ObamaHood.org

By MIKE ALLEN at Politico.com:

It’s finally official: President-elect Obama will appear with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in Chicago on Monday as he names her secretary of state, a remarkable reunion of once-bitter rivals.

The news conference at a Chicago hotel is scheduled to begin at 10:40 a.m. Eastern.

Also attending will be Robert M. Gates, President Bush’s Defense Secretary, who will remain at the Pentagon. Clinton and Gates are part of a national security team stocked with some of the best-known names in government. The officials said that Obama is also naming Eric H. Holder Jr., the former number-two-official at the Justice Department, as attorney general; Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security; Susan E. Rice, the Obama campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser, as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.

The “Team of Rivals” war cabinet is very experienced and will have great credibility with the military and with allies abroad, but it constitutes several distinct power centers that could lead to clashes in tough times.

Obama’s transition team gave the green light to Clinton’s nomination after lawyers worked out a remarkable agreement addressing potential conflicts of interest for former President Bill Clinton, who has extensive financial ties abroad.

Most remarkably, the former president agreed to release the long-secret list of 208,000 donors to his presidential library and foundation. As one of nine concessions, he has promised to put out the list by the end of the year.

“It speaks to President Clinton’s willingness to do more than what’s asked of him,” said a Democratic official familiar with the protracted negotiations between Clinton emissaries and Obama transition aides.

The agreement was negotiated by Cheryl Mills, Robert Barnett, Bruce Lindsey and Doug Band on the Clinton side and John Podesta and Todd Stern on the Obama side.

Here’s the full text of the internal guidance about the agreement:

“At the request of President-elect Obama, and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between the work of President Clinton and the service of Hillary Clinton should she be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, President Clinton is taking the following steps above and beyond the requirements of current laws and regulations.

— The Clinton Foundation will publish the names of everyone who has contributed since its founding in 1997 (this year).

— Should Senator Clinton be nominated and confirmed as Secretary of State, during her time of service, the Foundation will also publish the names of everyone who contributes going forward on an annual basis.

— The Foundation will separately incorporate CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative] from the Foundation; President Clinton will continue to host CGI gatherings, such as the one in NYC and its meetings for college and university students, as Founding Chairman of CGI. 

— Although President Clinton will continue to invite participants to CGI events (which involves normal registration fees), he will not solicit ’sponsorship’ contributions for CGI.

— CGI will also not host annual events outside the US and CGI will not solicit or accept foreign government contributions.

— Given the extensive and life-saving work of the Clinton Foundation’s HIV/AIDS Initiative which can and should continue, the Foundation will continue to fulfill its commitments funded by foreign governments (including, among others, Sweden Norway, France, Great Britain). In the event an existing contributing country chooses to substantially increase its commitment, or a new country, or government-owned entity, decides to contribute, the Foundation will share such proposed contributions with the State Department ethics officials. State may also share the issue to the WH Counsel’s office for review. To whatever extent there are conflict of interest concerns raised about such potential contributions related to Senator Clinton’s service as Secretary, they will be conveyed to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for appropriate action.

— Same procedure to be followed for any foreign country contributors to CCI [Clinton Climate Initiative], CGSCI [Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative] and CHDI [Clinton Hunter Development Initiative]. 

— Regarding President Clinton’s private work, during her tenure, President Clinton will share proposed hosts of speeches with the State Department ethics officials for their review, and as appropriate for review by the White House Counsel. Again, should there be conflict of interest concerns related to the Senator’s anticipated service as Secretary, they will share those concerns with Senator and President Clinton for appropriate action. 

— During her tenure as Secretary of State, should she be nominated and confirmed, President Clinton will share any proposed consultant relationships with State Department ethics officials, and the same procedures outlined above will apply here as well.

“None of these protocols is required by any law, and all of them go above and beyond the requirements of the law to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The procedures are, of course, in addition, to the already extensive laws and regulations government the activities of spouses of federal officials (such as those outlined in 5 USC 208 and related regulations).”

Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend “extra time” on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they’d spend extra money to reduce climate change. That’s down from 28 per cent a year ago.
The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren’t included in the global study in 2007.
The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.
The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.
“There’s consumer reluctance that’s creeping in, and we’ve seen that some are being stunned into inaction by the enormity of the task,” said Earthwatch executive vice-president Nigel Winser.
Results of the poll suggested that 55 per cent of respondents in the 11 countries said their governments should be doing more by investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and wave power.
That’s more than double the 27 per cent who wanted their governments to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements to reduce emissions.
In Canada, the same portion favoured renewable-energy options, while 32 per cent supported collective international efforts.
“People believe governments are focusing too much attention on indirect actions that pass responsibility for climate change onto others, such as increasing taxes on fossil fuels, encouraging individual environmentally friendly activities and participating in international negotiations, such as the Kyoto Protocol,” the report said.
“More needs to be done to inform consumers about measures such as green taxation or carbon trading to help them understand how tangible these can be.”
The poll helps explain why outgoing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion had so much difficulty during the election campaign trying to sell his Green Shift platform that proposed a carbon tax in order to encourage emission reductions.
Earthwatch’s Winser said the silver lining in the poll was that it stresses public dissatisfaction with the performance of all governments.
“We welcome this survey because it shows that individuals want their governments to do more.”
HSBC was unable to provide the poll’s margin of error.

Obama campaigned and won the election by telling a majority of voters in this country exactly what they wanted to hear. Every move was calculated. Every position was based on the latest polling numbers. He won by campaigning on raising taxes for only 5% of Americans and cutting taxes on 95%. In a society that has moved more and more towards a belief that the government owes them something and lives by the “I got mine” mentality - This Works!  When everyone was mad at Wall Street, Obama ripped into Wall Street. If gas prices were too high, he ripped into the “evil” oil companies. Furthermore, he convinced a majority of drones in this country that the war in Iraq was lost and we should pull out in retreat knowing full well he was never going to pull out.

By JONATHAN MARTIN at Polico.com:

Leading opponents of the war have mostly been silent as president-elect Barack Obama, who first built his national image on the foundation of his early opposition to the Iraq war, assembles a group of national security hands that is anything but a team of doves.

It’s a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they’ve opposed for the past eight years.

“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”

Especially, he added, before that bubble takes shape.

“You’ve got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn’t fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it’s more complex than that.”

Still, it’s clearly a team that tilts to the right of Democratic foreign policy thought.

Vice-president-elect Joe Biden initially backed the war in Iraq and has supported other military interventions in his long Senate career. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also supported the Iraq war resolution, a vote that Obama framed as a critical failure of judgement during the primary. She’s also taken a harder line on Iran than the president-elect—and is in line to be his Secretary of State.

Jim Jones, a retired Marine General who advised Clinton, Obama and John McCain during the campaign and has refused to disclose his partisan leanings, is slated for National Security Adviser. And running the Pentagon? For at least the first year of his administration, it’s virtually certain that the new president will retain Robert Gates—the Secretary of Defense appointed by President Bush.

Liberals scored one victory, though, when a top candidate to take over the CIA withdrew from consideration this week after concerns surfaced over his views on the agency’s interrogation methods. In a letter taking his name out of consideration, John Brennan said he didn’t want to be a “distraction” to the president-elect.

Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama’s foreign policy.

For now there is a measure of trust from liberals who believe Obama will hold to the principles he espoused during the campaign: end the war in Iraq, negotiate with adversaries and restore America’s standing in the global community.

“We should have a simple sign on our wall saying, ‘It’s the policy stupid,’” said Tom Andrews, the former Maine congressman, riffing off James Carville’s 1992 Clinton campaign mantra. “Many will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt about who is executing the policy as long as there is no comprise or backtracking on the policy itself,” added Andrews, who now heads the group “Win Without War.”

There is, Andrews noted, a reluctance to carp before Obama is even sworn in. “He hasn’t been president for one second yet,” the former congressman observed.

Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he’s remaining on the same course he’s always charted – one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer.

Maryiln Katz, a veteran of the peace movement dating back to her days as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize the October 2002 rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza where Obama declared his opposition to what he called a “dumb war.”

But, Katz recalled, the then-state senator also made certain to point out he was no pacifist.

“He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement,” she said. “He wasn’t us. He didn’t pander to the crowd.”

But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.

“A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him,” she said. “And that was never him. It was never true.”

By Randall Mikkelsen for REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. “Those considerations will be made,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the 2010 scenario “looks more likely than not.”

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.

Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.

His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.

“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.

Obama said on Saturday he was crafting an aggressive two-year stimulus plan to revive the economy, aiming to save 2.5 million jobs by January 2011 through projects including transportation infrastructure, school modernization and alternative energy.

Obama called in October for a $175 billion stimulus measure, but he suggested he was ready to push for a much larger package.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who is part of the majority leadership team in the Senate, told ABC’s “This Week” that an economic recovery package between $500 billion and $700 billion is needed and could be ready by the time Obama takes office on January 20.

“I think it has to be deep. In my view it has to be between five and seven hundred billion dollars,” Schumer said.

From Fox News

A pagan priestess runs into the president of the atheists in a phone booth in New York.

No, it’s not a joke — it’s the start of a controversial report from National Public Radio — and your tax dollars may have paid for it.

New York City officials this fall launched an art project called “Public Prayer Booth,” which features a modified phone booth rigged up with a flip-down kneeler. Passers-by, if they’re in the mood, can bend to their (padded) knee and say a prayer — a private moment in a very public atmosphere.

To cover the story, NPR sent reporter Margot Adler, a Wiccan priestess and author of two books on paganism. Lo and behold, she happened upon the president of the New York City Atheists, Ken Bronstein, an outspoken opponent of public religious displays.

“I just happened to be walking by at this exact moment,” Bronstein told Adler. Then he denounced the display of what he called a “supernatural situation” on city property. Bronstein said that it was inappropriate for the public sphere and had to go.

“You know, if they want to put it on private property, that’s where it should go — but not in public space,” said Bronstein.

Critics are calling the radio report a biased assault on religion — one that’s being supported in part with public funds.

“There are serious efforts under way right now to erase religious expression from the public square,” said Father Jonathan Morris, a Catholic priest and FOX News contributor. “I don’t understand why these groups would be so fascinated with taking this [religious expression] away.”

NPR vehemently denied that its coverage was opposed to prayer or organized religion.

“There’s no bias in this story and to imply that there is because of a reporter’s religious beliefs is absurd,” said Anna Christopher, an NPR spokeswoman. “[Adler] spoke with several different people with several different viewpoints on the booth.”

Adler said traffic was sparse by the booth and she had trouble finding someone who took it seriously enough to pray there, but she interviewed a woman named Francesca Richardson who lives on disability payments and stopped to say a prayer. Adler compared her to Avery Williams, 7, who said grace for her ailing pets.

“Well, my gerbil died so we prayed for him, and my dog had a very bad leg so we prayed for that too,” said Williams.

Asked whether their reporter was taking snipes at the faithful on the government dime, NPR was adamant that she wasn’t and explained that only a minuscule amount of its funding comes from the government.

“Less than two percent [of NPR's budget] comes from competitive grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts,” Christopher said.

“There’s no disrespect for religion at all. Our reporters are able to separate their private practices … and their standards as journalists, and in no way does [Adler's] religious affiliation affect that.”

Religious groups were enthused about the project, saying it provided an opportunity to discuss religion in the public sphere.

“Any respectful artistic expression that gets us thinking about spiritual realities, respectful artistic expression is good,” said Morris.

The public flare-up is just what Dylan Mortimer — the 29-year-old artist who created the installation — was hoping to stir up with his work. Religion is “just one of those topics you don’t bring up at the dinner table,” he said. “My hope and my dream would be that there will be a respectful way to engage in dialogue.”

On that front, Mortimer’s work has been a smashing success.

“Some people love them, some people use them sincerely in prayer, some people use them jokingly. Some people laugh at it, some people are offended, some people have put graffiti on them,” Mortimer told FOXNews.com. “All of those reactions are totally valid.”

Mortimer’s installment, which is set to come down later this month, is sponsored by New York City’s Department of Parks and Recreation as part of its 40-year-old Art in the Parks series. Asked about the controversy over the artwork, the city said it stood by Mortimer’s piece.

“[Mortimer] is working independently and his work raises questions about religion in the public realm, but he does not take a position on it,” said Christina DeLuca, a spokeswoman for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. “As he says, the goal is to spark dialogue, and we hope New Yorkers receive the work in this spirit.”

President-elect Barack Obama says he thinks it’s ethical to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed for research into illnesses.

From the Associated Press:

When the Bush presidency ends, opponents of embryonic stem cell research will face a new political reality that many feel powerless to stop.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to lift restrictions on federal money for such research. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has expressed interest in going ahead with legislation in the first 100 days of the new Congress if it still is necessary to set up a regulatory framework.

“We may lose it, but we’re going to continually fight it and offer the ethical alternative,” said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. “I don’t know what the votes will be in the new Congress … but it’s very possible we could lose this thing.”

Stem cells are the building blocks that turn into different kinds of tissue. Embryonic stem cells, unlike more mature versions, are blank slates. If scientists could control them, they could direct regenerative therapy, perhaps allowing a diabetic’s pancreas to begin produce insulin, for example.

Harvesting stem cells from four- or five-day-old embryos kills the embryo, which outrages opponents of this type of research. But supporters say hundreds of thousands of embryos stored in fertility clinics eventually will be destroyed anyway and that people should be allowed to donate them for research that could help others.

“I believe that it is ethical to use these extra embryos for research that could save lives when they are freely donated for that express purpose,” Obama wrote during the campaign in response to 14 questions from scientists, doctors and engineers.

Under President George W. Bush, federal money for research on human embryonic stems cells was limited to those stem cell lines, or families of constantly dividing cells, that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. No federal dollars could be used on research with cell lines from embryos destroyed from that point forward. Federal regulations do not restrict embryonic stem cell research using state or private funds.

John Podesta, head of Obama’s transition team, strongly hinted that the president-elect would deal with stem cell research soon after taking office Jan. 20. “As you know, he has said something specific about stem cell research, so I think you can expect that what he said in the campaign will be fulfilled once in office,” Podesta said.

Obama made it clear during the campaign he would overturn Bush’s directive.

“As president, I will lift the current administration’s ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001, through executive order, and I will ensure that all research on stem cells is conducted ethically and with rigorous oversight,” he said.

Opponents of such research say they will press their case on several fronts.

The main argument is that life begins at conception — that once fertilization occurred in the lab, so did a human being.

Secondly, they will argue that scientists are having success using other methods — adult stem cells that form specific tissues, or reprogramming skin cells to act like stem cells — so money should be directed where the biggest scientific breakthroughs have occurred. For example, this past week, doctors gave a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.

“We still intend to try and talk about the real facts that it’s the adult stem cells providing the actual treatments,” said David Prentice, senior fellow at the Family Research Council.

Added Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “There’s a lot that’s happened over the seven years that includes some remarkable scientific discoveries, which really should have made the issue of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research moot.”

But Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, took aim at those arguments.

“It’s a little disingenuous for opponents who have effectively blocked federal funding of the work to then cite a lack of progress,” Tipton said. “You hold someone at the starting line then you criticize them for not getting very far.”

Dr. Chi Dang, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, agreed there have been tremendous advances with adult stem cells. But he said it is not yet clear that they have enough flexibility to be used in all the ways that an embryonic stem cell could be.

“From a scientific viewpoint, we would be cornering ourselves into generalizing things that may not be true,” Dang said.

Dang also said these embryos would otherwise be discarded.

“The question is: Is it ethically more acceptable to destroy these embryos by pouring acid on them, or do you deploy these clusters of cells to create new cell lines that could benefit us in the future?”

Samuel Pfaff, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biologic Studies, said he also supports greater embryonic stem cell research to understand what makes them so special that scientists can endow other cells with similar properties.

“I think it’s very fair to say that the long-term trajectory for this area of science is to understand embryonic stem cells so well that we don’t have to use them anymore.” Pfaff said.

Obama taps Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.  Geithner is currently the New York Federal Reserve chief.

Read the full Fortune Magazine article here: Obama Treasury pick means small-dose change

Controversial filmmaker blasts free market system for carmakers failure, says federal control would produce mass transit and hybrid cars.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
11/21/2008 10:40:59 AM

With President George W. Bush on his way out of office and a Democratic president soon be sworn in, some have wondered where the outspoken voices on the left would direct their anger. Try core American values – like free-market capitalism.

Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore, who once said his religion was affirmed because a hurricane’s landfall was timed to be on the same day as the opening of Republican National Convention, expressed his rage toward the heads of the Big Three automakers on CNN’s Nov. 19 “Larry King Live.”

According to Moore, the best thing for the government to do would be to take over the automakers, similar to actions former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took during World War II.

“[W]e can’t let all these people lose their jobs because of the bad decisions, the stupid decisions made by the management of these auto companies,” Moore said. “So I think what has to happen here is that Congress needs to pass some legislation, and our president-elect needs to do what Roosevelt did.”

“When Roosevelt came in and when World War II faced the country, Roosevelt said to General Motors and Ford, ‘You”re not going to build cars anymore,’” Moore said. “’You’re going to build airplanes and tanks and guns and the things that we need for this war because we have a national crisis.’ And so General Motors had to do what Roosevelt told them they had to do.”

Moore later expressed his frustration over a parts plant that closed down in his home state of Michigan, showing pictures of the plant’s demolition while attacking the “few people at the top to get filthy rich.”

“Well, these were taken, actually, by The New York Times about a month or so ago,” Moore said. “They’re tearing down the factory, finally, where he worked, where tens of thousands of people worked over the years. And it was kind of an emotional moment just being there and thinking about all that we’ve lost in this country, how we’ve allowed a few people at the top to get filthy rich.”

“And I mean those guys that were testifying today, one of – the Ford chairman is making something like $22 million a year and his company lost $2 billion last year,” Moore said. “The GM chairman is making $15 million a year. His company lost $39 billion last year. And he’s rewarded with a $15 million payout. I mean this is – this is just absolutely insane.”

Moore pronounced the death of capitalism because of what he declared to be the selfish interest of a handful of auto executives.

“But I’ll tell you what it really has proven to me, Larry, is that these guys, after all of that stuff they’ve been telling us all these years about go capitalism, free market, free enterprise, they don’t believe in any of that,” Moore said. “They don’t believe in free enterprise or a free market.”

“They want – they want socialism for themselves,” Moore added. “They want a handout and a net for themselves – to hell with everybody else, but give it to them. And I think, really, what we’re seeing here right now with them, with the banks, we’re seeing the end of capitalism – the end of capitalism as we know it. And I say good riddance – it hasn’t helped the people or the planet.”

Socialism and anti-free market rhetoric have been a persistent theme in Moore’s work. He has been a crusader for socialized health care in the U.S., especially with his 2007 documentary “SiCKO.” Moore depicted the health care systems used in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the communist nation of Cuba as what the U.S. should have – an expensive taxpayer-funded health care system.

Obama’s tax credits won’t stimulate the economy

By NEWT GINGRICH and PETER FERRARA

President-elect Barack Obama is right: America needs a real and meaningful middle-class tax cut. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, that is not what his proposals offer.

Mr. Obama’s tax plan includes creating or expanding nine or more federal income tax credits mostly focused on low- and moderate-income earners, with an estimated cost of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. These tax credits are provided for certain social purposes, such as child care, health care, education, housing and retirement. Buried amid these is Mr. Obama’s purported tax cut for the middle class.

For the bottom 40% of income earners, who pay no federal income taxes on net today, these refundable income tax credits will not reduce tax liability but instead result in new checks from the federal government for the targeted social purposes. That’s not a tax cut. It’s welfare.

These tax credits will do little or nothing to promote economic growth because they do not reduce marginal tax rates — the rate on the next dollar of income — to provide powerful, meaningful incentives for productive activities such as investment, entrepreneurship and work. A tax credit is effectively a cash grant that can only affect incentives up to the amount of the grant. Indeed, such tax credits would likely reduce economic growth because the credits are phased out as income rises, and so effectively impose higher marginal tax rates over those income levels.

For a real middle-class tax cut, we should cut the 25% income tax rate that now applies to single workers earning $32,550 to $78,850, and married couples earning $65,100 to $131,450. We should reduce that rate down to the 15% rate paid by workers below these income levels. That would, in effect, establish a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers.

Marginal tax rates for middle-income families in the 25% tax bracket are too high. Add in effective payroll tax rates of 15% and state income taxes, and these workers are laboring under marginal tax rates of close to 50%. No wonder middle-income wage growth has slowed sharply. Reducing the marginal tax rates for these middle-income earners would lead to income increases for middle-income workers, just as reducing excessive marginal tax rates for higher-income workers did, going all the way back to the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s.

This 40% cut in middle-class income tax rates would provide a powerful boost to the economy, greatly expanding incentives for savings, investment and work. This would be much more effective than Mr. Obama’s tax plan with it’s $1.3 trillion in redistributive tax credits, as well as yet another so-called stimulus package based on another $300 billion or more in increased government spending.

Taxing or borrowing from the economy and then spending hundreds of billions more through government bureaucracies will have zero effect in promoting economic growth, as did the failed stimulus package adopted by the Bush administration this year.

We could add to this alternative tax proposal an increase in the personal exemption from $3,500 to $7,000. The package would then cut taxes for all taxpayers, including those in the lower tax brackets. Of course, reducing the top income tax rates of 28%, 33% and 35%, capital gains tax rates, and the excessive 35% corporate tax rate, would boost the economy even more. But these are the “hate” rates imposed on those who liberals think are too productive, work too hard, and earn too much. Liberals deride these taxpayers as corporate fat cats and “the rich.”

Fine. Leave those rates for a future initiative. For now we should focus on the middle-income tax rates that are attractive to cut in the current political climate. This would continue the tax cuts for low- and moderate-income workers Republicans have been adopting for 30 years now.

Because of the highly beneficial effect of these middle-class rate reductions on our economy, and the freedom they would give workers to spend, save or invest their money as they choose, this proposal would likely enjoy broad public support and present a viable alternative to the liberal social purposes of President-elect Obama’s tax credits.

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the House. Mr. Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation.

By GERALD F. SEIB for the Wall Street Journal:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That’s one way of looking at things. Here’s another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis — and crisis doesn’t seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now — is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn’t lost on the new president and his team. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”

Mr. Emanuel noted, correctly, that the U.S. largely squandered the opportunity the oil shocks of the 1970s presented to make serious, long-term changes in its energy habits — a failure that has returned to haunt the nation today.

Conversely, history points to examples of leaders who have used crises to seize opportunities. Most obviously, President Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of economic trauma in the 1930s to drive through a new economic agenda, as did President Ronald Reagan with his tax cuts in 1981.

The lesson holds true in foreign policy as well. Only the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and its shock to the Middle East status quo, made it possible for President Jimmy Carter to move in and negotiate the historic Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

And so it is for Team Obama now. The risk, of course, is today’s opportunities will tempt the administration to overreach, lifting government spending so high that the deficit hangover at the other end of the cycle is intolerable, or injecting government so far into the marketplace that bipartisan support evaporates.

But for now, the call for government action is so universal that the playing field is wide open. With interest rates approaching zero, the Federal Reserve Board is nearly out of interest-rate ammunition to stimulate an economy sinking into recession; Fed policy makers likely are quietly praying for fiscal stimulus to start filling the void.

The chief executives gathered at the Journal conference this week called for the new administration to enact a fiscal-stimulus package of at least $300 billion — perhaps double the amount of stimulus such a group likely would have called for just a few weeks ago.

That creates an opening through which Mr. Obama can drive a fair amount of his domestic agenda. Certainly the field is open for some immediate form of the president-elect’s middle-class tax cut to become part of a stimulus package.

By the same token, the yearning for government spending on “infrastructure” to stimulate economic activity creates an opening for the new president to push the kind of green projects that fit his call for a transition to alternative energy sources, including new kinds of mass-transit systems. And the Obama call for government “investment” in alternative energies will be easier to turn into reality if it, too, can be cloaked as part of stimulus spending.

At the same time, as thousands of additional Americans lose jobs in the recession that lies ahead, they also will lose their employer-provided health insurance and swell the ranks of the nation’s uninsured. That will add a bit of rocket fuel to the Obama call for universal health coverage. And certainly the broad dissatisfaction with the way financial markets were regulated will make it easier to rebuild regulatory structures.

The crisis also presents the Obama team with an opportunity that isn’t so obvious: using economic distress to step back from the protectionist cliff Democrats edged toward during the election campaign.

A time of global economic distress isn’t a good time to construct barriers to international trade. Conversely, it may be a good time to help both stressed American consumers and distressed developing-world economies by lowering tariffs on some goods made abroad. One test of the Obama administration’s economic philosophy is whether it is as eager to take advantage of that opening as some of the others now before it.

By Chloe Albanesius at PC Mag

Several Verizon Wireless employees gained unauthorized access to the cell phone account of President-elect Barack Obama, the provider revealed Thursday.

“This week we learned that a number of Verizon Wireless employees have, without authorization, accessed and viewed President-elect Barack Obama’s personal cell phone account,” Verizon said in a Thursday statement.

Verizon said the account has been inactive for several months and was tied to a flip phone, not a smart phone like the BlackBerry. Obama has been pictured several times talking on a Motorola Razr, a flip phone that is available through Verizon Wireless.

Obama has also been spotted with the BlackBerry and the Apple iPhone.

“All employees who have accessed the account – whether authorized or not – have been put on immediate leave, with pay,” Verizon said. “As the circumstances of each individual employee’s access to the account are determined, the company will take appropriate actions.”

Employees found to have accessed Obama’s account for legitimate reasons will be reinstated while those who did so without cause will “face appropriate disciplinary action,” Verizon said.

“We apologize to President-elect Obama and will work to keep the trust our customers place in us every day,” the company said.

There has been speculation in the past week about whether Obama will be able to keep his BlackBerry after he is sworn into office. For security reasons, U.S. presidents have traditionally surrendered their electronic devices while in office, and Thursday’s Verizon incident highlights why that type of precaution might still be necessary.

By JEN DIMASCIO at Politico.com:

Soon after taking office, President Barack Obama and his defense team will decide the fate of the next-generation Air Force fighter, the F-22 Raptor. 

And the new administration will have to do it under considerable pressure from Congress. 

It’s an issue that’s sure to rise to the top as Obama transition aides deal with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who may be asked to stay on, and other key Pentagon officials. 

The Bush administration is keeping the program on life support at least until the charging of the guard on Jan. 20, with $50 million toward the purchase of new jets while pointing out the increasing costs of the program. 

But powerful members of Congress are incensed by the decision because they provided $140 million to keep defense giant Lockheed Martin’s F-22 production lines humming. 

“I fear your decision to withhold the $90 million may already be impacting suppliers and driving up long-term costs,” said New Jersey Rep. Jim Saxton, the ranking Republican on House Armed Services Air 
and Land Forces Subcommittee. 

And on Thursday, senior appropriators Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Reps. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) wrote Gates, urging him to reconsider the Pentagon’s decision. 

This is the final year of a three-year contract to buy the planes. But the fight is over what happens next. The Air Force has plans to buy 183 planes, and current Air Force leaders say that more are needed. 
And lawmakers, particularly from Georgia where the planes are assembled, have said they’d like to see a new multi-year contract. 

But senior Pentagon officials are only supporting four new F-22s in a supplemental budget request the new administration will also consider after taking office. 

John Young, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief, told reporters Thursday that debate about the plane hasn’t been fully informed, noting it isn’t meeting all the Pentagon’s requirements and was performing at a rate he called “troubling.” 

“The airplane is proving very expensive to operate,” Young said, adding that it’s complicated to maintain. 
Also, many of the current planes may need upgrades that could cost $8 billion more. 

So why keep the program alive? 

Gates thought it was “fair and reasonable for the next administration to be able to review this issue,” Young said. “So, he directed that we create a reasonable bridge to allow them to make that decision.” 
The Obama administration now will have to make a decision about future of the Raptor. “And I think it’s fair and reasonable.”

Washington: Attorney General Michael Mukasey was hospitalized late last night after he collapsed during a speech and lost consciousness. We wish him and his family the best. Let’s pray for a speedy recovery.

Caution: Here is the video of Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsing.

By MIKE ALLEN
From Politico:

President-elect Barack Obama is “on track” to name Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as his secretary of state shortly after Thanksgiving, two senior Obama aides said.

Financial disclosure issues have been worked out, aides said.

The officials said they expect her to accept. Clinton aides had no comment.

The choice unites the two rivals in the most protracted presidential primary in American history, giving Obama the “Team of Rivals” Cabinet he had promised.

Former President Bill Clinton authorized unprecedented disclosures about his finances to Obama’s vetting team, and transition lawyers are satisfied, officials said.