Benjamin Netanyahu & John Boehner vs Pres OBAMA: Disrespecting An Elected United States President

‪#‎Netanyahu‬

BENJAMIN NETANYAH vs PRES OBAMA: *BOEHNER'S INVITE*

ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU WAS WRONG TO ACCEPT JOHN BOEHNER'S POLITICAL INVITE TO ADDRESS CONGRESS.


ISRAELI PM Benjamin Netanyahu was Wrong to accept U.S. House Speaker Johh Boehner's recent Political invite to address Congress regarding imposing more Sanctions on IRAN.

GOP leaders would Never have done this Politically Spiteful thing to ROMNEY or BUSH or MCCAIN if they were in the White House.

I too Support ISRAEL but Netanyahu was Wrong!

Just think of the Media Optics if Pres OBAMA were to address ISRAELI leaders without Netanyahu's Blessing?

So does Pres OBAMA hate JEWS?

No of course Not!

But Pres OBAMA already has an Active NUKE Deal with IRAN in place.

What does PM Netanyahu hope to accomplish by addressing Congress next Month?

Does Benjamin Netanyahu want Pres OBAMA to Breach this Active NUKE Deal with IRAN for the sake of Politics?
(2016 U.S. Presidential Election)

By the way.........

What about Professional Courtesy for LEADERSHIP and RESPECT for a sitting Elected U.S. President?


~ ARTICLE: "Netanyahu Considering Changes To Congress Speech After Criticism"

Israeli officials are considering amending the format of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned address to the U.S. Congress next month to try to calm some of the partisan furore the Iran-focused speech has provoked.

Netanyahu is due to address a joint session of Congress about Iran's nuclear programme on March 3, just two weeks before Israeli elections, following an invitation from John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house.

Boehner's invitation has caused consternation in both Israel and the United States, largely because it is seen as Netanyahu, a hawk on Iran, working with the Republicans to thumb their noses at President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

It is also seen as putting Netanyahu's political links to the Republicans ahead of Israel's nation-to-nation ties with the United States, its strongest and most important ally, while serving as a pre-election campaign booster.

As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.

Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.

"The issue has been under discussion for a week," said a source close to the prime minister's office. "(Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it."

But Netanyahu told voters from the Russian speaking community on Monday evening that he was determined to discuss Israel's objections in Washington to an emerging deal with Iran but he did not say if that meant a public speech in Congress.

"I am ... determined to go to Washington to present Israel's position to the members of Congress and the American people," Netanyahu said, repeating that nuclear weapons in Iran's hands would constitute an existential threat to Israel.

An opinion poll by Israel's Army Radio on Monday said 47 percent of people think Netanyahu should cancel the address, while 34 percent say he should go ahead with it.

Since the issue arose, there are signs it is having an impact on his poll ratings ahead of the March 17 election.

Obama said his decision not to meet with Netanyahu followed basic protocol of not meeting with world leaders before an election.

"Some of this just has to do with how we do business, and I think it's important for us to maintain these protocols because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is not about a particular party," Obama said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Washington.

A poll by the Times of Israel on Monday said Netanyahu's Likud would win 23 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, four fewer than the centre-left opposition. Earlier polls showed Likud and the opposition alliance neck-and-neck on 24 seats.

Speaking on radio last week, Israel's deputy foreign minister suggested Netanyahu had been "misled" about the speech, believing it to be bipartisan when the Democrats were not entirely on board.

While that may have created some room for Netanyahu to get out of it if the pressure at home and from Washington becomes too great, it may be too late.

If he withdraws now it may make him look weak with core voters.

Furthermore, he needs an opportunity to play up his tough-on-Iran credentials before election, with national security an overriding issue for voters.


Sources: BBC; Reuters; USA Today; Charlottesville Police Dept; Youtube

AMNESTY: OBAMA vs BOEHNER; OBAMA WINS AGAIN; PUTS GOP IN A CHOKEHOLD FOR 2016 (OBAMA IS A GENIUS)

Even if I don't agree with all of Pres OBAMA'S decisions, the man still remains a Political Genius!

The GOP is Afraid to IMPEACH Pres OBAMA regardless of what he does because ISIS and AL QAEDA might attack the United States and Murder thousands of U.S. Troops.

Thus the GOP is darned if they Do and darned if they Don't!

OBAMA Wins Again!

Attention GOP: If you can't beat OBAMA, why not join him??

I'm just saying.





Article Sources: CNN; Daily Mail; NY Times; Wall Street Journal

****ARTICLE: "Republicans' Furious At Emperor Obama: John Boehner Warns President The House Will Stop Him; Accuses Him Of Damaging The Presidency"


**House Speaker goes on the offensive after President announced Executive Order allowing estimated five million Illegal Immigrants to stay on American Soil.

**Obama has 'turned a deaf ear to the people he was elected to serve', claims Republican House leader.

**Two Republican attorneys general promise to sue in first sign that executive order faces a guaranteed challenge in court.

House Speaker John Boehner promised on Friday that Congress would do something to stop President Barack Obama from forcing through his changes to the immigration system, though his caucus hasn't decided exactly what that will be yet.

'We will not stand idle as the President undermines the rule of law in our country,' Boehner said on Friday during a press conference, in which he accused Obama of 'damaging the presidency' and 'turning a deaf ear to the people he was elected to serve.'

'The President has taken actions that he himself has said are those of a king or an emperor, not an American president,' the GOP leader argued.

At the same time two Republican attorneys general pledged to sue the President for violating the Constitution and 'bestowing a legacy of lawlessness' on the country.

Republicans politicians are seething this week over the president's long-planned announcement that his administration will grants work permits to approximately 5 million migrants residing in the country illegally.

The president on Thursday night finally confirmed what news reports had been saying for days: parents of American citizen children and illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before the age of 16 would be able to remain in the U.S. indefinitely as long as they meet certain conditions.

First, they must have arrived in America before January 1, 2010. They must also pay their back taxes and a fine and undergo national security and background checks.

Then, Obama told them, 'you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.'

"You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law", he noted.

Although the president plans to sign an executive order today during a Las Vegas event making the directive official, and immigration officials will be 'immediately' instructed to stop removing qualifying migrants from the country, the mandate will not take effect until next year.

Immigrants applying for a reprieve through the president's already established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will be able to file formal paperwork with the government in 90 days.

Those with citizen children must wait six months to obtain an application for delayed deportation.

