Gillespie vs Gibbs: Obama's Economic Policies & Job Creation

Romney adviser: Obama's policies are "hostile to job creators"

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's senior adviser Ed Gillespie said on "Face the Nation" that President Obama's policies are "hostile to private investment and job creators."

"That's why we have been at eight percent unemployment or higher for the past 39 months," Gillespie said. "That is why there are 23 million Americans today who are either unemployed or underemployed or left the work force entirely, and why millions of people have lost their home and ended up in food stamps and poverty, because this president is hostile to job creators."

President Obama's senior adviser Robert Gibbs had a different take on the president's record, pointing to "25 consecutive months of private sector job growth."

Gibbs added: "We are certainly happy to talk a little bit about Mitt Romney and his record of not creating jobs in virtually every step of his life."

He points to Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. "We have seen this experiment in Massachusetts... and [he] took that state's job creation numbers to 47th in the country."

However, Gillespie defended Romney's gubernatorial record in the Bay State: "During his time as governor, the unemployment rate dropped from nearly six percent to 4.7 percent; there was net job creation of about 40,000 jobs."

Last July, FactCheck.org looked into these claims and reported that Romney's job creation numbers grew slower than the national average.



Gibbs: Bain is Romney's "thesis" for president, calls attacks fair

On "Face the Nation," President Obama's senior campaign adviser Robert Gibbs defended the campaign's attacks on Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mitt Romney co-founded and led for more than a decade.

"That is what Mitt Romney is running on," Gibbs hold host Bob Schieffer. "This is a criticism and a good criticism, quite honestly, of Mitt Romney's only thesis for being president of the United States . . . and I think the American people and voters deserve to understand what Mitt Romney means when he says he has the keys to being the economic savior."

The Obama campaign makes the argument that Romney's role at the private equity firm, whose main role is to make money for investors, is not equivalent to creating jobs. To drive home the point, the campaign released two ads in the past two weeks hitting Romney's record at Bain, pointing to two companies - Ampad and GST Steel - that laid-off workers after Bain Capital acquired them.

Host Bob Schieffer queried Gibbs about the tenor of the campaign: "Whatever happened to hope and change?" he asked.

"Bob, there is going to be a choice in this election," Gibbs responded, saying that people will have a "visceral reaction" to Romney's Bain record.

Gibbs added that the Obama campaign is "certainly happy to talk a little bit about Mitt Romney and his record of not creating jobs in virtually every step of his life."

Gibbs also used Ronald Reagan's famous campaign query to voters. "That is what this campaign is going to be about . . . 'Who are you going to be better off with over the next four years?'" Gibbs said. "I don't think there is any doubt that when this election is said and done it will be close. But people of this country will reject the sort of speculation-type economic gains that Mitt Romney is quite good at for himself and for his investors, and instead look for an economy that is growing, that is built to last, that continues the job creation that we have seen and not quite frankly return to the failed policies of the past."

Also on the program, Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to Mitt Romney, responded to Gibbs' attacks.

"There is correlation, Bob, between making money and growing a company and job creation. That is what President Obama doesn't understand, because he never has been in the private sector and doesn't really understand how it works. I think that is why his policies are so hostile to job creation," Gillespie said.

Gillespie pointed to Solyndra, a government-backed green-energy company that went bankrupt after receiving a government subsidy.

"That is their view of the world [that] we would be better off with political appointees deciding to put our taxpayer money at risk, and reward campaign donors, as was the case in Solyndra, [rather than to put private capital at risk," Gillespie said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Google Maps

Obama's Public Equity Business Record vs Romney's Private Equity Record: Both "Fair Game"!

Mitt Romney’s Private Equity Business Record is Fair Game.
Pres. Obama’s Public Equity Business Ventures is also Fair Game.

All is Fair in Love, War & Politics!

So how much money did Pres. Obama Invest in Public Equity Business Ventures? Billions.

How much Taxpayer Money was lost? Billions.

How many of those Public Equity Business Ventures were Minority-Owned i.e., BLACK-Owned? NONE!










Forget Bain — Obama’s Public-Equity record is the real Scandal

Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:

● Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

● ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Worse, according to CBS News the company is “under investigation for insider trading,” and Karner has been subpoenaed “for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.”

● Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

● First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.”

● Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

● Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.’ ” In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.

Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States.



President Obama wants it both ways on Private Equity

PRESIDENT OBAMA isn’t backing down from his campaign ad attacking Mitt Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital. Actually, “attack” may be too weak a description for a video that likens Bain to “a vampire” and depicts Mr. Romney as a plutocrat who callously destroyed hundreds of steel jobs for his own enrichment. Several prominent members of Mr. Obama’s own party thought the commercial was a bit over the top. (Not to mention highly derivative of previous ones financed by backers of Mr. Romney’s Republican primary rivals.)

Still, politics ain’t beanbag, and, if he’s going to tout it as a qualification for the White House, Mr. Romney’s business record is indeed fair game. The more pertinent question is what to make of Mr. Obama’s defense of the ad, which he offered at a news conference Monday.

Mr. Obama suggested that he never meant to condemn the private equity business as a whole. “I think there are folks who do good work in that area and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries,” he noted. Instead, he added, he meant simply to point out that a career in private equity is not appropriate preparation for the White House. There’s a big difference between what it takes to “maximize profits,” a perfectly legitimate goal in the business world, and what it takes to “figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot,” which is the job of a president, he said.

On one level, it’s reassuring to learn that the president has a nuanced view of private equity, a business that has been rightly praised for revitalizing many a struggling enterprise — and rightly criticized for loading up many rescued firms with debt to pay off investors. Of course, those investors include public employee unions’ pension funds, which had entrusted $220 billion to private equity as of fall 2011, according to Wilshire Trust Universe Comparison Service.

The president accepted $3.5 million in campaign donations from private equity executives in 2008, and additional dollars this time around, so it would have been awkward for him not to concede that private equity does “good work.” As for the ad’s depiction of job destruction, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research found that firms restructured by private equity suffered net job losses over five years only 1 percent greater than other comparable companies.

Yet the minute Mr. Obama conceded those complications — admitted, in effect, that the private equity business, like most endeavors, involves tradeoffs, and that its benefits might be shared among more than a handful of fat cats — he undercut his distinction between “maximizing profit” and the common good. He also undercut his case against Mr. Romney, since Bain had its share of success stories on the former Massachusetts governor’s watch.

What we’re left with is a president who seems content to present an even-handed view of private equity at his news conferences while propounding a much more tendentious one in his campaign advertising. Pointing out that a business career hasn’t fully prepared Mr. Romney to be president, in other words, is a long way from suggesting that he’s a vampire.


Sources: CNN, Washington Post, Youtube

Obama's Attack On Bain Over Romney's Jobs Record Excellent Voter Distraction Strategy; "The Economy Stupid!"

The Obama Team's decision to Attack Romney on Bain Capital was an Excellent Pivot from Obama's Jobs Record.
Don't Hate the Player! Hate the Game!







Forget Cory Booker, Obama’s Bain Capital ad was a brilliant pivot

The Obama campaign ad attacking Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital was a shameless exaggeration but a brilliant political pivot. Instead of running on his record—where he is vulnerable to Mr. Romney—the president is making character the issue.

President Obama promised a lot when he ran for president—to fix the trade deficits with China and on oil, which together steal some five million jobs, curb the excesses at Wall Street banks, and curb escalating health care costs.

In perfectly choreographed fashion, the Bain ad characterized Mr. Romney as someone who bought up healthy businesses, loaded them with debt and then drove into bankruptcy—destroying jobs to enrich his private equity partners.

Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark, made headlines calling the ad “nauseating to the American public,” and that gave Mr. Obama the perfect opportunity to attack Mr. Romney, oh so effectively.

The president strongly defended the ad, stating Mitt Romney is running on his experience at Bain, not his record as governor of Massachusetts.

Then Mr. Obama took the opportunity to say a president can’t just worry about making a profit but rather a president must also worry about whether the country is investing in jobs today and in the future, cutting edge technology, and fairer tax system.

The president's surrogates may have backpedaled on their criticism of private equity, however, Mr. Obama brilliantly drew the contrast between his public career and Mr. Romney’s private pursuit of profit—that’s where he wants voters’ attention.

Most voters didn’t see, and certainly won’t remember the details of the Bain ad, but they will remember Mr. Obama’s goals—creating jobs, reorienting the economy and economic justice—and how Mr. Romney allegedly made his fortune—buying, borrowing, and burying jobs to get rich.

The facts are in the three years since Mr. Obama became president the trade deficit is up 40 percent, J.P. Morgan and other big banks are still running their Manhattan casinos, and health care costs keep rocketing.

It’s a lousy economy full of injustice, and Mr. Obama can’t easily claim to have made things better.

For several days the press coverage will be focused on the Bain ad and private equity, Mr. Obama’s goals and Mr. Romney’s character, and not on the incumbent’s record and the challenger’s solutions.

This is quite similar to the tactic employed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Each time bi-partisan consensus is reached to find money for a policy priority, like extending low interest student loans, he offers a bill to raise taxes on high-income Americans.

He knows Republicans will block such class warfare, and the president can then crow that he stands up for ordinary folk while Republicans stand up for the wealthy.

Yet, Mr. Romney is to blame for not turning the debate to the economy and his solutions. He has criticized the president’s record but not with the showmanship and skill of the Obama to Booker to Obama triple play.

Despite what pundits say about Mr. Booker's performance on "Meet the Press," Mayor Booker played the shill so well—he deserves an academy award for Best Supporting Actor.

More importantly, Mr. Romney by focusing on his private sector experience is not effectively explaining how his solutions on China, energy, banking, and health care will work, make a difference and create jobs.

Sadly, with each passing day, Mr. Romney looks like another hopeful from Massachusetts—John Kerry. Both dress up well, but under the intense lights of a national campaign, easily outwitted by a wily incumbent.



Sources: CBS News, Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Colin Powell Not Endorsing Obama Again Unless Economy Improves; White House Responds

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

‎"The Price Of Greatness Is Responsibility."
Winston Churchill

"You Cannot Escape The Responsibility Of Tomorrow By Evading It Today."
Abraham Lincoln

"The Definition Of Insanity Is Doing The Same Thing Over & Over Again, But Expecting Different Results."
Albert Einstein


‎4-Star General Colin Powell, Former U.S. Secretary of State & the most Powerful, BLACK Republican in America, Endorsed then Senator Barack Obama back in 2008.
Fast forward to 2012.

General Powell has Declined to Endorse pres. Obama again due to the long term troubled Economy.

The American People aren't Stupid!

We know that initially Pres. Obama Inherited a Bad Economy from George W. Bush, however that Excuse is NO longer Viable!

Its been 3 ½ Years & General Powell is Right.

Its time for people be Honest!

From January 2009 to January 2011 Pres. Obama & Congressional Democrats were in Full Control.

They could have easily passed Legislation to start all kinds of Jobs Programs just as Bill Clinton did when he was President.
However this did NOT happen.

Instead they pushed Health Care.

Pres. Obama & Congressional Democrats did NOT Focus enough on Stabilizing the entire U.S. Economy or to help Middle Class & Low Income People.
Only Wall Street & Rich People!

For the record Gen. Powell was NOT bashing Pres. Obama on TV.

He was merely offering Constructive Criticism just as Mayor Cory Booker was attempting to do last Sunday on "Meet The Press."

"“He stabilized the financial system, he brought about stability in the economy, (and) he fixed the auto industry. I think he took us out – not completely out – he took us out of the most difficult problem we were facing at that time, which was an economy that was collapsing. It’s improving, but not fast enough. His number one goal for the rest of this year, as it should’ve been for the whole four years, is to get the economy running again.”
Gen. Colin Powell, May 22, 2012





Colin Powell pauses on endorsing Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that he’s not ready to endorse President Barack Obama’s reelection, as he’s also considering Mitt Romney, a “good man” he’s known for years.

“I don’t want to throw my weight behind somebody,” Powell, who endorsed Obama in 2008, said on NBC’s “Today Show.” “I feel as I private citizen I ought to listen to what the president says and what the president’s been doing.

But I also have to listen to what the other fellow says. I’ve known Mitt Romney for many years, good man.”

Powell said he “owe[s]” the Republican Party some consideration.

The former Bush administration official said that Obama had some substantial accomplishments, but that he wished the president had closed Guantanamo as promised.

“I think he has been [transformational]. Not completely. There are some things that he has done I wish he had not done, for example, leave Guantanamo open. I would have closed that rapidly. He tried, he was stopped by Congress,” said Powell. “He stabilized the financial system he brought about stability in the economy.

He fixed the auto industry.”

Despite these achievements, however, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff still declined to endorse the president.

“It’s not just a matter of whether you support Obama or Romney, it’s who they have coming in with them,” Powell said.

As for Afghanistan, Powell said upon reflection that “it was worth the sacrifice to give the Afghan people a chance at free government” but that “we have to draw the line at some point,” pointing towards the full withdrawal of American and NATO forces in 2014.

The retired four-star general was on NBC promoting his new book, “It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership.”



White House: Obama’s Record Should Impress Colin Powell

White House spokesman Jay Carney said he hopes that retired Gen. Colin Powell will endorse Mr. Obama again, particularly because of his work on national security — in remarks that came after Mr. Powell demurred when asked on NBC’s “Today” show if he was ready to back a candidate. Mr. Powell, a Republican, backed Mr. Obama in 2008, calling him a “transformational” candidate.

Mr. Carney said the president appreciated Gen. Powell’s support four years earlier. He said, “It’s up to him and every American to decide whom they will support going forward,” adding: “In the national security realm, which has, I think, particular resonance with General Powell, the president’s record has been judged to be exemplary by outside observers and commentators.”

Earlier, Mr. Powell praised Mr. Obama’s work in stabilizing the economy, but said it wasn’t improving quickly enough. He declined to say who he would endorse:

“[Mr. Obama] knows that I always keep my powder dry, as they say in the military. I feel as a private citizen I will listen to what the president says and what the president has been doing, but I also have to listen to what the other fella says. I’ve known Mitt Romney for many years – good man. It’s not just a matter of whether you support Obama or Romney, it’s who they have coming with them.’’

He added:

I’m still listening to what the Republicans are saying they’re going to do to fix the fiscal problems. We have to get the economy moving, and I think I owe that to the Republican party.


Sources: MSNBC, NBC, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Youtube

Romney's Bain Role Was Reformer & Successful Business Investor NOT Job Creator!

For the Last time...

Mitt Romney's role at Bain Capital was NOT to Create Jobs!
Romney's Role at Bain was to Reform Businesses & Make Money! That's It!
He's running as a Reformer & a Businessman NOT a Politician!

Its okay to examine Romney's Job Creation record at Bain & as Governor of Mass.
Yes Massachusetts was No.47, however it was NOT No. 47 for Three Consecutive Years in a Row!

The U.S. Economy has Experienced Long Term, High Unemployment for Three Consective Years.

And its double & triple in BLACK Communities.








Tall Tales About Private Equity

PRESIDENT OBAMA started his general election campaign by taking aim at Mitt Romney’s job creation record at Bain, setting off a lively debate over the fairness of the attacks.

I am among those who have been drawn into the argument — there was even a snippet of me defending private equity in a Romney campaign ad.

As a former Obama administration official, I was uncomfortable about being used in a Romney ad in support of his position.

However, I was also concerned that the Obama ads, while narrowly accurate, might be seen to portray Bain Capital (and implicitly, private equity) in an ugly light because a few of the companies the firm invested in went bankrupt while Bain Capital still made money

On Monday, Mr. Obama struck the right balance, emphasizing that he wasn’t attacking private equity but was questioning Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital credentials to be the job creator in chief.

That’s fair, particularly because Mr. Romney himself has been foolishly reweaving history to claim, as recently as last week, that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain.

In fact, Bain Capital — like other private equity firms — was founded and managed for profit: ideally, huge amounts of gain earned legally and legitimately. Any job creation was a welcome but secondary byproduct.

The language in one prospectus seeking Bain Capital investors was clear: “The objective of the Fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated” by other investments. Any job creation was accidental.

In Mr. Romney’s case, his jobs assertion rests heavily on just a few early investments.

Originally hatched to provide venture capital to young enterprises, Bain Capital notched a few such successes, notably Staples and Sports Authority. These were small stakes in companies — about $2.5 million in Staples — over which Bain had little influence.

While I defend the role financiers play in making our economy work, I also concede that Mark Zuckerberg was far more central to the success of Facebook and its 3,200 jobs than the venture capitalists who invested early.

Although Bain Capital sold off those early investments years ago, Mr. Romney takes credit for every job ever created at every company Bain Capital invested in during his tenure — while ignoring jobs eliminated after his departure.

“The steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital,” he said last week about GST Steel, the Kansas City, Mo., company that went bankrupt in 2001. “I was no longer there, so that’s hardly something which is on my watch.”

Meanwhile, when Staples went public in 1989, it had 1,100 employees; at the end of 1998, right before Mr. Romney exited Bain, it had 42,000 workers. Yet Mr. Romney takes credit for the 89,000 employed at the close of 2010.

As the years clicked by, Bain Capital and Mr. Romney smelled the chance to make more money by raising larger amounts. That, in turn, led them toward classic leveraged buyouts — the purchase, often heavily financed by debt, of more established companies.

These enterprises were often what Wall Street describes as “undermanaged,” which means the Bain Capital team could take “aggressive action” that often included cutting costs — read: jobs — to increase profitability.

That’s not wrong; it’s part of capitalism. Whatever its flaws, private equity has made a material contribution to sharpening management. But don’t confuse a leveraged buyout with job creation.

Under Mr. Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital engaged in the less attractive practice of putting more debt on seemingly successful investments in order to take dividends out. In at least four instances of Bain Capital investments during Romney’s tenure, these “recapped” companies, of which two were featured in the Obama ads, subsequently went bankrupt, costing thousands their jobs.

To be sure, some of Bain’s large leveraged buyouts — notably, Domino’s Pizza — added jobs. But Mr. Romney left Bain Capital two months after the Domino’s investment (7,900 new jobs claimed) was finalized.

Aware of private equity’s reputation, Mr. Romney still trots around the country erroneously calling himself a “venture capitalist.”

And in a further effort to deflect attention from the Bain Capital debate, Mr. Romney last week argued that President Obama was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs in the auto industry over the past three years.

That’s both ridiculously false (auto industry and dealership jobs have increased by about 50,000 since January 2009) and a remarkable comment from a man who said that the companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that the industry would have been better off without President Obama’s involvement.

Adding jobs was never Mitt Romney’s private sector agenda, and it’s appropriate to question his ability to do so.


View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Bain Attack Thwarted By Cory Booker's "Nauseated" Constructive Criticism; Romney Campaigns As Successful Businessman

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

Cory Booker's criticisms complicate Obama team's anti-Bain message

Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a rising political star and a surrogate for President Obama's re-election campaign, criticized the president's re-election team on Sunday for its negative ads focusing on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, calling them "nauseating" -- just one day before the Obama team rolled out its second round of Bain attacks.

Booker's remarks illustrate the careful line the Obama team -- including all of its surrogates -- must walk as it tries to cast Romney as a corporate raider without appearing to criticize the private equity industry as a whole. Republicans, starting Sunday, pounced on Booker's remarks, while the Obama camp tried to tailor Booker's remarks to defend its ongoing attacks against Romney.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Booker said that the negatives ads in the presidential campaign are "nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright."

The mayor was referring to the multi-pronged campaign the Obama camp launched last week, attacking Romney's record as the head of Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded, seeking to cast him as a heartless corporate titan and job destroyer. The Obama team today released the second ad in its anti-Bain campaign, which attacks Romney and Bain Capital for laying off workers at an Indiana office supply factory.

Booker seemingly equated the Obama attacks with a proposed ad campaign that would have hit President Obama for his ties to the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Republicans, including Romney, quickly denounced the proposed ad campaign after it was revealed in news reports.

After criticizing the Bain ads on "Meet the Press," Booker took to YouTube to add more context to his remarks -- but he stood by his assertion that such attack ads were "nauseating." Booker said he was expressing his "profound frustration with the kind of campaigning that I think is becoming too much of the norm."
Instead of promoting Booker's nearly four-minute video, the Obama campaign promoted via Twitter an edited, 35-second version which focused on Booker's defense of the attacks against Romney: "Mitt Romney has made his business record a centerpiece of his campaign," Booker said, adding that scrutiny on that record is "reasonable" and that he would "encourage it."

Republicans slammed the Obama team for its handling of the response. "Obama clamping down on @corybooker shows that democrats are no longer allowed to defend free market," Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tweeted.

The RNC later put a petition online called "I stand with Cory," which said, "That's right Mr. President, we aren't going to let you destroy free enterprise. Stand up for America. Stand up for job creators."

After the Obama team on Monday rolled out its new anti-Bain video, the Romney campaign responded by referring to Booker's remarks.

"President Obama continues his assault on the free enterprise system with attacks that one of his supporters, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, called 'nauseating' and a former adviser, Steven Rattner, called 'unfair,'" Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul said in a statement. "Americans expected a different kind of politics from Barack Obama but, sadly, this is just more of the same failed politics that dominates Washington."

Later Monday morning, the Romney campaign highlighted remarks from another Democrat, former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., who said on MSNBC Monday morning that he agreed with Booker's remarks.

When asked about Booker's remarks on a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt noted that Booker said Romney's record deserves scrutiny, and that Booker said "Romney had not been forthright about his tenure."

LaBolt said the campaign was "not at all" worried negative attacks would lower turnout among the president's supporters, arguing that the president's re-election team is also conveying a positive vision of the future. "We've not heard an affirmative vision from Mitt Romney," he said.

LaBolt also reiterated that the campaign is "not questioning the purpose of private equity as a whole."

"There are many ways to run a business and many ways to measure that business's success," he said, charging that Romney put profits ahead of long term growth.

Those "same values would have severe consequences for middle class families if he were elected," LaBolt continued. "It's time to stop pretending Romney's time as a corporate buyout specialist...somehow means he knows how to create jobs."



Obama camp doubles down on Bain attacks

Attempting to drive home the message that Mitt Romney is a corporate executive concerned with the bottom line and not American jobs, the Obama campaign released a new video on Monday attacking Romney and Bain Capital for laying off workers at an Indiana office supply factory.

The video, which runs nearly six minutes in length, focuses on a Bain-owned company, Ampad, which bought SCM, an office supply production plant in 1994. The video uses local news reports and SCM workers to tell a story of slashed jobs, reduced wages, and cut pensions after Bain took over.

"I understand if you gotta cut back, [conduct] layoffs, that's part of the business, but you don't come in and take everything everybody's got and destroy a business. That's what they did," former SCM worker Jerry Rayburn said in the video.

Ampad filed for bankruptcy in 2000 after Bain made $100 million dollars, the ad charges.

The Obama campaign's ad on private equity firm Bain Capital, which Mitt Romney co-founded in 1984 and led until he left to run the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, is a continuation of attacks the campaign began in earnest last week, where they highlighted GST Steel, a company that saw layoffs after Bain acquired it.

Romney used an interview with a conservative website to respond to the Obama campaign, saying that he had already left to run the Olympics when Bain acquired GST Steel.

The Obama campaign is attempting to discredit Romney's economic credentials as the Republican candidate tries to paint himself as better prepared to deal with a struggling economy than President Obama.

Speaking about Ampad in Ohio last week, Vice President Joe Biden said, "Laying on debt, laying off workers, doing what is good for those at top while everyone else fends for themselves? We can't afford that in the nation."

The Obama campaign has received some pushback on his focus on Bain, even from some in his own party. On NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Newark Mayor Cory Booker said the attacks on Bain Capital show that "we're getting to a ridiculous point in America."

The Romney campaign referenced Booker's remarks in its response to the new Obama video.

"President Obama continues his assault on the free enterprise system with attacks that one of his supporters, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, called 'nauseating' and a former adviser, Steven Rattner, called 'unfair,'" Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul said in a statement. "Americans expected a different kind of politics from Barack Obama but, sadly, this is just more of the same failed politics that dominates Washington."


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, Fox News, Mediaite, MSNBC, NBC, Raw Story, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama vs. Democrats: His "American JOBS Act"! They Need To Stick With Him!

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

White House seeks to reassure Senate Democrats on jobs plan

The White House sought to reassure nervous Democrats about President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package Thursday, sending senior officials to brief the party’s Senate caucus about the proposal.

Afterward, lawmakers, administration officials and others present said the huddle went better than expected, given the resistance some Democrats have shown to the plan, and Tuesday’s losses in House special elections after GOP candidates won with anti-Obama campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the member of the Democratic leadership who has most frequently jousted with the White House, complimented senior Obama officials for taking 100 minutes of questions from the Senate Democrats.

“It was informative, we’re on the same page, we’re on the same team,” Schumer said. He acknowledged that senators “brought up their concerns” with the proposal but said they exited the meeting “unified.”

Senators heard presentations at a closed door briefing from Gene Sperling and senior advisor David Plouffe, who outlined the key points of the package of targeted tax cuts and infrastructure spending, members said.

“I think the key thing is we’re off to a great start in terms of getting excitement for the American Jobs Act,” Plouffe told reporters afterward. “The vast majority of our party is committed to showing that we’re going to act on jobs.”

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called the meeting “very positive.”

“It was going through the package and the need for the package,” he said.

Even as Obama has been delivering a series of campaign-style speeches in support of his proposal, calling on the public to pressure Congress to pass the bill, some Democrats in Washington have been expressing reservations with the package.

Liberal members have fretted over the president’s proposal to cut the payroll tax, fearful of diverting money from the Social Security Trust fund. They say more direct government spending on infrastructure and salaries is needed to get the economy moving.

“I have been very unequivocal,” Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) told reporters Wednesday. “No more tax cuts. We have the economy that tax cuts gave us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it?”

Some conservative Democrats have said they support the tax cuts, but oppose spending billions on teacher salaries and to build schools and roads, as the president has proposed, when Congress is working to reduce the deficit.

“If spending money could fix our jobs problem, it would have been solved long ago — because we’ve sure done our share of spending,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a frequent critic of the president.

Obama’s suggestions for how to pay for the package have not been universally popular with Democrats either.

Democrats have previously rejected proposals from the White House to limit tax deductions to those making more than $250,000 a year. Opposition has not faded now that Obama has advanced the idea again to pay for the bulk of jobs plan.

“We’ve had mixed signals from the White House about the willingness to break apart the package. But I think for sure the pay-for has to be considered separately from the merits of the bill itself,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connnolly (D-Va.), who represents a wealthy Northern Virginia district and has long opposed such proposals.

Republicans spent Thursday gleefully pointing to the voices of Democratic dissent as a sign that the president’s bill does not have support of even his own party.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) insisted Thursday that the criticism is minor. She noted that Democrats joined on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday to rally in support of the measure.

“There may be somebody that’s told you or spoken out about this, but our caucus is very unified in support of the American Jobs Act and the fact that it is paid for,” she said. “They may differ with some of provisions within it or the paid fors, but they do not differ in the fact that we must get behind it, we must pass it.”


View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Washington Post, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Promotes His "American JOBS Act" To North Carolina Supporters! A Packed House!

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

Obama touts jobs bill benefits for small business in North Carolina

President Barack Obama urged enthusiastic college students Wednesday to join him in his fight to get Congress to act on his new jobs bill. "Every single one of you can help make this bill a reality," the president called out at a hot and noisy rally at North Carolina State University.

Someone in the crowd yelled out, "I love you!"

"If you love me you got to help me pass this bill," the president responded.

It was Obama's second campaign-style rally in two days as he pushes for action on his $450 billion jobs plan. His program is running into a buzz saw of opposition from Republicans -- and even some in his own Democratic Party -- over his plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for it.

The president was in Ohio Tuesday, and last week in Virginia, as he travels key electoral states to sell the plan with the economy stuck in neutral heading into his 2012 re-election campaign.

On Wednesday Obama's focus was small businesses, which would be helped by Social Security payroll tax cuts. Before speaking, he toured WestStar Precision, a small business in the Raleigh suburb of Apex. It makes specialized components for the aerospace, medical and alternative energy industries.

He also announced plans to try to speed payments to federal contractors.

Republicans have accused Obama of playing politics by presenting them with tax hike ideas they've already rejected. But Obama said Wednesday, "We've got to make sure everybody pays their fair share, including the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations."

"It'd be nice if we could do it all, but we can't. We've got to make choices. That's what governing's about. And we know what's right," the president said.

He told the students: "The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for moping around is over. We've got to kick off our bedroom slippers and put on our marching shoes."

The president's trip to North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state he won in 2008, drew scorn from Republicans.

"This president is in love with the sound of his own voice, he's in love with campaigning, he's in love with fundraising, and he's in love with the stump," said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. "And he's doing what he loves to do best, which is to go to battleground states, masquerade as official business, use taxpayer money to do it, and campaign."

As the president barnstormed the country to build support for his plan, which he first unveiled last week in a speech to Congress, on Capitol Hill there appeared to be little if any chance that the proposal would pass in one piece.

The GOP-led House has made clear that it has little interest in Obama's plans to increase spending for things like school construction, highways, bridges and other projects, which accounts for nearly $200 billion of the legislation. Lawmakers seem more open to Obama's plans to extend unemployment insurance and cut the Social Security payroll tax for workers and businesses.

Even in the Democratic-led Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has suggested that Obama is unlikely to get his way in his call for immediate action by Congress. Reid has said there are some other issues that need to be dealt with first, including transportation funding.

Obama has made clear he'd sign a portion of the legislation if that's all Congress could agree on, although he's said he would continue to fight to pass the whole thing.



View Larger Map

Sources: AP, MSNBC, NBC17, WCNC, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Fights To Protect Tax Breaks For Rich As Unemployment Rises (Warren Buffett: "Raise My Taxes!")

Tax the rich: How Obama will pay for his stimulus package

President Obama proposed Monday to pay for his $447 billion stimulus package largely by taxing the rich more.

Obama's largest proposed pay-for -- which the White House estimates would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years -- would limit itemized deductions and certain other exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more ($250,000 and up for married couples).

The tax measure would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, when the White House assumes the top two income tax rates would revert to 36% and 39.6%, up from the current 33% and 35% as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Obama's proposal would cap itemized deductions at 28%. That would mean for every $100 in deductions the rich claim in 2013, they would be able to reduce their tax bill by only $28. That would be less than the $36 or $39.60 they would get if they are in the top two tax brackets.

Relative to other federal tax filers, high-income households benefit disproportionately from itemized deductions -- including those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

What's in Obama's stimulus package

Obama's plan is similar to one he offered in each of his three budgets. But the proposal has gone nowhere in Congress.

The president put forth other repeat proposals on Monday to pay for the stimulus package.

So-called carried interest -- a portion of the money paid to managers of hedge funds and other investments partnerships -- would be taxed as ordinary income under Obama. Translation: It would be subject to rates as high as 39.6%, up from the current preferential rate of 15%. The White House estimates this change could raise $18 billion over 10 years.

Obama also wants to repeal various oil subsidies for an estimated savings of $40 billion. And he would impose a less-generous depreciation rule for the purchase of corporate jets. That measure would raise an estimated $3 billion.

All told, the pay-for proposals would raise roughly $467 billion, White House budget director Jacob Lew told reporters.

Lew noted that the White House measures "intentionally overachieve" on savings to compensate for likely differences in estimates that will be made by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official cost-and-savings arbiter for Congress.

"We've built in a cushion for the differences that happen," Lew said.

The president's pay-for proposals will likely meet with stiff opposition from Republicans. Many GOP lawmakers don't want to raise taxes on anyone and aren't keen on the president's jobs plan to begin with, even though it contains more than $200 billion in tax cuts.

And at a time when Congress' debt super committee is working to cut deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Obama's pay-for plan would reduce the committee's revenue-raising options.

On the other hand, many career deficit hawks support measures to spur the economy now, so long as they are paid for eventually and paired with a long-term debt reduction plan.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

CBO Gives Obama's "American JOBS Act" Thumbs Up! De Facto Endorsement! Tells Congress: "Spend Money Now!"

CBO To Congress: Spend money now!

As Congressional Budget Office director, Doug Elmendorf doesn’t advocate for specific policy proposals. Rather, his office tells Congress how much the policies that they decide on will cost.

But during his testimony in front of the “supercommittee” this morning, Elmendorf came awfully close to pushing Congress to support stimulus spending as part of its deficit reduction charge.

“Credible policy changes that would substantially reduce deficits late in the coming decade and over the long term, without immediate cuts in spending or increases in taxes, would support the economic expansion in the next few years and strengthen the economy over the longer term,” Elmendorf said at the hearing. “There is no inherent contradiction between using fiscal policy to support the economy today, while the unemployment rate is high ... and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now, when output and employment will probably be close to their potential.”

This could be a difficult policy for the supercommittee to follow through on. The 12-member panel’s charge is to find $1.2 trillion in cuts; making space for increased government spending is a challenge in that context.

But Elmendorf made the case that it’s the best approach. “If policymakers wanted to achieve both a short-term economic boost and medium-term and long-term fiscal sustainability, a combination of policies would be required: changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit now but reduce it later in the decade,” he said.

Elmendorf did caution, however, that such an approach would need a good amount of political will behind it. It would need to be “sufficiently specific and widely supported” so that individuals and businesses would have confidence in the changes. There needs to be a belief on the part of the public, he urged, that “future fiscal restraint would truly take effect.” With public levels of confidence in Congress at all-time lows, finding faith that the body will act may be nearly as challenging as finding the funding for stimulus in the first place.









CBO Chief Gives De Facto Boost To Obama Jobs Plan

The Congressional Budget Office would be stepping out of bounds if it endorsed specific legislation or even hazy policy objectives. But it's hard to read CBO chief Doug Elmendorf's testimony to the joint deficit Super Committee Tuesday as anything other than a de facto endorsement of President Obama's broad strategy to boost the economy: legislation that spends money to hire people and reduces payroll taxes in the near-term, and that reduces deficits by even greater amounts in the middle and end of the decade.

"If policymakers want to achieve both a short-term economic boost and long-term fiscal sustainability the combination of policies that would be most effective according to our analysis would be changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit today, but narrow it in the coming decade," Elmendorf told the panel's 12 Democrats and Republicans. "The combination of fiscal policies that would be most effective would be policies that cut taxes or increase spending in the near-term, but over the medium and longer-term move in the opposite direction."

This is a generalized version of precisely what President Obama is proposing -- a $447 billion jobs bill that will increase spending on hiring programs, and reduce payroll taxes; accompanied by deficit reduction measures that take effect in 2013, to more than cover the cost of the jobs bill.

But Elmendorf went even further, under questioning he ranked various tax cuts by their stimulative impact, and payroll tax cuts, benefitting employers and employees topped the list.

Many Republicans are resistant to the idea of using the joint committee as a vehicle to pass or pay for Obama's jobs bill, a significant chunk of which they oppose. But the legislation is written in such a way that -- if it passes -- it will count any extra savings that the committee finds toward the cost of its bill. And at a Tuesday press conference House Speaker John Boehner encouraged the committee to go well beyond its statutory requirement of finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Combined with the fact that the White House is now signaling that President Obama would sign piecemeal elements of his jobs plan, it's feasible that this could be a path to passing at least some additional expansionary policies this year.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, TPM, Washington Post, White House, Youtube, Google Maps

Franklin D. Roosevelt & Obama On JOBS, Taxes & Social Security: "The New Deal" (Videos)

New Deal

The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is, Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party which held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, big city machines, and newly empowered labor unions, ethnic minorities, and the white South. The Republicans were split, either opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, or accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most American elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1938 to 1964.

Historians distinguish a "First New Deal" (1933) and a "Second New Deal" (1934–36). Some programs were declared unconstitutional, and others were repealed during World War II. The "First New Deal" (1933) dealt with diverse groups, from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic recovery. A "Second New Deal" in 1934–36 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program, the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, then the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers[1] and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Despite Roosevelt campaigning heavily against anti-New Deal Republicans and anti-New Deal Democrats, Republicans gained many seats in Congress in the 1938 midterm elections and the Democrats opponents of the New Deal retained their seats, resulting in the WPA, CCC and other relief programs being shut down during World War II by the Conservative Coalition (i.e., the opponents of the New Deal in Congress); they argued the return of full employment made them superfluous. As a Republican President in the 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower left the New Deal largely intact.

In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society took New Deal policies further. After 1974, laissez faire views grew in support, calling for deregulation of the economy and ending New Deal regulation of transportation, banking and communications in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[3] Several New Deal programs remain active, with some still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Sources: White House, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps