson said he would look at any compromises on the abortion language that were presented to him but does not plan to work on one himself. Nelson continued to participate in the public option talks, but it was unclear Tuesday night if he had signed onto the “broad agreement.”

Earlier in the day, Snowe was highly skeptical of a proposal to expand Medicare and Medicaid — signaling that her support for an emerging public option compromise will be difficult to secure.

Democrats have been hopeful they could attract Snowe’s vote for a final health reform deal and gain a little breathing room in trying to reach 60 votes. But Snowe said the latest proposals on the table would take the legislation in the wrong direction, adding more government involvement at a time when voters want less.

“My deep concern is about the breadth and scale of this legislation, taking it in a more expansionistic approach for government’s role rather than the reverse,” Snowe told reporters. “You can design incentives in this legislation to maximize the power of the marketplace in making sure the industry performs.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), another undecided moderate who opposes any version of the public plan, hasn’t been participating in the meetings. But his staff is present, and he speaks with Schumer every day, Lieberman told reporters Tuesday.

He said he is encouraged by a proposal to remove the public option and replace it with a national nonprofit insurance program administered by a federal agency. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, Lieberman said he needed to examine the additional costs.

Both the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals sent alerts to its members Tuesday urging them to call senators in opposition to the proposals.

“Remember that we worked hard to successfully and significantly change the House bill so its public option was not entirely based on Medicare rates, but largely negotiated rates, and in the Senate we worked to ensure that the Finance Committee bill has a nonprofit, nongovernmental public option based on negotiated rates and not tied to Medicare or Medicaid,” read the alert from the American Hospital Association.

“Adding millions of people to these programs at a time when they already severely underfund hospitals is unwise and should be opposed.”


Sources: MSNBC, Rachel Maddow Show, Politico

Global Media Demands Climate Change Deal Be Reached...56 International Newspapers

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: "Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation"


Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.



View Larger Map

Sources: Guardian.co.uk, Politico, Google Maps