Republicans hope to foil the Obama administrations plans before that provision of the order is allowed to take effect, however. They have been strategizing ways to block executive action on immigration for weeks, with conservatives aggressively pushing their colleagues to back a plan to defund the Department of Homeland Security if Obama doesn't rethink executive action.

In that situation, core agencies within DHS would continue to function, including Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration Customs and Enforcement, as their activities are considered 'essential' to maintaining order.

Non-essential operations such as the allotment of green cards and work permits would cease until the president agreed to sign legislation counteracting his immigration order.

Republicans in the House and Senate who prefer that approach have been unable to fully convince their colleagues to sign on, though.

Asked today if his caucus come to a consensus on how to best impede Obama, Boehner indicated that they had not.

'But I will say to you, the House will in fact act,' he told reporters.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday on the Senate floor that the upper chamber had not agreed on a game plan, yet, either.

'We are considering a variety of options,' he said, making it clear that he'd like his members to hold off an a major spending fight during the lame-duck session.

GOP governors and other state leaders were more sure of their plan action by the time Obama had given his national address on Thursday night.

At an annual conference this week in Boca Raton, Florida, the chief executives of both Wisconsin and Texas previewed lawsuits they may launch against Obama over immigration.

'I would go to the courts,' Wisconsin's Scott Walker said Wednesday during a panel at the annual Republican Governors Association gathering. 'This is illegal.

'I think you would be hard-pressed to find anybody -- other than a partisan Democrat -- who wouldn't say this is illegal,' Walked claimed, according to CNN.

Rick Perry, whose time as Texas governor is coming to an end, said his state may also sue Obama.

'I think that’s probably a very real possibility,' Perry, said, arguing that Obama was 'sticking his finger into the eye of the American people.'

'The cost to the people of the state of Texas is an extraordinary amount of money that this President is exacerbating with his announcement that he's going to allow for this executive order,' he said.

It costs Texas roughly $12 million a month to protect the border, he explained.

After Obama's speech on Thursday incoming Texas Governor and current Attorney General Greg Abbott followed up on Perry's threat of legal action with a guarantee that his state would haul Obama to court.

'President Obama has circumvented Congress and deliberately bypassed the will of the American people, eroding the very foundation of our nation’s Constitution and bestowing a legacy of lawlessness,' Abbott said in a statement.

'Texans have witnessed firsthand the costs and consequences caused by President Obama’s dictatorial immigration policy and now we must work together toward a solution in fixing our broken immigration system.

'Following tonight’s pronouncement, I am prepared to immediately challenge President Obama in court, securing our state’s sovereignty and guaranteeing the rule of law as it is intended under the Constitution.'

Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt also committed to a court battle on Thursday night, even before Obama's remarks.

'It is anticipated tonight’s speech will again prove our President sees himself as above the law,' he said. 'Regardless of what the President thinks the law ought to be, our constitution dictates that Congress makes the law, it is the Presidents duty to faithfully execute those laws.

'If the President takes an executive action that violates his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the immigration laws passed by Congress, we will take action to hold him accountable.'

In his speech on Thursday evening Obama acknowledged that the group of people he was now rewarding with work permits had in fact broken the law and needed to pay their debt to society.

Still, he argued it would be better for immigration officials to focus their resources on deporting criminals than it would for them to unnecessarily tear families apart.

'Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day,' he said.

Boehner said on Friday that by pardoning millions of law breakers, the president was sending the wrong message to other non-citizens,

'The action by the president yesterday will only encourage more people to come here illegally, and putting their lives at risk,' Boehner said. 'We saw the humanitarian crisis at our border last summer, how horrific it was. Well, next summer it could be worse.

'And this action also punishes those who have obeyed the law and waited their turn,' he added.

The Ohio Republican said he agreed with the president that America's immigration system is broken. 'But fixing it starts with a commitment to working through the democratic process and enforcing the laws that the president is sworn faithfully to execute,' he said.

Obama is 'making it impossible to build the trust necessary to work together,' he contended.

'You can’t ask the elected representatives of the people to trust you to enforce the law if you’re constantly demonstrating that you can’t be trusted to enforce the law.

Defending himself on Thursday, Obama said his actions were 'not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century.'

'And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.'

If president thinks House Republicans were slow to enact the kinds of reforms he wanted to see before, there's no chance they'll take them up now, Boehner said Friday, reminding reporters of his numerous warnings to Obama that unilateral executive action would not be welcomed by the GOP.

'With this action, the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms that he claims to seek. And, as I told the president yesterday, he’s damaging the presidency itself,' Boehner said.

Boehner's comments on Friday while direct were substantially more toned down than those of some of his Republican colleagues in the House who blasted Obama in a flood of statements before and after his Thursday night after speech.

One of the most colorful digs came from Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, who denounced the president for issuing an 'oral royal decree that will be followed by a written regal decree, as any good monarch would do.'

'This president is single-handedly creating a constitutional crisis and hurting the citizens he took an oath to protect and defend.

'President Obama’s regal proclamation is literally gambling away jobs for hard-working Americans, so naturally he would go to Las Vegas, perhaps Caesar’s Palace,' he said, referencing a popular Vegas casino.

On Wednesday retiring Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann slammed Obama for creating 'illiterate' Democratic voters with his executive action.

'The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer – millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language,' Bachmann told reporters gathered in the Capitol, the Washington Post reported.

'Even though the president says they won’t be able to vote, we all know that many, in all likelihood, will vote,' she said.

Former GOP presidential nominee and sitting Arizona Sen. John McCain encouraged his fellow Republican lawmakers on Thursday to steer clear of charged language like Bachmann's, cautioning them that it will turn Hispanic voters off to the GOP's message.

'It only takes a couple' of insensitive comments, he said, for voters to develop a negative perception of Republicans.

'That’s the trouble with having some of these new young punks around here,' he told the Post. 'They ought to listen to us old geezers.'

JOHN BOEHNER AN SECRET ALLIE TO PRES OBAMA, WORKING TO SECRETLY GIVE OBAMA AMNESTY??

IS JOHN BOEHNER SECRETLY AN ALLIE TO PRES OBAMA??

WILL BOEHNER SECRETLY GIVE OBAMA HIS AMNESTY WISH?

IS BOEHNER LINKED TO THE KKK??

You know I've often wondered if U.S. House Speaker JOHN BOEHNER is secretly working with the OBAMA Admin behind closed doors because some things just don't add up Politically.

BOEHNER will appear on International television either CRYING or THREATENING Pres OBAMA, and the next I know is BOEHNER will give Pres OBAMA exactly whatever He asks for.

Former U.S. House Majority Leader ERIC CANTOR was a JEW and a Strong Opponent of the OBAMA Admin.

CANTOR was also breathing down BOEHNER'S neck because he did NOT like the Political Deals BOEHNER was making OBAMA.

Suddenly after 13 years of being on Top, CANTOR was Mysteriously wiped out by DAVE BRAT.

Where did DAVE BRAT come from??

Did the National DEMOCRATIC Party help DAVE BRAT to Win??

Thus something just does Not add up!

Is JOHN BOEHNER Secretly working with the OBAMA Admin behind Closed Doors to give Pres OBAMA whatever he asks for, while Pres OBAMA Protects BOEHNER'S Position as Speaker of the House?

JOHN BOEHNER has been on Capitol Hill for several Decades and is a very Powerful Man!

OBAMA has only been on Capitol Hill for one Decade and OBAMA is a BLACK Man.

There is NO way OBAMA could do the things he has done while in the WHITE House, without the help of a Powerful Capitol Hill Politician like JOHN BOEHNER.

Now OBAMA wants signs an Executive Order to enforce his AMNESTY Plan which everyone knows will help the DEMOCRATS in 2016.

This AMNESTY Plan is NOT about HUMAN RIGHTS, its about 2016 Politics and everyone knows it!

How deep is BOEHNER in bed with OBAMA Politically?

Is BOEHNER secretly working with the OBAMA Admin to pass his AMNESTY Plan?

Is BOEHNER secretly working with the OBAMA Admin to oust the SECRET SERVICE or to throw U.S. Military Troops further under the Bus?

Why has there been so much National HATRED against the BLACK American Community since OBAMA was Elected into the WHITE House and since BOEHNER became Speaker of the House??

I ask this question because BOEHNER is from OHIO.

Although the State of OHIO has a Historic Legacy of providing FREEDOM to runaway SLAVES, the State of OHIO also has an ugly past which includes being a Haven for the KLU KLUX KLAN.

So is JOHN BOEHNER in any way linked to the KLU KLUX KLAN?

Just how RUTHLESS and Cold-hearted is JOHN BOEHNER??

Stay Tuned.

Dear GOD Help Us!

CHRIS CHRISTIE: "How To Handle Political Scandals 101" (John Boehner Approves)

#CHRISTIE

HOW TO CORRECTLY HANDLE POLITICAL SCANDALS 101:

Today NJ Gov CHRIS CHRISTIE taught every Elected & Appointed Official in America how to CORRECTLY handle POLITICAL SCANDALS.

In fact his Press Conference was so polished & so Sincere, that House Speaker JOHN BOEHNER still views CHRISTIE as a "Viable GOP Presidential Contender for 2016".

WOW!










Sources: AP, Gov Christie's office, NJ.com, Roll Call, Youtube

Allen West vs House GOP Leaders On "Obamacare", Keeping The Pre-Existing Conditions Provision

Are Republicans Bending On ‘Obamacare’?

As the landmark Supreme Court decision looms next month, Republicans have been privately considering a plan to reinstate some popular provisions of “Obamacare” if it’s struck down.

The report sent conservative advocates — who have demanded nothing less than total repeal — into a tizzy, which forced House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to reaffirm his commitment to “repealing Obamacare in its entirety,” declaring that “[a]nything short of that is unacceptable.”

But more evidence is emerging that Republicans believe that’s not tenable.

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a tea party darling, told ThinkProgress that he supports preserving three popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act — the same three that his party’s leaders are reportedly considering.

“You’ve got to replace it with something,” West said. “If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine. We’ve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, that’s fine. Keep the doughnut hole closed, that’s fine. But what I just talked to you about, you know, maybe 20, 25 pages of legislation.”

This no-win predicament explains why Republicans have no replacement plan years after promising one. If they successfully gut “Obamacare” and leave it at that, they’ll face the blame for snatching away its popular benefits. But if they push to keep parts of the law, they’ll face the wrath of powerful conservative groups, which have repeatedly proven their clout at purging Republican lawmakers who buck the right’s demands.

“We would be very concerned about bills to resurrect parts of Obamacare,” said Dean Clancy, the top health care advocate for the influential conservative group FreedomWorks.

A Republican health care aide said members of his party recognize the dilemma.

“I do think some Republicans are finally starting to realize they could be the dog that caught the car,” the aide said.

The deeper problem with the GOP’s fall-back plan is that guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions is economically infeasible without a requirement, like the Affordable Care Act’s unpopular individual mandate, to bring young and healthy people into the insurance system. The idea is to spread risk and prevent costs from spiraling upward.

Health policy experts overwhelmingly accept this reality. And laws regarding pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate would infuriate the insurance industry. That’s why some of the policy-savvy Republicans recognize that supporting the pre-existing condition guarantee would not jibe with their promise of repeal.

“It’s a terrible idea,” No. 5 Republican Rep. Tom Price (GA) told Politico recently.

A Supreme Court decision on whether the health care law passes constitutional muster is expected by the end of June. If it’s struck down, President Obama and Democrats will face an enormous setback but can run against an activist conservative court in the November elections. For Republicans, the political reality is far trickier if they get what they want.


View Larger Map


Sources: TPM, Think Progress, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Vows To Crush Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan! Oppose Tax Increases!

Obama deficit plan going nowhere with Republicans

Republicans on Capitol Hill pounced on President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan on Monday, swiftly dismissing the president’s proposal as an unserious attempt at taming the nation’s finances.

House Speaker John Boehner, whom Obama singled out in his Rose Garden address for what he called a “my-way-or-the-highway” approach on new taxes, quickly struck back and accused the president of fostering a divisive political environment.

“Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership,” Boehner said.

In a statement, the Ohio Republican also said Obama’s plan wasn’t a “serious contribution” to the work of the deficit-slashing supercommittee that’s charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts by Thanksgiving.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also scoffed at Obama’s plan.

“Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth — or even meaningful deficit reduction,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.”

One of the members of the supercommittee itself, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), sounded a more measured and receptive tone to Obama’s ideas. Toomey, a freshman senator, said the panel would consider the president’s proposals, among the many others being floated to the powerful 12-member panel.

But Toomey had his problems with Obama’s speech, too.

“I am concerned that his deficit reduction strategy sometimes seems more defined by political posturing, such as recycling tax hikes that even lawmakers in his own party have publicly opposed,” Toomey said in a statement. “With the Select Committee’s deadline looming, we do not have time to waste on political games and pushing big tax increases that will only make our economy weaker for all Americans.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate’s messaging chief, insisted to reporters on a conference call Monday that the public would ultimately go with Democrats in that fight.

“Chances are slim if we had a vote today,” Schumer said. “But many of us believe that if the president takes this to the people … the poll numbers show the American people [are] on his side.”

Though Schumer acknowledged that there would be disagreements over some specifics in Obama’s plan, such as raising $410 billion by limiting tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year, he said there would be “broad agreement” on the overall proposal.

Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, NY Times, Politico

John Boehner Lays Out GOP's Jobs Plan: Says NO! To Tax Increases On The Rich!

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

John Boehner Jobs Speech Blasts Obama Plan, Rules Out Tax Increases

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) threw cold water on the prospect of passing President Obama's jobs bill during a speech on Thursday, casting doubt over the viability of longterm debt talks as well.

Addressing the Economic Club of Washington, Boehner called Obama's plan to create jobs, which includes a mix of tax incentives and state-targeted spending, a "poor substitute" for policies he views as more effective.

“Private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made in Washington. They’ve been slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that is always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating," said Boehner. “They’ve been hurt by a government that offers short-term gimmicks rather than fundamental reforms that will encourage long-term economic growth."

Coming a week to the day after Obama unveiled the American Jobs act to a joint session of Congress, Boehner's remarks are the most overtly critical lines of pushback yet from Republican leadership. Along with skepticism over the jobs package expressed by centrist Democrats, they raise questions about the White House's ability to pass its legislation through Congress intact.

The foreshadowing of political paralysis didn't end with Boehner's comments on the jobs plan. Elsewhere in his speech, he made clear that he wanted tax increases off the table when the congressional super committee tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction makes its recommendations.

"It's a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country," he declared.

That absolutism ran directly in contrast to Boehner's pitch, earlier in the speech, for "politicians of all stripes" to drop the “my way or the highway” approach. It was also a tougher line than the Speaker reportedly took when he himself was negotiating a deficit reduction deal with the president during the debt ceiling showdown.

And, indeed, when pressed about Boehner's insistence that the super committee should not consider tax increases, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recalled those moments, not so long ago, when he was more willing to compromise.

"The public overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly agrees with the president that to get our long-term fiscal house in order, we need to approach it in a balanced way," said Carney. "If the answer is [Rep. Paul] Ryan's budget, we know how Americans feel about that. They do not believe that we need to end Medicare as we know it to get our deficits and debt under control, because we don't."

"We don't have unlimited resources," Carney added. "And we have to make choices about, do we provide tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans ... or do we make sure that responsibility for resolving this problem is shared and we have a balanced approach?

"I would simply note that the Speaker of the House made clear in the negotiations he had with the president, he put, in his words, 'revenues on the table.' Well, we believe revenues have to be on the table if we are going to solve our deficit and debt problems."


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, MSNBC, PBS, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Touts "American JOBS Act" On Boehner's Political Stomping Ground: OHIO! ("Pass This Bill!")

Obama in Ohio: Jobs bill needed 'now'

To the chants of "pass this bill," President Barack Obama gave a litany of why Congress should pass his American Jobs Act, which was introduced this week.

"My question to Congress is what on earth are we waiting for?" Obama told of friendly crowd of several thousand people at the Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School on the edge of Columbus' inner city.

"It's not about giving me a win," he said. "It's not about giving Democrats a win or Republicans a win. It's about giving the American people a win. The next election is 14 months away. The American people don't have the luxury of waiting that long. People are living paycheck to paycheck. They need it now."

Prior to his speech, Obama toured a classroom in the basement of a building on the Civil War-era Fort Hayes campus that would benefit from the education part of the president's job plan, according to the White House. According to Obama, the district also will benefit from money that is intended to prevent the layoff of teachers.

"You've got the foundation of what is needed to learn, graduate and compete in the 21st Century," the president said. "You at Fort Hayes have been making it happen. But I don't want any student studying in a broken down school.

"There is work to be done and workers waiting to do it. Tell Congress to pass this bill."

Obama said if the bill passes the jobs of up to 14,000 teachers, police and firefighters in Ohio will be saved. "South Korea is adding teachers at the same time we're laying off our teachers," he said. "It's unfair to our kids and it undermines our future."

The President said the bill will have small businesses create jobs by cutting their taxes if they increase the number of their employees and raise the salaries of those they already have.

"Instead of talking about helping America's job creators, let's actually do something that helps America's job creators. We need to get the people in Washington to stop worrying about their jobs and start working about your jobs."

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus criticized the Obama job plan in a conference call with reporters prior to Obama's appearance. He said the plan is filled with old ideas, "new taxes, new spending and debt."

After the 2009 stimulus plan, Priebus said, forecasters predicted wrongly that the plan would create jobs. "Barack Obama and his policies are an express train driving right off a cliff."

Priebus said Obama, who he called the "campaigner-in-chief," abdicated responsibility for paying for his plan by tossing it to the so-called Super Committee of 12 legislators charged with finding more than a trillion in budget cuts by Thanksgiving.

Ohio GOP Chairman Kevin DeWine, in the same conference call, said the president has a "very steep hill to climb to regain credibility on job creation."

Obama said his bill will not only help schools, but construction workers, veterans and young people by providing jobs. "It puts people back to work and puts more money in the pockets of working Americans."

And, he said, his proposal is paid for by closing loopholes for oil companies and making sure the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations "pay their fair share." He said the plan also will allow th payd down on the national debt because "we will cut what we can't afford and pay for what we really need. We need to create an economy that works."

Obama concluded his 16-minute speech saying, "The time for gridlock and games is over. The time for action is now. We're not a people who watch things happen. We're Americans. We make things happen. We write our own destiny. We have the people to write it again."


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Cincinnati.com, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP's Plan To Sidetrack Obama's Libya Strategy Failed! Obama Was Right!

Obama's Libya Strategy Proves His Critics Wrong


President Obama, when he first announced the United States' intervention in the Libyan revolution, was assailed from all sides for his war plan. Five months ago, both Democrats and Republicans were offering up pointed criticisms for just about every aspect of Obama's decision. Whatever Obama did, there were large numbers of both Republicans and Democrats quite willing to loudly second-guess him. Including Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), who became the first member of Congress to call for President Obama to be impeached over the Libyan war.

These criticisms were often contradictory (coming from the same people, at times), and were scathing and absolutely relentless: Obama had waited too long, Obama had moved too quickly, Obama should have gotten Congress' approval, Obama shouldn't have gotten the U.N.'s approval, America should just invade in a land war, America should just drop a bomb on Gaddafi and be done with it, the rebels were in reality al Qaeda, why are we intervening in Libya and not elsewhere in the Arab Spring, America can't afford another war, air power alone never wins wars, America will be forced to put "boots on the ground" whether we like it or not, America should be leading the war, Obama is "leading from behind," we're letting the French take control (?!?), Obama is kowtowing to the Arab League, another war in a Muslim country will just serve to inflame the region, what about the War Powers Act, we're going to wind up occupying Libya no matter what happens, the "ragtag" rebels will never win, the best the rebels can hope for will be a stalemate, Libya will end up partitioned with Gaddafi holding on to the west of the country, Gaddafi will unleash international terrorists against us, Obama didn't come home from South America when it began, Obama is "dithering," Obama didn't explain to the American public what was going on, and (an old favorite) America will end up in a quagmire. Back at the beginning of the war, Salon ran an amusing flowchart to track the Republican complaints, which isn't all that far from the reality Obama faced at the time (although the chart is admittedly partisan, because it doesn't address the criticism directed towards the president from his own party).

When Obama first announced his decision to join with N.A.T.O. to intervene in Libya, I wrote an article titled "Obama's Libyan Gamble" which explored what the American military strategy for Libya was going to be. This gamble has now proved successful for the president. At the time, I concluded:

If it works out reasonably well, this could become a model for American involvement in future flareups. If a ruthless tyrant was massacring his own people, then regional military coalitions would be free to call for American action. America, as everyone knows, is very, very good at executing the initial phases of a war. Iraq proved that. But America, also as everyone should have figured out, is also not that good at getting out of such wars. Iraq -- once again -- proves this, too. But if our new model is to limit our major involvement to the opening phases of war, then the responsibility for solving these regional problems would fall to regional organizations with much bigger vested interests in the outcome than the United States.

Of course, this isn't a perfect answer because sometimes regional alliances strong enough to bear this responsibility simply don't exist. Obama's Libyan strategy has yet to play out, and it's impossible at this juncture to see what will happen next. Obama's gamble that America can join in the initial phase of a war and then extricate itself quickly is one of those ideas which sound really good on paper, before reality sinks in when they're actually attempted. Other presidents have had equally cheerful predictions about the length of American military involvement, which later proved to be embarrassingly shortsighted. But, I have to admit, that if the gamble pays off -- if America can prove to the rest of the world that it can lead when asked, but also relinquish control when we're no longer needed -- it could bear fruit in future conflicts of this nature. If it works, people might start speaking of Obama's gamble as the Obama Doctrine.

Looking back, I have to admit that I overstated the case. Barack Obama is anything but "doctrinaire," on pretty much any subject. The Libyan intervention was tailored to a unique situation that may indeed never arise again. The set of circumstances in Libya was (and is) different than in other hotspots in the world right now (such as Syria), making it unlikely that Obama will use the Libyan battle plan again any time soon. So calling it the "Obama Doctrine" was a bit of a stretch, I suppose.

But it cannot be denied that the positive outcome in Libya has validated the way Obama sent America into this conflict. Sure, in the future, the whole Libyan Revolution could become sidetracked in any number of ways -- just because they've taken Tripoli (and even if they soon capture Gaddafi), it doesn't mean that they're going to successfully make the transition to a modern democratic state. There simply are no guarantees of this type in the real world. But that doesn't preclude us from examining the military strategy in its own light, especially when held up against our interventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the news from Tripoli is so uplifting right now, in other words, it is hard to step back and examine the bigger picture of what America's efforts in Libya may mean for our future involvement in other wars of this nature which may flare up. But it's worth the exercise.

By just about any measure, America's involvement in Libya has been less burdensome to the United States than the last two wars we've fought. For example, six months into Iraq (the same time period that Libya took), 289 American troops had been killed (according to icasualties.org). In addition, 53 coalition troops had died. Six months after N.A.T.O. began air raids on Libya, a total of zero American troops have died, and an additional zero coalition troops have died. Hundreds of American servicemen and servicewomen are still alive today because we did not launch a land invasion of Libya.

It was pointed out just after we began attacking Libya -- with alarm -- that American involvement might cost upwards of one billion dollars. I haven't seen any strict accounting of the war yet, but assuming the estimate was true, it absolutely pales in comparison to the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars (upwards of over a trillion dollars by most estimates) we have so far spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is several orders of magnitude of difference, right there.

Our military involvement in Libya was requested by the rebels. This is an important fact which many gloss over. We were not invited in to Afghanistan or Iraq, by any group. Even more important, we never actually "went in" to Libya (at least as the phrase refers to troops on the ground), so we don't have to now "get out" of the country. Ten years on, we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The so-called "Pottery Barn" rule ("you broke it, you own it") simply did not apply in Libya, meaning America is not left holding the bag when it comes to the nation-building phase. We can help out, if needed and requested, but the Libyans will be financing their own reconstruction with their abundant petrodollars.

Our international coalition on Libya actually shared the burden with America, as planned. The coalition bore the costs and responsibility for a large part of the mission, instead of mostly being window-dressing for an American army. In fact, this could be the most important comparison of them all, when we look back at the lessons of Libya. Maybe we don't always have to shoulder almost the entire burden of these sorts of wars, in the future. Maybe the "Obama Strategy" will actually become an important military tool for future presidents to use on the international stage, when circumstances allow.

Today, President Obama gave a short address on the Libyan situation. At the end, he spoke directly to the Libyan people themselves:

Your courage and character have been unbreakable in the face of a tyrant. An ocean divides us, but we are joined in the basic human longing for freedom, for justice and for dignity. Your revolution is your own, and your sacrifices have been extraordinary. Now, the Libya that you deserve is within your reach.

The most important takeaway line from this was: "Your revolution is your own." This simply could not be said of what we did in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

The American involvement in Libya was not perfect, but then no war effort can truly claim that distinction. The outcome may not be perfect, either. There are still plenty of valid points of criticism to be made. President Obama's critics will doubtlessly bring up the situation in Syria, Yemen, or Bahrain to make the point that the Obama's Libya strategy is not being used elsewhere, or even that it cannot successfully be used elsewhere. Calling it the "Obama Doctrine" is likely a step too far, I fully admit. It is true that Obama pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Act further than any previous president, but virtually all presidents (of both parties) have pushed these boundaries ever since the Act was passed (and until either Congress or an Oval Office occupant pushes it to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of the Act itself will have to remain an open question). Obama may have moved too slowly for some at the war's onset, but he also moved too quickly for others. Finally, there are no guarantees that the rebels will form a new Libyan government to America's liking.

Even with all those caveats, however, Obama deserves a victory lap at this point. At the heart of Obama's war plan for Libya was an enormous gamble that could have failed in any number of ways. It didn't. America successfully cleared the skies of Libya, and then "within days, not weeks" we bowed out of the lead role in the fight. The French, the British, and the rest of N.A.T.O. stepped up to the plate and performed admirably well. The American military continued in a support role -- exactly as Obama told us would happen -- and the outcome, at this point in time, has to be judged a clear success.

Plus, Barack Obama is now -- together with the leaders of France, Britain, and the United Nations -- being hailed as liberators of Libya (to use the Bush administration's phrase). All in all, Obama's gamble seems to be paying off exceedingly well. Whether this helps the president or not politically (here at home), the Libyan rebels seem pretty happy with the way the war was fought, and with the way America fought our part of it. And it needs pointing out -- to all of Obama's critics -- that this may be the truest measure of success possible. How long has it been, after all, since America took part in a war where at the end of it throngs of people crowded around a sign thanking us for our efforts?


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Qaddafi Vs Obama: Obama Wins! Democracy For Libyans Begins!

Rebels Storm Qaddafi Compound

Rebel fighters on Tuesday, overwhelming what remained of its defenses, running pell-mell through the grounds and ransacking caches of weapons, as the crackle of gunfire and rumble of explosions spread across a confused and wary Libyan capital in spasms of renewed fighting.

Hundreds of rebel fighters on foot and in pickup trucks moved quickly into the Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli, where smoky fires shrouded the palm trees and bullet-scarred multistory buildings of what the rebels have called Colonel Qaddafi’s last hideout. Many of the rebels searched the buildings room by room, but there was no immediate sign that Colonel Qaddafi or any member of his family was there.

Many of the buildings were looted, and rebel fighters could be seen walking around with high-quality advanced machine guns and, in one case, a gold-plated rifle. Some of the looted weapons were still wrapped in plastic.

CNN showed images of fighters emerging from one building carrying what its reporter was told were medical files of the Qaddafi family. Other footage showed rebels commandeering a Qaddafi golf cart, which they hitched to a truck and paraded down a street.

In what could become a defining image of the day, video footage on Al Jazeera showed fighters scrambling to upend one of Colonel Qaddafi’s favorite sculptures: a giant fist crushing an American warplane. Colonel Qaddafi installed the sculpture in front of a house in the compound that was bombed in 1986 on the orders of President Reagan, at a time when Libya was considered a pariah state. The wrecked building became Colonel Qaddafi’s backdrop for major speeches, including his defiant challenge to the rebels at the start of their uprising six months ago.

Despite rebel claims of a new triumph, it was not clear whether they had complete control of the compound — or for that matter, whether the rebel gains in Tripoli were the beginnings of a decisive victory in the conflict — or the start of potentially prolonged street fighting for control of the capital. Overstated claims of advances by the rebels — including the arrests of two Qaddafi sons that later proved false — have not helped their .

The sound of firefights in the compound could be heard for hours after the fighters first broke through. Al Jazeera reported sniper fire inside, and there were reports that one of the network’s employees had been shot.

A spokesman for the Transitional National Council, the rebel government based in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the uprising began, said that the rebels assumed that Colonel Qaddafi was still in Libya. “We believe that he is either in Tripoli or close to Tripoli,” the spokesman, Guma el-Gamaty, told BBC television. “Sooner or later, he will be found, alive and arrested — and hopefully that is the best outcome we want — or if he resists, he will be killed.”

Russian news agencies reported earlier that Colonel Qaddafi had a telephone conversation with the Russian head of the World Chess Federation, Kirsan N. Ilyumzhinov, who is one of Colonel Qaddafi’s eccentric circle of foreign friends. Mr. Ilyumzhinov quoted Colonel Qaddafi as saying that he was alive and well in Tripoli. Colonel Qaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam, who made a surprise appearance on Monday at a hotel with foreign journalists to refute reports of his arrest, also boasted that his father was safe in Tripoli.

They were the first indications of the besieged leader’s location and condition since the rebels swept into Tripoli on Saturday, in what appeared to be a crucial turn in the Libya conflict, the most violent of the Arab spring uprisings.

Video footage and eyewitness reports from elsewhere in Tripoli depicted heavy clashes around the international airport, which the rebels had claimed to control.

NATO officials in Brussels and London said the alliance’s warplanes, which have been helping the rebels, were flying reconnaissance and other missions over Libya.

“Our mission is not over yet,” said Col. Roland Lavoie, a NATO spokesman, at a news conference in Naples, Italy, urging pro-Qaddafi forces to return to their barracks. “Until this is the case we will carry on with our mission.” Asked if the alliance knew where Colonel Qaddafi was, he said: “We don’t know. I don’t have a clue.”

“The situation in Tripoli is still very serious and very dangerous,” Colonel Lavoie said.

He acknowledged that the urban environment in Tripoli, a city of some two million, was “far more complex” for airstrikes than past targets have been. But he said the alliance had precision weapons at its disposal to enforce its United Nations Security Council mandate, which is to protect civilians from attack.

Elsewhere, rebels claimed they had had seized control of Ras Lanuf, an important Mediterranean oil port, and that loyalist soldiers defending it had fled west to Colonel Qaddafi’s home town of Surt, according to news reports from Benghazi. There was no confirmation of the reports about Ras Lanuf, which has changed hands previously in the seesaw pattern of the Libya revolt.

Additionally, Al Arabiya satellite television reported, rebels killed dozens of pro-Qaddafi troops on Tuesday in a convoy from Surt. There was no independent corroboration of the report. The Pentagon reported late on Monday that its warplanes had shot down a Scud missile fired from Surt.

While rebel leaders said on Monday that they were planning for a post-Qaddafi government, the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Tripoli was a vacuum of power: no cohesive rebel government was in place, and remnants of the Qaddafi government were still in evidence.

Such was the uncertainty that the International Organization for Migration in Geneva said it had delayed a seaborne mission to rescue hundreds of foreigners from Tripoli because “security guarantees and assurances are no longer in place,” said Jemini Pandya, a spokeswoman for the organization. A ship that left the eastern port of Benghazi on Monday, bound for Tripoli, would remain at sea until some level of safety for the mission could be assured but would not dock in Tripoli as planned on Tuesday, she said in a telephone interview.

The BBC reported meanwhile that the Qaddafi-controlled Rixos luxury hotel in central Tripoli, where most foreign reporters are based, had also come under attack on Tuesday, sending some reporters to take cover in a basement.

“There are still some pockets of resistance,” the French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said in a radio interview in Paris, but he said he believed “the fall of Qaddafi is close.” Along with the United States and Britain, France has played a central role in the diplomatic and military campaigns to oust Colonel Qaddafi and Mr. Juppé said those efforts still needed time “to get to the end of this operation.”

On the diplomatic front, Oman, Bahrain and Iraq said on Tuesday that they formally recognized the rebel authorities, following Egypt, which took the same step on Monday, calling the Transitional National Council the “new regime.” Mohammed Amr, Egypt’s foreign minister, said that the council would take over the Libyan Embassy in Cairo, and would assume Libya’s seat on the Arab League, which is based in Cairo.

It was not clear if the renewed fighting was linked to the surprise reappearance of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, whose capture the rebels had trumpeted since Sunday but who walked as a free man to the Rixos Hotel early Tuesday. He boasted to foreign journalists there that his father was safe in Tripoli, his government was still “in control” and that the rebels had been lured into a trap, the BBC and news services reported. The episode raised significant questions about the credibility of rebel leaders, who had claimed to be holding him prisoner.

It was not clear whether he had been in rebel custody and escaped, or was never held at all. Another Qaddafi son, Muhammad, escaped from house arrest on Monday.

The struggle to a impose a new order on the capital presents a crucial test of the rebel leadership’s many pledges to replace Colonel Qaddafi’s bizarre autocracy with the democratic rule of law, and it could have consequences across the country and throughout the Arab world.

Unlike the swift and largely peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan insurrection was the first revolt of the Arab Spring to devolve into a protracted armed struggle, and at times threatened to descend into a civil war of factions and tribes.

A rebel failure to deliver on their promises of justice and reconciliation here in the capital could spur Qaddafi loyalists around Libya to fight on. And an ugly outcome here might discourage strong foreign support for democracy movements elsewhere.

For now, governments throughout the West and the Middle East welcomed the rebels’ successes and pledged to assist them in the transition. The Iraqi government announced Tuesday that it had recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate government of Libya. The European Union said on Monday that it had begun planning for a post-Qaddafi era, and Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Benghazi on Tuesday and met with the rebel leader, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Super Committee Democrat Picks Very Diverse; GOP Picks All WHITE Men!

Super Committee: Who are these guys?


They are the "super committee" -- and they have a lot of work to do.

Almost all men -- they are the 12-member panel charged with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in debt savings over a ten-year period.

It will be tough work and will likely require political sacrifice on issues like taxes and entitlements if meaningful progress is to be made toward stabilizing the national debt.

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi weighed in with her three Democratic picks: James Clyburn, Xavier Becerra and Chris Van Hollen.

The panel's six Republicans were named Wednesday to the body, joining three Senate Democrats.

The members have a range of political experience -- from novice to veteran. They are experts in taxes and the budget process. They hail from states as disparate as Texas, Michigan and Arizona.

In a sign that these appointees might not be the most willing to compromise, four of the members -- two Republicans and two Democrats -- served on the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction panel but voted against the plan.

Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that if the goal is a grand compromise, the appointments "could have been a lot worse," but that this group "is not going to leave me dancing on a cloud."

The committee will have until Nov. 23 to propose ways to reduce deficits. Those proposals must be voted on by Dec. 23.

If the committee process fails to produce a debt reduction plan, as much as $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts would kick in -- evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.



Here's a little about each member of the committee:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas (Republican and committee co-chair): Hensarling -- chairman of the House Republican Conference -- served on President Obama's debt commission but voted against it. What did he object to exactly?

Tax increases.

The debate over taxes is expected to be fierce. If his past positions are any clue, Hensarling is likely to be vocally opposed to any new revenues.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington (Democrat and committee co-chair): Murray is not just a senator. She also chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and it is her job to recruit candidates who can beat her Republican colleagues.

Her appointment has already drawn criticism from the Republican National Committee, which views her as an overly political figure.

She is a member of the Budget and Appropriations committees.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (Democrat): Van Hollen played a key role in the debt talks led by Vice President Joe Biden earlier this year, and is the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee.

A Pelosi acolyte, Van Hollen frequently appears on television to represent House Democrats on policy issues.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona (Republican): The No. 2 Republican in the Senate behind Mitch McConnell and a staunch advocate for the military, Kyl is a member of the Finance Committee.

Kyl is a reliable conservative vote and is opposed to tax increases. He has said he will not run for re-election and walked out of debt negotiations with Biden earlier this year after an impasse over increasing revenue.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (Democrat): A former presidential candidate, Kerry is best known on Capitol Hill for his foreign policy experience. He will lend his expertise on national security matters to the debate over cuts to military funding.

He is a member of the Finance Committee and has spent 27 years in the Senate so has participated in his share of closed-door negotiations.

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania (Republican): Elected to the Senate last year, Toomey was a prominent voice in the debate over raising the debt ceiling, arguing that the United States could prioritize its payments in the event of a debt ceiling breach to avoid a true default.

In the end, Toomey voted against the debt ceiling bill that created the super committee. He sits on the Senate Budget and Banking committees, and is the former president of the staunchly anti-tax Club for Growth.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana (Democrat): Baucus -- chairman of the Senate Finance Committee -- served on Obama's debt commission.

But Baucus voted against the final Simpson-Bowles recommendations because he said they cut too deeply into farm subsidies and would have changed Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in away he found unacceptable.

Those same issues -- changes to those entitlement programs -- are likely to be a central part of any grand bargain to reduce deficits.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio (Republican): A former White House budget director in the Bush administration, Portman is a Senate novice and a member of the Budget Committee.

More moderate that some of his colleagues, Portman could be a key player in a compromise.

Rep. Xavier Becerra of California (Democrat): A senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Becerra served on the Bowles-Simpson debt commission.

But he voted against the plan because he said it cut too deeply into discretionary spending and did not raise revenues to a high enough level.

Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan (Republican): Camp -- the House Ways and Means Committee chairman -- served on President Obama's debt commission, but voted against it. He objected to the plan's tax hikes and said it failed to address rising health care costs.

An expert on taxes -- he will bolster GOP credentials on any tax reform that might be discussed.

Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina (Democrat): The third-ranking Democrat in the House and veteran of the Appropriations Committee, Clyburn maintains close ties to Pelosi. He also participated in the Biden debt reduction talks.

Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan (Republican): Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Selects 6 Staunch, Anti-Tax Increase Members For Super Committe: Stalemate Guaranteed!

Republicans name fiscal conservatives to debt committee

Republican leaders on Wednesday named fiscal conservatives for their six picks for a new congressional "super" committee charged with crafting a plan to cut the country's deficit.

In separate announcements, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell filled out the GOP spots on the 12-member bipartisan panel created in last week's debt ceiling deal that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Boehner, R-Ohio, chose Reps. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Dave Camp of Michigan and Fred Upton of Michigan, while McConnell, R-Kentucky, picked Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio.

All six are known for conservative stances on economic issues. Hensarling is the Republican Conference chairman and will be co-chair of the so-called "super" committee with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, who was appointed Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"The debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation's future, and the American people cannot afford to wait any longer," Hensarling said in a statement after his appointment. "Everyone can agree that we must stop spending money we don't have, and the time to act is now."

He added that the committee "will not be able to solve the crisis in a matter of months, but we can work together to tackle these challenges in order to bring back jobs, hope, and opportunity for the American people."

The committee will follow up on negotiations that started last year with the bipartisan debt commission appointed by Obama, then continued in Congress including work by the so-called "Gang of Six" senators -- three Democrats and three Republicans. Both debt commission and the Gang of Six recommended comprehensive packages that included tax reform, changes to politically sensitive entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and spending cuts.

Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who co-chaired Obama's debt commission, told CNN on Wednesday that the new special committee has plenty of information to work with and shouldn't need a lot of time for further collecting or analyzing of issues.

Committee members "don't need to sit around here and gather more information," Simpson said, adding that the actual negotiating is "going to be tough."

Among the choices announced Wednesday, Camp is the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, while Upton chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Upton has taken some moderate positions in the past, including attempts to decrease tax cuts in the George W. Bush administration that remain contentious today.

In a statement Wednesday, Upton said "much more needs to be done to bring down health care costs, promote economic growth, and begin to tame runaway government."

"No one believes this is going to be easy," he added.

On the Senate side, Kyl is the No. 2 Republican behind McConnell, while Portman is a former White House budget director in the Bush administration. Toomey, who joined the Senate in January, sits on the Senate Budget and Banking committees. Kyl is a staunch advocate for the military, which is targeted for deep spending cuts if the special committee fails to come up with an agreement that passes Congress by the end of the year.

A day earlier, Reid appointed Murray, Max Baucus of Montana and John Kerry of Massachusetts with his three Senate Democrat picks.

In a joint statement after their appointments, the three Democratic senators said that Americans want the committee to operate without "the red hot partisanship and brinkmanship of the last months."

"This is not going to be easy. Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone's principles. We believe we can get there. This committee was designed to require bipartisanship, and we are going to work hard with our Republican colleagues to attain it," their statement said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has yet to announce her three House Democrat choices.

She has until August 16 to complete the committee that will have six Democrats and six Republicans, equally divided between the House and Senate.

The committee will try to work out $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, after an initial round of more than $900 billion in spending cuts in the debt ceiling agreement. It is required to complete its work by November 23, and Congress then has until December 23 to vote on the proposal, with no amendments permitted.

A simple majority on the panel -- seven of 12 members -- is needed to approve whatever package it comes up with, meaning that it will take a lone member of either party to push something through by voting with the other side. The committee's proposal would then need a simple majority in each chamber of Congress to make it to Obama's desk.

If the committee fails to reach agreement or Congress fails to pass whatever package it recommends, a trigger mechanism will enact further across-the-board cuts in government spending, including for the military.

According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday, 63% of respondents say the so-called "super committee" should recommend increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36% disagreeing. By a 57-40% margin, respondents say the committee's deficit reduction proposal should include major cuts in domestic spending.

However, further cuts in defense spending get a mixed review, with 47% favoring them and 53% opposed.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents oppose major changes to Social Security and Medicare, while nearly nine in 10 don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.

Months of rancorous negotiations on deficit reduction have failed to resolve a fundamental dispute between Republicans and Democrats involving the size of government and whether to raise revenue while cutting spending. Obama is pushing for a comprehensive plan that included spending cuts, increased tax revenue and entitlement reforms, while Republicans seek to shrink government by proposing spending cuts and entitlement reforms without increased revenue.

An impasse over the tax revenue issue led to the debt ceiling agreement, which imposed the initial round of spending cuts and set up the special committee to work out further deficit reduction. The agreement also enables the federal debt ceiling to be increased through 2012, allowing the government to borrow what it needs to meet its obligations.

The brinkmanship of the negotiations, with uncertainty over whether the government might default if no deal was reached, was one reason why Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday.

One of the main Republican arguments against tax increases on the wealthy is that they would inhibit job creation. The poll results showed that only a third of respondents agree with that stance, while 62% say taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from August 5-7, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey was conducted both before and after Friday night's announcement of the S&P downgrade. The poll's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In announcing his choices for the special committee, Reid said in a statement that Murray would be a co-chair.

"As the events of the past week have made clear, the world is watching the work of this committee," Reid's statement said.

Late Tuesday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus slammed Reid's choice of Murray and asked the Senate leader to withdraw her appointment.

"Harry Reid's appointment of Patty Murray to co-chair the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is absolute proof that Democrats are not serious about deficit reduction," Priebus said in a statement. "As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Murray is the Senate Democrats' fundraiser-in-chief. The Select Committee is no place for someone whose top priority is fundraising and politics."


View Larger Map

Sources: ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps