2/28/09 President Barack Obama Weekly Radio Address

"President Obama described his expansive budget proposal on Saturday as “a threat to the status quo in Washington” and cast himself as a populist crusader willing to do battle with special interests to expand health care, curb pollution and improve education."<

"The address hinted at the strategy the White House intends to employ to push for the spending plan released last week, a return to a more traditional Democratic approach of positioning the party as fighting against the rich and powerful. In Mr. Obama’s telling, he is taking on entrenched interests in the form of banks, insurance companies, large agribusinesses, oil and gas companies and others.

"Beyond the $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, the president’s spending plan outlines a wide array of ambitious initiatives for the next several years that collectively would transform American society. Mr. Obama wants to extend health coverage to the more than 40 million uninsured, revamp industry so that it stops producing so many emissions that cause climate change, develop alternative energy sources, and invest billions more in education.

"At the same time, he wants to restructure the tax code to shift more of the burden from lower and middle income workers to the wealthy, effectively a redistribution of wealth intended to reverse the widening income gap of recent years. And he promised to bring the skyrocketing federal deficit, projected to reach a breathtaking $1.75 trillion this year, under control by the end of his first term.

"A number of his ideas have attracted criticism across party lines. Republicans deride the overall plan as a “job killer” intended to revive class warfare, soak the rich and burden business too much at a time of economic hardship. The plan means “the era of big government is back,” as Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, put it this week.

"Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts told a conference of conservative activists on Friday that “I’m afraid I know where the liberal Democrats want to take us.” Mr. Romney, a former and possibly future Republican presidential candidate, added, “As they try to pull us in the direction of government-dominated Europe, we’re going to have to fight as never before to make sure that America stays America.”

"Certain provisions in Mr. Obama’s plan may strike special interests, but they also affect favored programs for Democrats as well as Republicans. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, for instance, declared that he opposed Mr. Obama’s proposal to phase out agricultural subsidies for farmers with gross receipts over $500,000.

"Senator Kent Conrad, another Democrat from North Dakota and the Senate Budget Committee chairman, likewise opposed the farm subsidy plan but said limits on mortgage, charitable contribution and other deductions for high income earners “may well not survive” and expressed concern about the buildup of debt in the spending blueprint.

“I think we ought to go to work and take the good things in this president’s budget, especially the first five years where he cuts the deficit in half,” Mr. Conrad told CNBC. “But then he kind of gets stuck in the second five years. I think we can do better.”"But even as he criticizes special interests, Mr. Obama will have his own interest group allies fighting for his plan. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a liberal advocacy group called Americans United for Change, have produced an advertisement chiding Republicans for opposing Mr. Obama’s economic stimulus plan. “Tell them America won’t take no for an answer anymore,” the advertisement says."

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, February 28th, 2009
Washington, DC

Two years ago, we set out on a journey to change the way that Washington works.

We sought a government that served not the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few, but the middle-class Americans I met every day in every community along the campaign trail – responsible men and women who are working harder than ever, worrying about their jobs, and struggling to raise their families. In so many town halls and backyards, they spoke of their hopes for a government that finally confronts the challenges that their families face every day; a government that treats their tax dollars as responsibly as they treat their own hard-earned paychecks.

That is the change I promised as a candidate for president. It is the change the American people voted for in November. And it is the change represented by the budget I sent to Congress this week.

During the campaign, I promised a fair and balanced tax code that would cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, roll back the tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year, and end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas. This budget does that.

I promised an economy run on clean, renewable energy that will create new American jobs, new American industries, and free us from the dangerous grip of foreign oil. This budget puts us on that path, through a market-based cap on carbon pollution that will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy; through investments in wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient American cars and American trucks.

I promised to bring down the crushing cost of health care – a cost that bankrupts one American every thirty seconds, forces small businesses to close their doors, and saddles our government with more debt. This budget keeps that promise, with a historic commitment to reform that will lead to lower costs and quality, affordable health care for every American.

I promised an education system that will prepare every American to compete, so Americans can win in a global economy. This budget will help us meet that goal, with new incentives for teacher performance and pathways for advancement; new tax credits that will make college more affordable for all who want to go; and new support to ensure that those who do go finish their degree.

This budget also reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession. Given this reality, we’ll have to be more vigilant than ever in eliminating the programs we don’t need in order to make room for the investments we do need. I promised to do this by going through the federal budget page by page, and line by line. That is a process we have already begun, and I am pleased to say that we’ve already identified two trillion dollars worth of deficit-reductions over the next decade. We’ve also restored a sense of honesty and transparency to our budget, which is why this one accounts for spending that was hidden or left out under the old rules.

I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November. That is the change this budget starts to make, and that is the change I’ll be fighting for in the weeks ahead – change that will grow our economy, expand our middle-class, and keep the American Dream alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began.

Thanks for listening.

1.5 Million-Year-Old Newly Discovered Hominid Footprints Indistinguishable From Upright Bipedalism of Modern Man

The hominid reproduction of Australopithecus afarensis above and below to the the type of hominid that left footprints that were discovered by Mary Leaky and were dated at "3.75 million-year-old"

and were "tracks preserved in volcanic ash in northern Tanzania. Those prints belonged to A. afarensis, and provided clear evidence of bipedalism."

Mary Leaky's discovery demonstrated that: "Though the short-legged, long-trunked A. Afarensis was able to walk upright, its feet were still apelike," as demonstrated in the picture to the left, "possessing a telltale splayed-out big toe. Because the early fossil record contains no foot bones, scientists didn't know when modern feet — a defining human characteristic necessary for long-distance running — evolved."

