Americans have more anxiety about the economy than about any other major national issue Gallup tracks, with 71% saying they worry a great deal about it. “Federal spending and the budget deficit” spark nearly as much concern, at 64%. The environment and race relations rank lowest of 14 issues tested.
Read more at GALLUP.com.
Over the weekend, U.S. and allied air and naval forces launched strikes on the military assets of the regime of Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi. Last night marked the third night of air strikes and the New York Times is reporting “the military campaign to destroy air defenses and establish a no-fly zone over Libya has nearly accomplished its initial objectives, and the United States is moving swiftly to hand command to allies in Europe, American officials said on Monday.” The intervention came following a UN Security Council resolution on Friday that endorsed the creation of a no-fly zone and authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. The UN resolution came as Qaddafi forces were threatening to rout — and some fear massacre — anti-government forces that had retreated to the eastern city of Benghazi. President Obama also explained the decision to authorize force: “The core point that has to be upheld here , is that the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that when there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, when a leader that has lost legitimacy and decides to turn his military on his own people, we simply can’t stand by with empty words, we have to take some sort of action.” The sudden US intervention has proved controversial and spawned a serious debate over the nature of the mission’s objectives and the extent of US involvement that has divided foreign policy thinkers and political leaders on both sides of the aisle. While there is legitimate debate over the merits of intervention, many Republican 2012 candidates and conservative talking heads, ever desperate to attack the President and score cheap political points, are launching absurd attacks and even critiquing him for taking action they days before supported. As Politico noted, this is a “reminder of the dearth of foreign policy experience among the main GOP contenders.”
CONTEXT: What began as a popular uprising, similar to Egypt and Tunisia, quickly spiraled into an armed revolt following Qaddafi’s use of mercenary forces to brutally and indiscriminately suppress the protests. Just a few weeks ago, rebel forces controlled much of the country and appeared on the cusp of toppling Qaddafi. But Qaddafi rallied and launched a furious counter-attack, which forced a rebel retreat across the country. As Qaddafi’s forces approached the eastern city of Benghazi, there were growing fears of a massacre and humanitarian and refugee crisis. This prompted the Arab League to call for Western intervention. On Friday, the United Nations Security Council authorized international action in Libya by a vote of 10-0 with five countries (Brazil, Germany, Russia, China, India) choosing to abstain. Over the past three days, the U.S. fired more than 130 Tomahawk cruise missiles and launched numerous air strikes, which have prevented the fall of Benghazi and a humanitarian crisis. President Obama said yesterday that “after the initial thrust has disabled Gaddafi’s air defences… there will be a transition in which we have a range of coalition partners, who will then be participating in establishing a no-fly zone.” Yet there is some confusion and disagreement within NATO over who will take charge of the operations from the US. The sudden nature of the intervention has also led to complaints from congress that the President did not properly consult with congress. The New York Times noted that “lawmakers from both parties argued that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the military’s participation without Congressional approval. The president said in a letter to Congress that he had the power to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest.”
END GAME?: Intervention has led to a serious debate that has cross-cut party lines over the merits and objectives of the operation. Many fear the administration has not defined clear objectives or laid out an end game for its intervention. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said, “I do not understand the mission because as far as I can tell in the United States there is no mission and there are no guidelines for success.” One cause for confusion is that in the first few weeks of the uprising in Libya the Obama administration called for Qaddafi to go, but it is unclear whether rebel forces have the capability to oust Qaddafi. Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress warns, “you could have this very awkward phase emerging where Gaddafi is entrenched while there’s a rump state in eastern Libya and some but not all states in the Arab world work to isolate the regime.” This has led to fears of mission creep, where U.S. forces would escalate their intervention to ensure Qaddafi’s ouster. James Fallows of the Atlantic writes, “the most predictable failure in modern American military policy has been the reluctance to ask, And what happens then? … After this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don’t?” Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist noted that “the biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it’s there — the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint — there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave.” However, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on Meet the Press that the President “has a military operation with very clear mission, and that’s what the president should do is have a clear mission and to avoid mission creep…this mission has been very carefully limited.” The Obama administration has insisted that the military intervention will be limited and has rejected sending in U.S. ground troops. President Obama said yesterday in Chile, “First of all, I think it’s very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies. Our military action is in support of a international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qaddafi to his people. … As part of that international coalition, I authorized the United States military to work with our international partners to fulfill that mandate. Now, I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go. And we got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy… But when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Resolution 1973, that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts. And we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.”
RIGHT WING NOISE: For days, many conservative presidential hopefuls and political pundits had called for U.S. intervention in Libya, but following the international community’s action, few took to the airwaves to back the President. Politico reported, “After demanding for weeks that he be more decisive on Libya, not one candidate in the field of 2012 GOP hopefuls has expressed support for President Barack Obama since he began bombing the North African nation. The GOP’s presidential prospects either sharply criticized the commander-in-chief this weekend or avoided weighing in.” For those GOP hopefuls and pundits that attacked the President, the critique centered on the premise that he waited too long and shouldn’t have sought international support — apparently it is preferable to go to war without international support. Sarah Palin said she wouldn’t criticize the President while she was abroad in India, but then went on to criticize the President saying if she were there would have been “less dithering.” John Bolton said on Fox News that the Obama administration was “wrong to base its decision to use force” due to the support of the Arab League or the United Nations. HBO’s Bill Maher noted on Friday, “Republicans don’t know what to do with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that’s good, but now Obama wants it so it’s bad. … Fox News today just put up a test pattern that said, ‘Please be patient while we figure out how this makes Obama the worst president ever.'”
One year after President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, Americans are divided on its passage, with 46% saying it was a good thing and 44% saying it was a bad thing. Most Americans are skeptical that the law will improve medical care in the U.S. or their own personal medical care.
Read more at www.GALLUP.com
The cost of filling up a gas tank has shot up in recent weeks as oil trades at unusually high prices for this time of year. Oil prices have come down slightly since hitting a high of $106.95 a barrel two weeks ago — the highest price for a barrel since the record 2008 oil price hike — but early trading today has already pushed prices back up. The spike in the cost of oil this early in the year poses a serious threat to the fragile economic recovery, with experts saying that prolonged high gas prices could cripple economic growth at a critical time. Some economists are even warning that high oil prices could cost the economy up to 600,000 jobs. “[S]ustained rises in the prices of oil or other commodities would represent a threat [to] both to economic growth and to overall price stability, particularly if they were to cause inflation expectations to become less well anchored,” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress earlier this month. A new CNN poll of experts shows that “economists are most fearful of one major headwind [to recovery]: oil prices.” So what’s causing this spike in prices? One factor is Wall Street speculation. The government has new powers created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to deal with this problem, but as part of their war on consumer protection regulation, Republicans have so far prevented this from happening.
WHAT’S BEHIND OIL PRICES: While there are several causes that contribute to rise in oil prices, many experts point to Wall Street speculation: hedge funds, investors, and big banks trying to make money by betting on the price fluctuation of oil and other commodities. Speculation in and of itself isn’t a bad thing — in fact, it’s necessary in moderation with proper regulation to help end users like airlines hedge against price fluctuation — but excessive speculation, especially when it is based on fear about inherently unknown future events, can artificially inflate the price of oil beyond the price that natural supply and demand forces would set. Experts concluded in 2008 that that year’s spike in oil and other commodity prices couldn’t possibly be explained by supply and demand forces, and that speculation must have played a role. “[T]here is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices,” a House Homeland Security Committee report on oil prices from 2008 concluded. The same appears to be true today. While many blame high oil prices on the crisis in Libya, the country accounts for only 2 percent of the world’s output. More importantly, Saudi Arabia has vowed to make up for any shortfall in global supply by increasing its own production. So supply issues are not likely having a significant impact on prices. And despite conservatives’ scapegoating, President Obama’s policies are clearly not to blame either. Meanwhile, a commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) — the government agency charged with policing commodity speculation — said earlier this month that speculation on energy futures, including oil, is at an all-time high, jumping 64 percent even since 2008. Speculation was blamed by both Republicans and Democrats three years ago for oil prices, and even with conservatives’ tea party embrace of Wall Street today, several Republican congressmen, and conservative leaders have acknowledged that speculation is a driver of oil prices.
A SOLUTION: Recognizing the problem of oil speculation, Congress gave the government new powers to protect consumers and help ensure market stability with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law passed last year. The law gives the CFTC the ability to limit “excessive speculation” by limiting the bets speculators can make. The law expanded the CFTC’s authority to regulate the entire market for the first time. While futures — bets on the future prices of commodities like oil and wheat — were regulated before the law passed, traders could choose to instead purchase “look-alike” futures that were not subject to regulation. Dodd-Frank changes this by allowing the CFTC to “impose a uniform set of rules across exchanges and the over-the-counter market, replacing a patchwork of inconsistent restrictions for different venues and commodities.” Curbing regulation could help make these markets more stable and transparent, and help bring down the cost of oil.
DEFENDING WALL STREET: But the CFTC has so far failed to take up this responsibility and write the rules that would rein in oil speculators. The agency missed a January deadline to file new rules because of opposition from the commission’s Republican members and one of its Democrats, CFTC commissioner Michael Dunn. The agency’s chairman, Gary Gensler — a Democrat and former Goldman Sachs banker — has taken a lead in advocating strong new rules on speculation, but the Republican commissioners have been foot dragging to defend Wall Street’s profits, making Dunn the swing vote. Dunn has said he does not have enough information to sign off on new rules, despite the fact that the agency has received hundreds of public comments and held at least 75 meetings with experts, stakeholders, and the public on the matter. But Dunn’s term is ending this summer, giving President Obama an opportunity to appoint someone who is willing to follow the law and rein in speculation. But the CFTC faces another threat from Republicans on a different front. H.R.1, the House Republican approved spending plan for the remainder of 2011, includes a nearly one-third cut in the CFTC’s budget. Such a draconian cut would require the CFTC to lay off more than 30 percent of its staff. Moreover, House “Republicans are threatening repercussions for regulators that ignore their concerns.” “We’d have to have significant curtailment of our staff and resources,” CFTC Chairman Gensler said. “We would not be able to police…or ensure transparent markets in futures or swaps.” The Republican effort to take cops off the oil trade beat would allow speculators to continue to drive up prices, ensuring even bigger profits for oil companies.
I am thrilled to make sure you are the first to hear some very exciting news. Charlotte, North Carolina, will host the 46th Democratic National Convention in 2012.
Charlotte is a city marked by its southern charm, warm hospitality, and an “up by the bootstraps” mentality that has propelled the city forward as one of the fastest-growing in the South. Vibrant, diverse, and full of opportunity, the Queen City is home to innovative, hardworking folks with big hearts and open minds. And of course, great barbecue.
Barack and I spent a lot of time in North Carolina during the campaign — from the Atlantic Coast to the Research Triangle to the Smoky Mountains and everywhere in between. Barack enjoyed Asheville so much when he spent several days preparing for the second Presidential debate that our family vacationed there in 2009.
And my very first trip outside of Washington as First Lady was to Fort Bragg, where I started my effort to do all we can to help our heroic military families.
All the contending cities were places that Barack and I have grown to know and love, so it was a hard choice. But we are thrilled to be bringing the convention to Charlotte.
We hope many of you can join us in Charlotte the week of September 3rd, 2012. But if you can’t, we intend to bring the spirit of the convention — as well as actual, related events to your community and even your own backyard.
More than anything else, we want this to be a grassroots convention for the people. We will finance this convention differently than it’s been done in the past, and we will make sure everyone feels closely tied in to what is happening in Charlotte. This will be a different convention, for a different time.
To help us make sure this is a grassroots convention — The People’s Convention — we need to hear from you. We want to know what you’d like to see at next year’s convention, how and where you plan on watching it — and the very best way we can engage your friends and neighbors.
http://my.barackobama.com/PeoplesConvention1?keycode=
I can’t believe it has been more than two years since my brother Craig introduced me at the 2008 Convention in Denver. It truly feels like it was yesterday.
As I looked out at a sea of thousands of supporters that night, I spoke about my husband — the man whom this country would go on to elect as the 44th President of the United States. I spoke about his fundamental belief — a conviction at the very core of his life’s work — that each of us has something to contribute to the spirit of our nation.
That’s also the belief at the core of The People’s Convention. That the table we sit at together ought to be big enough for everyone. That the thread that binds us — a belief in the promise of this country — is strong enough to sustain us through good times and bad.
Barack talked at the State of the Union of his vision for how America can win the future. That must be the focus now, and I know so many of you will help talk about our plans with your neighbors — that through innovation, education, reform, and responsibility we can make sure America realizes this vision.
But, conventions take time to plan, so please help us make sure that your thoughts and your ideas will ring all the way to Charlotte. Get started now:
http://my.barackobama.com/PeoplesConvention1?keycode=
Looking forward to sharing this together,
Michelle
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.