The skeletal remains of the most famous reconstruction of A. Afarensis, is almost 40% complete and is shown below was discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson. The discovery of this hominin was significant as the skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes and of bipedal upright walk akin to that of humans, providing further evidence that bipedalism preceded increase in brain size in human evolution.

"And as the facial reconstruction of Lucy, the most famous of A. afarensis, clearly shows an ape-like facial features and lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. A. afarensis was of a slight build and was an early ancestor of the genus Homo which includes modern man; the species of Homo sapiens."

"One of the most striking characteristics possessed by Lucy was a valgus knee, which indicated that she normally moved by walking upright. Her femoral head was small and her femoral neck was short, both primitive characteristics. Her greater trochanter, however, was clearly derived, being short and human like rather than taller than the femoral head. The length ratio of her humerus to femur was 84.6% compared to 71.8% for modern humans and 97.8% for common chimpanzees, indicating that either the arms of A. afarensis were beginning to shorten, the legs were beginning to lengthen, or that both were occurring simultaneously. Lucy also possessed a lumbar curve, another indicator of habitual bipedalism."

"Johanson was able to recover Lucy's left innominate bone and sacrum. Though the sacrum was remarkably well preserved, the innominate was distorted like a carnivorous child or infant, leading to two different reconstructions. The first reconstruction had little iliac flare and virtually no anterior wrap, creating an ilium that greatly resembled that of an ape. However, this reconstruction proved to be faulty, as the superior pubic rami would not have been able to connect if the right ilium was identical to the left. A later reconstruction by Tim White showed a broad iliac flare and a definite anterior wrap, indicating that Lucy had an unusually broad inner acetabular distance and unusually long superior pubic rami. Her pubic arch was over 90 degrees, similar to modern human females. Her acetabulum, however, was small and primitive."

A. afarensis demonstrates that "there are a number of traits in the A. afarensis skeleton which strongly reflect bipedalism. In overall anatomy, the pelvis is far more human-like than ape-like. The iliac blades are short and wide, the sacrum is wide and positioned directly behind the hip joint, and there is clear evidence of a strong attachment for the knee extensors. While the pelvis is not wholly human-like (being markedly wide with flared with laterally orientated iliac blades), these features point to a structure that can be considered radically remodeled to accommodate a significant degree of bipedalism in the animals' locomotor repertoire. Importantly, the femur also angles in toward the knee from the hip. This trait would have allowed the foot to have fallen closer to the midline of the body, and is a strong indication of habitual bipedal locomotion. Along with humans, present day orangutans and spider monkeys possess this same feature. The feet also feature adducted big toes, making it difficult if not impossible to grasp branches with the hindlimbs. The loss of a grasping hindlimb also increases the risk of an infant being dropped or falling, as primates typically hold onto their mothers while the mother goes about her daily business. Without the second set of grasping limbs, the infant cannot maintain as strong a grip, and likely had to be held with help from the mother. The problem of holding the infant would be multiplied if the mother also had to climb trees. The ankle joint of A. afarensis is also markedly human-like."

"Climate changes around 11 to 12 million years ago affected forests in East and Central Africa, establishing periods where openings prevented travel through the tree canopy, and during these times ancestral hominids could have adapted the upright walking behavior for ground travel, while the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees became more specialized in climbing vertical tree trunks or lianas with a bent hip and bent knee posture, ultimately leading them to use the related knuckle-walking posture for ground travel. This would lead to A. afarensis usage of upright bipedalism for ground travel, while still having arms well adapted for climbing smaller trees. However, chimpanzees and gorillas are the closest living relatives to humans, and share anatomical features including a fused wrist bone which may also suggest knuckle-walking by human ancestors."

Now with the discovery of the 1.5 million year old footprints, researchers how have clear evidence that humankind's first ancestors to walk ot of Africa did so in a manner impossible to differentiate from the types of tracks left by modern mankind.

As the trail of tracks on the right clearly show; the footprints most likely originated from the upright gait of "Homo erectus. Maker of the first stone tools, H. erectus was also the first hominid to leave Africa, migrating to Asia about two million years ago."

Using modern instruments scientists: "By scanning the footprints ( on the right photo) with lasers and measuring sediment compression, then comparing the results to A. afarensis and Homo sapiens, researchers determined that H. erectus had a modern foot and stride: a mid-foot arch, straight big toe and heel-to-toe weight transfer.

"In a commentary accompanying the study, primatologists Robin Huw Crompton and Todd Pataky say the footprints are "broadly indistinguishable from those of modern humans" and "herald an exciting time for the evolution of human gait."

"Early humans had feet like ours and left lasting impressions in the form of 1.5 million-year-old footprints, some of which were made by feet that could wear a size 9 men's shoe.

"The findings at a Northern Kenya site represent the oldest evidence of modern-human foot anatomy. They also help tell an ancestral story of humans who had fully transitioned from tree-dwellers to land walkers.

"In a sense, it's like putting flesh on the bones," said John Harris, an anthropologist with the Koobi Fora Field School of Rutgers University. "The prints are so well preserved."

"The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster, an early form of Homo erectus. Such prints include modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes.

"By contrast, apes have more curved fingers and toes made for grasping tree branches. The earliest human ancestors, such as Australopithecus afarensis, still possessed many ape-like features more than 2 million years ago — the well-known "Lucy" specimen represents one such example.

"Modern feet mark just one of several dramatic shifts in early humans, specifically regarding the appearance of Homo erectus around 2 million years ago. Homo erectus is the first hominid to have the same body proportions as modern Homo sapiens.

"We're seeing a very different hominid at this stage," Harris said, pointing to both an increase in size and change in stride during the relatively short time between Australopithecus (the first in this genus lived about 4 million years ago and the last died out between 3 million and 2 million years ago) and Homo erectus. The latter hominids would have been able to travel more quickly and efficiently over larger areas.

"This matches a pattern of more widely-distributed sites containing artifacts such as tools from 1.5 million to 1 million years ago, which may also point to wider-ranging early humans.

"Climate changing and shifting physical landscapes would have also forced the likes of Homo erectus to wander farther in search of food, Harris said. But increased walking and running abilities may have allowed them to start seriously hunting big game

"You might even think in terms of dietary quality here, because maybe they're incorporating more meat into their diet," Harris said. "They would have competed with quite a large carnivore guild; lions, leopards, and all the cats that eat meat."

"The Homo erectus footprints now lead further into the past of human evolution, as researchers may shift their focus to earlier examples of physical changes in human ancestor species.

"It's going to bring up controversy again about the Laetoli prints," Harris noted, referring to footprints preserved in volcanic ash roughly 3.6 million years ago in Tanzania. Anthropologists continue to debate whether these older footprints from an earlier "Lucy" type hominid show that Australopithecus walked about easily or awkwardly on two legs.

"Other findings may yet be revealed with the latest footprints at the Ileret site. The prehistoric landscape near various water sources was likely a muddy surface that preserved a whole range of animal tracks, Harris hinted — perhaps fodder for additional studies in the future."

"Footprints can tell scientists a lot about creatures that a skeleton cannot. From them, scientists can learn about the gait, weight distribution and even the approximate size of those who made them. Braun says these prints were apparently made by pedestrians who stood just under five feet (1.5 meters) tall. A modern upright stride can indicate a lot about behavior, as well, says David Raichlen, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who cites long-distance walking and running as possible benefits of this adaptation.

"It really is a snapshot of time," Braun says. The preserved area also shows a wealth of animal prints, which gives more precise information about what creatures shared the space and time. Exhumed fossils can yield info on general environments; footprints can provide a glimpse into life over days rather than millennia. "With the footprints," Braun says, "we can almost certainly say these things lived in the same time as each other, which is unique."

"It is much rarer to find footprints than bones, because conditions must be perfect for tracks to be preserved, according to Braun. In this case, the tracks were made during a rainy season near an ancient river just before that river changed course and swept a protective layer of sand over them.

"The last major set of footprints, discovered in 1978 in Laetoli, Tanzania, were dated to about 3.6 million years ago. But those revealed a more ancient foot and gait, and it is still debatable whether those who made them had a stride more akin to humans or to chimpanzees, says Raichlen, who has studied the Laetoli prints.

"The Ileret tracks were digitally scanned using a laser technique developed by lead study author, Matthew Bennett, a geoarchaeologist at Bournemouth University in Poole, England. Raichlen says the find gives people a rare view of those that have trod before. "It's important to think about what you're really getting: a glimpse of behavior in the fossil record that you wouldn't really get in any other way," he says. The research reveals "a moment in time when individuals are walking around the landscape. It sort of fleshes out and brings them back to life, in a way."

Now That We Have Detected Water and Methane Gas on Mars; Does it Mean that the Red Planet Supports Life?

Scientists have discovered that there is something going on beneath the surface of Mars "that causes substantial amounts of methane gas to burst out regularly.: And the discovery has NASA researchers and scientists very intrigued because "the discovery is the strongest indication so far that life might exist, or once existed, on the planet."

Scientists know the locations where the methane gas is released into the atmosphere in specific areas and at regular times, they found, in a pattern that would be consistent with the gas being a byproduct of biological activity beneath the planet's parched surface. but scientists must also consider that the methane gas could have a geochemical cause.

If scientists use their understanding of similar activities that occur on Earth, they could easily extrapolate the presence of methane gas to indicate that the life processes of bacteria are endemic to Mars. but even if the release of methane is not organic in its origin; "it would reshape thinking about the planet, which scientists thought to be geologically dead and chemically unlikely to produce much of the gas."

The Washington Post goes on to explain that: "Scientists have been working to confirm the presence of methane on Mars since it was tentatively detected in 2003, first by Mumma and then by scientists working with the European Space Agency. The new report confirms that discovery, describing intense, recurring but relatively brief gas releases that are consistent with either biological or active geological origins." The Post continues: "The new data were gleaned by NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and a telescope in Chile. The earlier reports of methane came from Mars Express, the European Space Agency's orbiting satellite. Scientists used instruments called spectrometers to detect the "fingerprints" of methane molecules by the way they absorb sunlight"The Post explains that: "The plumes were detected above a handful of Martian hot spots hundreds of miles apart, including Nili Fossae, Syrtis Major and Arabia Terra. Previous research has shown that liquid water once covered some of that area and detected mineral deposits that require standing water in order to form. Images taken by a Mars orbiter in 2005 also suggest that water, or liquids of some kind, might still flow at times on the surface."

"Michael Meyer, head of NASA's Mars program, said at a news conference that the report would spark intense debate and probably criticism in the field. He called the science important and sound but said it would take time to see whether it would change scientists' understanding of Mars.

"The methane discovery comes as researchers on Earth are finding previously unknown colonies of "extremophiles" living far below the surface and in conditions that were long considered to be uninhabitable. One of the experts at the news conference was Lisa Pratt of Indiana University, who was part of a team that identified a microbe two miles down in a South African gold mine that lives entirely without drawing energy from sunlight, a process called photosynthesis. The microbe's energy source is the radioactive decay of nearby rocks, a process known as radiolysis."

"In today's paper, Mumma's team pointed to the South Africa findings, saying that it might be possible for similar life forms "to survive for eons" below Mars' subsurface ice, "where water is again liquid, radiolysis can supply energy, and CO2 can provide carbon. Gases accumulated in such zones might be released to the atmosphere if pores or fissures open seasonally, connecting these deep zones to the atmosphere at scarps, crater walls, or canyons."

"Pratt called the methane find "a breathtaking discovery." She noted that on Earth, methane is not only a waste product of some microbes but also a potential nutrient for specialized organisms.

"So much attention has been given recently to looking for evidence of past life on Mars, and now it appears that we need to seriously consider the possibility of a present-day subsurface Martian ecosystem," Pratt said. "Mars just got a whole lot more interesting.

"Mumma, a senior investigator with Goddard's Center for Astrobiology and its Solar System Exploration Division, has been looking for methane on Mars since the late 1980s. The gas was difficult to detect because it is relatively scarce and breaks down quickly, and some earlier reports of detections have been controversial. But Mumma said the methane signature in his new data is "very strong indeed," and the fact that it occurs only locally and at specific times is also well documented.

"Because venting methane was found at several locations, Mumma has been urging NASA to consider them as landing sites for the Mars Science Laboratory, a $2 billion rover scheduled to launch in 2011. He said some of the terrain would be difficult for a landing, but he said he hopes the methane discovery will focus attention on how NASA might further explore its origins.

"Suppose we put a probe into a fissure at one of the release sites site and we could get measurements from some extant life form," he said. "We could then sequence the life form and see if it had the same origins as Earth life. What could be more compelling?"

"The most common non-biological way that methane gets into the Earth's atmosphere is volcanic eruptions that spew it out along with rock, magma and a great deal of heat. Sulfur dioxide accompanies volcanic eruptions on Earth, but scientists have not found much of that compound in the Martian atmosphere -- leading them to conclude that the planet is no longer volcanically active. As a result, they do not consider volcanoes to be the source of that planet's methane.

"Methane can also be created by the interaction of water and subsurface minerals such as olivine in the presence of heat. This process, call serpentization, is known to occur beneath Earth's surface.

"Methane is also known to be much more broadly present on Titan, one of Saturn's moons and another target for scientists looking for life beyond Earth.

GOP Uses Jindal Speech to Attack Obama's Stimulus Plan

PART1 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"


PART2 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"

Transcript of Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"

Prior to last night's "State of the Union Speech" by President Obama; Professor Jeffrey Sadow, a political scientist at Louisiana State University, predicted that after having observed Bobby Jindal for the last several years, said of Jindal: "He will have a lot of positives and not many negatives ... He has a tendency to talk rapidly so, as long as he doesn't get too excited, he'll do fine."

As it turned out Jindal gave a horrible showing for himself.

Long seen as a front runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2010, Jindal has come to represent a Republican Party that is truly in the process of remaking itself in order to present a stiffer challenge to the extremely popular President Obama and his large majority of democratic cohorts in the Congress.

"Jindal grabbed US media attention over the weekend by vowing that he would not take part of Obama's $787bn stimulus package destined to go to Louisiana.

"The amount, to increase unemployment benefit, is relatively small but it allows Jindal to stake out an ideological position against Obama on the biggest issue facing the US today; the White House plan to buy its way out of recession."

Although he is always quick to deny it; Jindal "... has been criss-crossing the country since late last year to build up support for a presidential race, and has included a visit for the first time to Iowa, where the race will formally begin. He is also touring to show he is capable of raising the millions needed to fight for the presidency."

So last nights performance had a great deal riding on it for the 37 year old Governor from the state of Louisiana. In other words, a stellar performance would have boosted Jindal popularity as well as his ability to raise huge sums of cash from GOP donors.

Jindal was born of parents "... from the Punjab but Jindal, whose given name was Piyush but which he switched to Bobby, was brought up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was educated in the US and at Oxford university. He was a member of the US House of Representatives before becoming governor of Louisiana, the first person from a non-European background to do so in the southern state.

"He was born and raised a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism and also has links to Protestant churches. Unusually for a Rhodes scholar, he believes in creationism, a viewpoint that increases his appeal to Christian evangelicals.

"Jindal's politics are firmly on the Republican right: he is opposed to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling.

"One of the most controversial incidents from his past was a claim to have witnessed an exorcism, though he has since partly rowed back on that."

So the pressure on Jindal, to come across to the public as a Republican version of Barack Obama, was intense as his rise has been carefully choreographed by a "... Republican party, (that) for so long (was) dominated by wealthy, old white men, is taking seriously its efforts at a makeover. The party that last month chose an African American, Michael Steele, as its first party chairman has come to regard Jindal, who is of Indian descent, as one of the front-runners for the party nomination."

But less than twenty four hours after his huge chance to gain fame and fortune as the GOP front runner for 2010; criticism is freely flowing in Jindal's direction.

“A lot of Republicans I am speaking with were expecting this would be like Obama’s moment in 2004” when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention and gained immediate national fame, said David Johnson, a Republican strategist who advised Bob Dole in 1988. “He bombed out.”

Philip Klein of the “American Spectator” added his own biting criticism when he said of Jindal, he “seemed more like a high school student giving a valedictory speech than a potential future leader of the party.”

Fox News curmudgeon, Brit Hume said: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”

All of the reviews Jindal received were less critical. One time RNC Communications Director, Carl Forti sought to tamp down the criticism by saying Jindal must still be looked at as a viable candidate. “People are watching him right after they watched Obama, and Obama may be better than Reagan,” said Forti. “I’m sure that affected people’s opinion.”

Republican strategist, Terry Holt, who worked as a spokesman for George W. Bush; said: “I am very cautious to take away too much from a single performance. My sense is it’s a difficult position to be in” appearing after Obama gave such an effective speech.

Those comments pretty much summarized the execution of the speech by Jindal.

The other important aspect to consider about Jindal's party-backed response to President Obama and the Democrats was Jindal's use of sharp criticism against Obama and his stimulus plan that the offered to the American people much of the same old same old, the GOP is famous for.

Jindal praised the merits of small government that Republicans stand for; except those who sat in the Whitehouse for the last eight years: "Instead of trusting us to make decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest," he said of Democrats. "Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt."

Taking a direct swipe at Obama, Jindal complained: "we appreciate his message of hope, but sometimes it seems like we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people."

Jindal's best Reagan impression came off as tired and flat when he referred to President Obama's warning that the country must take quick and decisive action on the economy or "our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse." That's where Jindal weakly exorcised the GOP's Reaganesque spirit to weakly say: "A few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said we may not be able to reverse," Jindal said. "Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America 's best days are behind her."

Jindal's criticisms deviated very little from those overused and tired phrasings and decades old rhetoric used by congressional Republicans who have failed to live up to their pledges of bipartisanship.

So it was not unexpected that Jindal called the stimulus “irresponsible.” He continued the attacks he started a few days ago when he said Obama's plan is a tax inflater and deficit creator. Jindal complained that the stimulus was "... no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.”

“The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens,” Jindal said in arguing that the stimulus plan and other proposals by Obama to revive the nation’s economy rely too much on government spending and taxes.

Jindal turned again to Reagan when he repeated that government does not bear all the answers to all of the problems facing the nation. Jindal argued: “It comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government,” he said. “We oppose the national Democrats’ view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.”

Once again demonstrating the Republican's lack of new ideas Jindal said: “Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people.”

Bloomberg News reported that Jindal "... said Republicans have put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income-tax rates, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for homebuyers."

Jindal followed up by saying: “These plans would cost less and create more jobs” than Obama's plans.

On the topic of bipartisanship, Jindal said: “You are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions,” he said. “Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions.

“Where we agree, Republicans must be the president’s strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward,”Jindal said.

Finally, Jindal admitted that Republicans became careless with their fiscal responsibility to the federal budget: “You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility,” Jindal said. “Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.”

Why Do Republicans Hate Americans So Much?

Isn't it about time that we stopped calling the party that has one purpose in mind, and that is to do everything within their power to see that President Obama's stimulus package fails. These conservative Republican ideologues, as they like to call themselves; as if they answer to a higher calling than mere Democrats and moderates, are nothing more than traditional, late 1920s styled Hoover Republicans.

Just like the 'good old days' when the Hoover Republicans were joined at the hip to the interests of business leaders, today's conservative ideologues are engaged in two interrelated processes to keep labor disorganized and deny universal health care -- the two greatest threats to the future of the GOP as it is constituted today.

That is why what's going on in "poverty-ridden states like Louisiana and Mississippi where Republican governors are threatening to turn away federal aid rather than expand access to unemployment insurance programs in ways that many other states did a long time ago," is so abhorrent to a nation as rich as the United States. The GOP is playing politics with the lives of the poorest of the poor.

"What Americans need is new employment on a massive scale, Bob Herbert argues, "and one of the most effective ways to get that started is to invest extraordinary amounts in the nation’s infrastructure, to rebuild America in a way that creates a world-class platform for a sustainable 21st-century economy."

"What makes these bad decisions worse," The New York Times Editorial Board adds, "is that they are little more than political posturing by rising Republican stars, like Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. This behavior reinforces the disturbing conclusion that the Republican Party seems more interested in ideological warfare than in working on policies that get the country back on track.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund explains: "The essence of what labor unions do—give workers a stronger voice so that they can get a fair share of the economic growth they help create—is and has always been important to making the economy work for all Americans. And unions only become more important as the economy worsens.

"What is sustainable is an economy where workers are adequately rewarded and have the income they need to purchase goods. This is where unions come in.

"Unions paved the way to the middle class for millions of American workers and pioneered benefits such as paid health care and pensions along the way. Even today, union workers earn significantly more on average than their non-union counterparts, and union employers are more likely to provide benefits. And non-union workers—particularly in highly unionized industries—receive financial benefits from employers who increase wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

"If American workers were rewarded for 100 percent of their increases in labor productivity

between 1980 and 2008—as they were during the middle part of the 20th century—average wages would be $28.53 per hour—42.7 percent higher than the average real wage in 2008.

"Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers would earn an estimated $49.0 billion more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $25.5 billion more in wages and salaries per year. Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization.

"Nearly three out of five survey respondents from a Peter Hart Research Associates poll report that they would join a union if they could, but workers attempting to unionize currently face a hostile legal environment and are commonly intimidated by aggressive anti union employers. The Employee Free Choice Act would help workers who want to join a union do so by ensuring fairness in the union selection process with three main provisions: workers would have a fair and direct path to join unions through a simple majority sign-up; employers who break the rules governing the unionization process would face stiffer penalties; and a first contract mediation and arbitration process would be introduced to thwart bad-faith bargaining.

"Passing the Employee Free Choice Act and making it harder for management to threaten workers seeking to unionize would be good for American workers. It would help boost workers’ wages and benefits. And putting more money in workers’ pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy. Increasing unionization is a good way to get out of our current economic troubles."

"The U.S. economy cannot work if ordinary men and women cannot find work." Herbert reminds us. "Let’s forget for a moment all the ritualized lingo about tax cuts, all the easy but uninformed talk about entitlement reform and all the empty rhetoric about balancing budgets that will never be truly balanced in our lifetimes."

"President Obama’s stimulus package is just a first step in the government’s effort to stabilizing the hemorrhaging economy. It contains infrastructure spending, but nothing comparable to the vast amounts it will take to make the desperately needed improvements.

"Funds spent on those improvements, which will have to be made sooner or later, are also cracker-jack investments in putting people to work. The idea that the government is spending trillions on wars, bank bailouts, tax cuts, and so on, while still neglecting its infrastructure needs — and at a time when Americans are desperate for jobs — is mind-boggling."

People fail to realize the long and sustained history of federal funds providing revenues since the purchase of Louisiana, the building of the Erie Canal, the creation the land grant colleges, the interstate highway system, and the G.I. Bill are among the many huge investments made by the federal government in America.

And today we face a situation in which 75% of the nation's public schools are in serious need of repair and upgrading. Over 25% of America's bridges are beyond repair and need complete replacement or nearly at that point. Our drinking water filtration plants would need funding of approximately $11 billion every year to return them to safe facilities. 50% of all of the locks on our inland water systems that cover some 12,000 miles are obsolete and in need of replacement. As a nation, we have simply let too many aspects of our infrastructure go for so long that only a massive rebuilding program can bring our infrastructural needs back to par to where they should be.

"The current economic crisis is the perfect time to decide that we need to change some of the tired old ways of doing the people’s business." Herbert adds that: "Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has offered a bill that would create an infrastructure bank. It would be a bipartisan entity that would streamline the process of reviewing and authorizing major projects. It would provide federal investment capital for approved projects and use that money to leverage private investment.

"President Obama," according to Herbert "supports the establishment of such a bank. When I asked him about it in an interview, he said, “The idea of an infrastructure bank, I think, makes sense.” But he suggested that there would be stiff resistance from lawmakers in both parties who are reluctant to give up their considerable influence over the selection and financing of lucrative infrastructure projects.

The president seemed optimistic," in Herbert's "estimation about the prospects of moving ahead with some additional infrastructure spending, and he said he “would like to see some long-term reforms” in the way transportation money is spent. He acknowledged that the nation’s infrastructure “needs are massive, and we can’t do everything.”

And yet the Republicans are consumed with their "attacks on the unemployment insurance portion of the stimulus package are a perfect example. States that accept the stimulus money aimed at the unemployed are required to abide by new federal rules that extend unemployment protections to low-income workers and others who were often shorted or shut out of compensation. This law did not just materialize out of nowhere. It codified positive changes that have already taken place in at least half the states.

"Data from the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit group, show that 19 states qualify for some of the federal financing and that a dozen others would become eligible by making one or two policy changes. Unemployed workers are worst off in the Deep South, where relatively few people are eligible to receive payments. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas stand out.

Herbert concludes by explaining that: "The governors are blowing smoke when they suggest that the federal unemployment aid would lead directly to new state taxes. No one knows what the economic climate will be when the federal aid has been used up several years from now. But by dumping billions of dollars into shrinking state unemployment funds, which puts money into the hands of people who spend it immediately on food and shelter, the stimulus could help the states through the recession and into a time when unemployment trust funds can be replenished. In other words, the stimulus could make a tax increase less likely.

"But even if new taxes are required at some point, the new federal standards would protect more unemployed workers than ever before and bring states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas into the 21st century.

"Governors like Mr. Jindal should be worrying about how to end this recession while helping constituents feed and house their families — not about finding ways to revive tired election-year arguments about big spending versus small government."

But the sad thing is that our nation has so much restructuring ahead of us. President Obama's plans for financing the building of "high-speed rail projects... could be a step toward the eventual establishment of an infrastructure bank." As a nation we have too much ground to make up and we are constantly falling behind; yet the Republicans applaud themselves for not voting for the Obama stimulus bill and threaten the three GOP senators who voted along the Democrats in the Senate to secure the final passage of the stimulus. The total lack of interest in what is best for the country at the expense of the Republican Party are clearly enunciated b the new RNC chairman, Michael Steele in the following interview conducted on Fox News.

"RNC Chairman Michael Steele told Neil Cavuto that he is open to cutting GOP funding for the 3 Senate traitors who voted for the largest spending bill in US history. Steele says he will wait and see what the state GOP parties decide about the traitors. Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins voted in favor of the trillion dollar pork-bloated bill.

Trouble Within the Ranks of GOP Governors

Over this past weekend, at a GOP governors' gathering in Washington,the chief executives of several states "split sharply during the weekend over how to respond to the economic crisis, a debate whose outcome will go a long way toward shaping how the national party redefines itself in the wake of its election defeats of recent years."

Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, one of the most ideologically right wing members of the conservative Republican governors, recently said:“There’s a tug of war right now within the party as to where we go next,... I am in the camp that says we go back to basics. There are other folks who say something a little different. The answer will be determined in this tug of war.”

Among those opposing Sanford and his small band of ideologues has emerged the ideas and actions of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who in the past week has raised taxes to meet a $42 billion budgetary shortfall.

Mr. Schwarzenegger was widely quoted just yesterday for complaining against the conservative ideologues who “were not in touch with what the majority of people want to do in California.”The New York Times characterized Mr. Schwarzenegger as being undeterred "by the attacks from Republicans," and the California governor pledged to go against the wishes of conservative ideologues and "would try again to win health insurance coverage for all Californians, though it would require new taxes," The New York Times reported.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, driving home his point against the ideologically driven conservatives, and explained: “Even though it is against your principles or philosophy,... what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology.”

For those who are interested in the recovery or disintegration of the Republican Party since its election defeats in 2006 and 2008; this years annual governors winter meeting has provided a stage for differences to be aired n public.

The GOP faces a battle for control over the future direction of their party. As map of the political landscape shows today; the Republican's strength is found among conservatives found mostly within a belt of southeastern states; making the GOP a regional party with a small, but highly dedicated and ideologically driven base. Their conservative influence at this point in time in the Northeast is negligible with no congressional seats and only a handful of moderate Senators still in office. The GOP's conservative base in the Midwest and West is better than their nonexistent presence than in the Northeast, but is not a growing base; it is rapidly shrinking with the rise of democratic Hispanic populations of voters.

"And with the party leaderless after losing control of both the White House and Congress in the past two election cycles, the split is colored by early maneuvering for conservatives’ support among potential aspirants for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination," The New York Times observes.

The New York Times continues to assess the epicenter of conservative ideologues: "Several governors, nearly all of them Southerners known to have national ambitions, have been withering in their criticism of Mr. Obama’s stimulus plan, which received only 3 of 219 Republicans’ votes in Congress. The harshest critics include Mr. Sanford and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the national chairman of the party in the 1990s, Rick Perry of Texas, and Sarah Palin of Alaska, the party’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee."

Governor Rick Perry voiced his opposition to President Obama's signature into law of the "H.R. 1, the $787 billion stimulus package" which Perry characterized would "burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt."

Although Perry criticized the signing into law of the stimulus, he artfully skirted the issue of whether he would reject federal dollars from the stimulus b saying that if: "Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share."

Governor Perry engaged in more parsing when his letter to President Obama/Press Release made the following request for the stimulus money and then stipulated how he intends to use the funds: "On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up.

Perry concluded his message by telling President Obama that his approach to stimulating the economy using spending increases was wrong: "On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up.

The New York Times summarized the attack/accept positions of the conservative governors: "After initially saying they might reject any federal aid, several conservative governors said in interviews over the weekend that they were likely to reject only the money for expanded unemployment compensation because of federal strings that could require them to provide relief to part-time workers who lose jobs as well as to full-time workers. Many other states already provide such aid."

Governor Jindal had "announced on Friday that he would reject the $100 million for unemployment compensation in the estimated $4 billion for Louisiana. And on “Meet the Press” on NBC, Mr. Jindal stated: “Now is the time, and it’s a great opportunity for Republican governors and other leaders to offer conservative-based solutions to the problems.”

Referring to having been chosen to give the GOP's reaction to President Obama's Tuesday night's congressional address; Mr. Jindal's responded by answering: “We need to work with the president every chance we can. But on principle — when we disagree with him — we should be unafraid to stand up on principle and to point out our alternative solutions.”

Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, disputed Mr. Jindal’s comments and said: “There is a national leader, his name is President Obama,... I think we do need to be bipartisan,... We need to be, in fact, nonpartisan.”

Mr. Crist, a Republican governor, actively pushed for Mr. Obama's stimulus plan in Florida.

The New York Times characterized Mr. Crist's remarks directed at "some of the Republican governors’ criticism of the unemployment compensation." Quoting Mr. Crist: “In the past five weeks, I’ve visited six unemployment offices throughout Florida,... I look into the eyes of these people, and I understand that the challenges are serious that they’re having to deal with, and I want to do everything I can to help them.”

In another interview, Mr. Crist pointed out that “I am not here to judge,” he said of the conservatives who are against the stimulus, but he compared himself to Mr. Schwarzenegger's support of the stimulus as perhaps emblematic of just the actions of two governors whose support: “Maybe it’s a result of being from larger states,” that also electorally supported Mr. Obama.

Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, a long-time red state, which was another state that voted for Obama last November, has said: “I want this president to succeed because I want America to succeed,... There will be plenty of time for alternatives later.”

Speaking for a possible Republican electoral victory bonanza down the road if the Obama plan fails, Mr. Barbour wistfully recalled the mid-1990s GOP capture of the House and Senate while Bill Clinton was president and cited the conditions for such a triumph:“The last time Republicans made a comeback, it was led by Republican governors,... Now we have to take that same approach, take our values and principles,” he said, and “tie them to the new issue set (of the recession )that we have to deal with.”

There are some Republican governors who have taken a middle ground. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has aspirations to run for president in 2012 and builds his strategy on attracting "women, Hispanics, younger voters and independents" to insure a GOP recovery in 2012.

Mr. Pawlenty added his thoughts:“The Republican Party is going to have to adhere to its principles, because they are foundational and they are important. But they need to be presented in a hopeful, optimistic, up-tempo, modern, practical way, and that’s not what we have been doing recently... We’ve become too petty and angry in many aspects,” Mr. Pawlenty said. “That’s unappealing to swing voters.””

Greta Van Susteren interviewed another Republican critic of the Obama Stimulus; Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Ms. Palin voiced her opinion that the president should veto the stimulus and send it back to Congress and make them read the bill in it's entirety so they would be able to understand the real impact of the bill. Ms. Palin was less precise on her plan for whether she would take all of the money."Palin supported plans for new infrastructure spending, but opposes expansion of social programs."And while the cameras were rolling; Palin tried to whip up fears about the "return" of the Fairness doctrine."She said it is dangerous to attempt to silence those that are asking questions about our government."

Splits Between Between California Governor Schwarzenegger Over Stimulus Law Pits Pragmatic GOP Governors Against Conservative Ideolgue Governors

Governor. Arnold Schwarzenegger the moderate Republican chief executive of California justified his decision to increase taxes on state residents to supplement the funding of the state's $130 billion budget based on "very simple" reasoning: "Listen to the people," he reiterated during his visit on the ABC news program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Governor Schwarzenegger went as far as saying that he would gladly accept for California, any federal monies that fellow Republican governors from other states refuse to accept Schwarzenegger expects the federal stimulus funds to begin to improve California's state economy by the first quarters of 2010.

Governor Schwarzenegger explained that his decision to raise taxes is the only alternative remaining for "as a necessary step to stem California's staggering economic crisis"

"Schwarzenegger also said he would gladly accept money from the federal stimulus package approved by Congress last week even though some fellow Republican governors had balked at the funds.

"The $130-billion state budget signed by Schwarzenegger on Friday has earned the second-term governor jeers from state Republicans, some of whom argued for more spending cuts over tax hikes, including plans for across-the-board sales- and income-tax increases for the first time in 17 years. Schwarzenegger said he drastically slashed spending in the new budget and that elected officials who disagree with his approach are out of touch with the public," The Los Angeles Times reported.

On "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Schwarzenegger backed up his decision by referring to significant numbers of people "have said that we should solve this budget crisis, the $42-billion deficit, with tax increases and with spending cuts. So what I have done is what the majority of Californians want to do."

From Schwarzenegger's perspective a number of Republicans "were not in touch" with the will of the people. "You've got to do what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology," the governor of California added.

The governor of California, according to The Los Angeles Time added that: "The governor called the federal stimulus plan a "terrific package" and said Republican leaders throughout the nation needed to shelve party ideologies in the face of the ongoing economic crisis. He pointed, for example, to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has said he may refuse all federal stimulus money devoted to his state."

Schwarzenegger explained his viewpoint on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," when he defended his decision to raise taxes as part of California's $130-billion budget. “It’s very simple. Listen to the people,” Schwarzenegger said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, appearing on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” in Washington, D.C., defended his decision to raise taxes as part of California's $130-billion budget. “It’s very simple. Listen to the people,” Schwarzenegger said.

And if there's any GOP governor who plans to refuse federal aid, he said he'd be happy to take it on behalf of California. The governor expects the state economy to start improving in early 2010.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger defended his decision to raise taxes as a necessary step to stem California's staggering economic crisis on Sunday during appearances on morning news shows in Washington.

In those interviews, Schwarzenegger also said he would gladly accept money from the federal stimulus package approved by Congress last week even though some fellow Republican governors had balked at the funds. And he predicted that California's economy would begin rebounding next year but would take "years from now to get back to where we were."

The $130-billion state budget signed by Schwarzenegger on Friday has earned the second-term governor jeers from state Republicans, some of whom argued for more spending cuts over tax hikes, including plans for across-the-board sales- and income-tax increases for the first time in 17 years. Schwarzenegger said he drastically slashed spending in the new budget and that elected officials who disagree with his approach are out of touch with the public.

"It's very simple. Listen to the people," Schwarzenegger said on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos."

Schwarzenegger said that overwhelming numbers of people "have said that we should solve this budget crisis, the $42-billion deficit, with tax increases and with spending cuts. So what I have done is what the majority of Californians want to do."

Schwarzenegger added that fellow Republicans "were not in touch" with the will of the people. "You've got to do what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology," he said.

The governor called the federal stimulus plan a "terrific package" and said Republican leaders throughout the nation needed to shelve party ideologies in the face of the ongoing economic crisis. He pointed, for example, to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has said he may refuse all federal stimulus money devoted to his state.

"Gov. Sanford says that he does not want to take the money . . . and I want to say to him: I'll take it. I'm more than happy to take his money or any other governor in this country that doesn't want to take this money. I take it, because we in California can need it," Schwarzenegger explained.

The Los Angels Times reported that: "At the National Governors Assn. meeting in Washington this weekend, Sanford and a group of Republicans, including Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, said they would reject portions of the stimulus package aid."

Schwarzenegger complained that : "They should make an effort to work together and to find what is best for the people, because by derailing everything, it's not going to help anybody, and it creates instability and insecurity," Schwarzenegger said. "We are elected to be public servants. So what does it matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican? . . . Everyone is using the roads. Everyone would use high-speed rail. Everyone uses the infrastructure and all those things, the schools, the kids. It doesn't matter. We should go beyond all this."

2/21/09 President Barack Obama Weekly Radio Address

2/21/09 President Obama Weekly Radio Address Transcript

Two important takeaways from the President's Weekly Address this morning.

#1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will start having an impact as soon as a few weeks from now, in the form of the quickest and broadest tax cut in history:

"Because of what we did, 95% of all working families will get a tax cut -- in keeping with a promise I made on the campaign. And I’m pleased to announce that this morning, the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks -- meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month. Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans."

#2, once the economy has recovered and we’ve laid the groundwork for a sustainable future, the President is committed to taking on the massive deficits we inherited:

"That work begins on Monday, when I will convene a fiscal summit of independent experts and unions, advocacy groups and members of Congress to discuss how we can cut the trillion-dollar deficit that we’ve inherited. On Tuesday, I will speak to the nation about our urgent national priorities, and on Thursday, I’ll release a budget that’s sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and that lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline."