Democrats in Senate warming to tax deal - Washington Post

Senate leaders are planning to begin debate on a far-reaching tax package as soon as Thursday as rank-and-file Democrats warm to an agreement between the White House and Republicans to extend a host of expiring tax cuts and pump fresh cash into the economy.

Democrats were still angry Wednesday about what they viewed as President Obama's capitulation to GOP demands to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, particularly a deal to exempt estates worth as much as $10 million from a revived inheritance tax. But lawmakers said the magnitude of the concessions Obama won came into sharper focus Wednesday as the White House highlighted independent forecasts predicting that the package could create as many as 2.2 million jobs next year.

For a second day in a row, White House officials made the rounds on Capitol Hill, stressing the economic significance of their deal with Republican leaders to preserve tax cuts that are set to expire on New Year's Eve, extend long-term unemployment benefits through next year, and create major new tax breaks for businesses and individuals aimed at spurring investment and consumer spending.

While Vice President Biden and House Democrats met into the evening, White House budget director Jacob Lew and senior Treasury adviser Gene Sperling held an afternoon session to field questions from Senate Democrats, who were more accepting of the package than they were a day earlier in a meeting with Biden, participants said.

"Members are more open today as they read the analyses of this package," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the chamber's No. 2 Democrat. Citing prominent liberals such as John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who endorsed the White House plan, Durbin said, "These are people that progressives respect and go to, and they've said positive things."

Durbin added that "I just loathe" parts of the deal, such as the provision on the estate tax. But he said: "I understand the predicament that we're in."

Biden faced a far tougher crowd in the House, where a fractious caucus dominated by angry liberals is emerging as the bigger legislative obstacle to the tax plan. During a two-hour meeting, dozens of lawmakers lined up to interrogate the vice president about the deal - almost all of them speaking in opposition, participants said.

"There remain very serious reservations on the House side. I think that there's still a very serious question whether this package can pass in the form it's in now," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said afterward. Van Hollen represented House Democrats in bipartisan talks about the tax cuts that were rendered moot when the White House began dealing directly with Republican leaders, a slight that rankled nearly as much as Obama's decision to abandon the long-held Democratic position of opposing tax breaks for the wealthy.

Many Democrats, including Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House leader, emerged from the meeting saying they could not support the package unless major elements were changed, particularly the estate tax provision.

Most Democrats would prefer to renew the tax, which lapsed last year, with a 45 percent rate on estates worth more than $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples. The Obama-GOP deal would impose a 35 percent tax on estates larger than $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples for the next two years. If that change were made permanent, it would add $100 billion to deficits over the next decade, Democrats said.

In a forceful presentation, however, Biden made it clear that big changes are not in the cards. "The vice president said: 'This is the deal. Take it or leave it,' " an irritated Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said, paraphrasing Biden.

The tax debate is a central piece of a broader strategy to wrap up the legislative session by Dec. 17. The House and the Senate are scrambling to complete unfinished business. This includes a major resolution to continue funding the federal government through Sept. 30, 2011, approved by the House on Wednesday, as well as smaller measures, such as a plan to protect doctors from a sharp cut in Medicare payments, which cleared the Senate by voice vote Wednesday night.

View the original article here

In political gamble, Reid holds Senate votes he knows he'll lose - Washington Post

On Wednesday afternoon, the most powerful man in the U.S. Senate did something that sounds odd: He set himself up to lose an important vote.

Then he did it again, on another key issue.

And Thursday he'll do it two more times.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) planned votes where his favored bills were expected to fail. For Reid, failure is actually the point. He wants to put Republicans on record as blocking all four.

On Wednesday, he took up seniors' benefits and collective- bargaining rights for police and firefighters' unions, and on Thursday he will call votes on an immigration bill that would assist people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, and legislation that would provide health-care benefits for responders to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

These "test votes" are a sign of the sclerotic state of Congress, clogged by filibuster threats. Usually, it is the people out of power who resort to grand, futile gestures.

Now - in a political gamble - it's the guys in charge.

"Just because the party of 'Just say no' has been blocking all these initiatives, it doesn't mean we're not going to try," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid. "At some point, you've got to take a stand, and let the chips fall where they may."

Senate Democrats, who hold a majority in the chamber, held their last "test vote" on Saturday - two, actually. The first proposal called for an end to tax cuts, passed under President George W. Bush, on income greater than $250,000 for a family.

Democrats needed 60 senators to agree. They got just 53.

Then Democratic leaders staged a vote to let the tax cuts expire only for income of more than $1 million per year for a family. That failed, too.

In theory, these votes were supposed to demonstrate that Republicans were favoring the rich at the expense of the middle class.

View the original article here

No winners yet in Senate races in Alaska, Washington - USA Today

The new Senate will remain under the control of a slimmer Democratic majority. That much is known.However, it could take days — or weeks — to call winners in at least two unresolved races in Alaska and Washington.

In Colorado, with about 97% of the vote counted, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet declared victory Wednesday over Republican challenger Ken Buck, who did not immediately concede.

"We are still looking where returns need to be reported, as well as provisional ballots before making any decisions," Buck said in a written statement Wednesday.

Despite Bennet's apparent victory, the GOP picked up at least six seats that will give Republicans at least 47 seats in the 100-member body, as the as the nation awaits the results of the undecided contests.

The most complex of the undecided races is in Alaska, where state officials Wednesday are just beginning to review thousands of ballots cast as part of an unusual write-in campaign waged by incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski against Tea Party-supported candidate Joe Miller.

Although the 41% write-in vote so far exceeds the 34% for Miller, the state has yet to determine how many of the write-in ballots were cast in the name of Murkowski, who launched the campaign after losing the Republican primary to Miller.

Alaska Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai said Wednesday that officials were "formulating" a plan to count the write-ins. She declined to say how long the count could take. Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell told the Associated Press that the actual count will begin next week in Juneau.

Miller campaign spokesman Robert Campbell said the process could likely take "a couple of weeks."

Robert Campbell said the campaign has assembled a legal team to oversee the review to "make sure all the ballots abide by the rules of the Division of Elections."

"Previous write-in campaigns in Alaska have demonstrated that as much as 5% to 6% of returned ballots have not met the standard to be counted as a valid vote," Miller said in a written statement.

"At this point, without a single write-in ballot counted, Lisa Murkowski has no claim on a victory ... In short, this campaign is not over."

Murkowski spokesman Steve Wackowski said the campaign was "encouraged" by the volume of write-in votes.

"We're very confident, but we're not declaring victory," he said.

In Washington state, incumbent Democratic Sen. Patty Murray was holding a small lead over Republican challenger Dino Rossi, but hundreds of thousands of ballots were left to be counted.

Rossi, a real-estate investor and former state senator, has twice lost races for governor.

Washington Secretary of State spokesman David Ammons said Wednesday that up to 1 million ballots may be left to count and 14,000 votes separate the two candidates.

About one-third of the outstanding votes, Ammons said, are believed to be from Seattle's King County, which traditionally favors Democrats.

"It's close," Ammons said. "I'm sure both sides are out there spinning their paths to victory. It should be clear by the end of the week."

Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.

View the original article here

Colorado Senate: Michael Bennet Takes Razor Thin Victory - CBS News

November 3, 2010 6:14 PM Michael Bennet (D) and Ken Buck (R)

(Credit: AP Photo )

CBS News is now projecting that Democrat Michael Bennet will win the Colorado Senate race over Tea Party-backed Republican Ken Buck in what was an extremely close contest.

With 3156 out of 3246 precincts reporting, vote totals show Bennett leading Buck 794,724 to 779,280. That's a difference of just 15,444 votes.

The Associated Press, Fox News and the Denver Post projected the race for Bennet earlier today. CBS News declined to make such a call until now because of outstanding ballots and the possibility of a recount.

According to the Post, a recount takes place if the difference between the candidates' voter totals is less than one half of one percent. The difference between the two is about twice that now.

Bennet claimed victory this morning, thanking "the thousands of Coloradans who made this victory possible, who gave so much to our campaign, knocking on doors, making calls, and working tirelessly to ensure we leave more opportunity to the next generation."

"Yesterday, Colorado chose to move our state and this country forward. I will do everything I can to live up to the confidence you have placed in me," he said. Bennet was appointed to the seat to replace Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

Buck conceded and called Bennet to congratulate him this afternoon. His campaign said Buck told Bennet that "while the final margin in the race is very small, Colorado voters have spoken and he wishes Senator Bennet well."

Buck's apparent loss is a blow for the Tea Party movement, which on the Senate side had a rough night last night. There are now three Tea Party-backed candidates - Buck, Nevada's Sharron Angle and Delaware's Christine O'Donnell - who lost in seats that Republicans might plausible have won with stronger candidates.

Democrats are now projected to control at least 52 seats in the new Congress. Two races remain outstanding: Washington, where Democrat Patty Murray holds a slim lead with many precincts yet to report, and Alaska, where the results might not be known for weeks.

Brian Montopoli is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of his posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter. Tags:Colorado ,Senate ,Ken Buck ,Tea Party ,Michael Bennet Topics:Campaign 2010

View the original article here

Election Day could bring historic split: Democrats lose House, keep Senate - Washington Post

The question around Washington today is not whether Nov. 2 will be a difficult day for the Democrats who control Congress, but rather how bad it will be.

Increasingly, it looks like the answer depends on which chamber of Congress you're following.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report now estimates that more than 90 Democratic House seats are potentially in play; on the Republican side of the aisle, it estimates that only nine appear in jeopardy. As a result, most leading forecasters say it is more likely that Republicans will win the 39 House seats they need to take control.

On the Senate side, however, the battle has narrowed to a handful of true nail-biters in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Colorado - all of which are likely to stay close to the end.

It would take a sweep of nearly all of them, improbable but not impossible, for the Republicans to pick up the 10 seats they need to gain control of the chamber. At this point, it's possible that Democrats will end up losing only three or four seats, and they will count that as a good night.

If these trends hold - if the Republicans do gain the House without also taking control of the Senate - that would represent a historic anomaly: Not since the election of 1930 has the House changed hands without the Senate following suit.

Two national party officials, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele and Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy M. Kaine, gave very different predictions Sunday of what would happen on Election Day.

Steele said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that an unprecedented GOP wave would win control of both chambers as well as state legislatures, in a broad condemnation of President Obama and Democratic policies.

"The voters are tired of the fact that the federal government has not listened to them over the past two years, has moved in its own direction, at its own rhythm, and they want to pull back on that," Steele said.

Kaine, speaking on ABC's "This Week" pointed to strengthening poll numbers for his party's candidates as a sign that the Democratic base was getting energized.

"Four or five months ago, the Republicans thought they had a great chance at taking both houses," Kaine said. "For a variety of reasons, the Senate has gotten much more difficult for them. And again, we're seeing this week strong moves in polling for our Senate candidates" in several states.

Reflecting that potential trend, a Los Angeles Times/USC poll released Sunday found Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) eight points ahead of Republican challenger Carly Fiorina, and a Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll found Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.) tied with Republican challenger Ken Buck, whom he had trailed for months.

View the original article here

The Caucus: Bill Clinton Urged Florida Democrat to Quit Senate Bid - New York Times

Former President Bill Clinton last week tried to convince Kendrick Meek, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Florida, to drop out of the race – but Mr. Meek changed his mind at the last minute, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton said Thursday evening.

Matt McKenna, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, said the former president believed that Mr. Meek would not win on Tuesday and was urging him to drop out and endorse Charlie Crist, the state’s governor, who is running for the Senate as an independent.

The back-channel efforts by Mr. Clinton, which were first reported by Politico, were apparently an effort to prevent the state’s Senate seat from falling into the hands of Marco Rubio, the Republican who is leading both of his rivals in the polls.

There had been reports that for several weeks that Mr. Meek was being urged to consider dropping out of the contest. But the Democrat said repeatedly that he was staying in until the end.

“I will not drop out of this race for any reason,” Mr. Meek said at the time.

Mr. Clinton, who is a close friend of Mr. Meek, had come close to convincing him to drop out last week while they were campaigning together across the state, Mr. McKenna said. The pair even came close to setting a date – Oct. 26 — at which Mr. Meek would endorse Mr. Crist and hold a rally.

But the idea fell apart after Mr. Meek changed his mind, Mr. McKenna confirmed.

The negotiations recalled similar efforts by Mr. Clinton to act as a go-between for the White House in trying to convince Joe Sestak to drop out of his primary challenge against Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democratic senator from Pennsylvania.

Politico reported that the White House was aware of Mr. Clinton’s talks with Mr. Meek but did not initiate the discussions.

A Crist campaign spokesman, Danny Kanner, issued the following statement about the report.

“While this story is accurate, the Governor’s focus is on uniting common-sense Democrats, independents, and Republicans behind his campaign because he is the one candidate who can defeat Tea Party extremist Marco Rubio and deliver bipartisan results for Florida in Washington,” the statement said.

View the original article here

Obama and Democrats count on Senate wins out West - Reuters

President Obama sitting next to Sen. Patty Murray at the Grand Central Bakery in Seattle, August 17, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:22pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Republicans headed to big election gains on November 2, Democrats are counting on the liberal-leaning West Coast to counter the national trend and help them preserve their fragile Senate majority.

President Barack Obama heads to California and Washington state this week to drum up support for endangered incumbents Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray in the last days of a campaign that finds his Democrats playing defense around the country.

Wins in those two Democratic-leaning states -- most polls show Boxer and Murray with slight leads -- likely would be enough to ensure Democrats retain narrow control of the Senate even if Republicans sweep the other competitive races.

"Right now, Democrats have their best chances on the West Coast. They are in relatively good shape out there compared with the rest of the country," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota.

Public discontent with Obama and the economy has sparked widespread predictions of a Democratic election defeat, with Republicans favored to gain more than the 39 seats they need to seize control of the House of Representatives and perhaps even the 10 seats needed for a Senate majority.

Republicans, who have 41 seats in the 100-member Senate, already hold commanding leads in races for Democratic seats in North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana.

That leaves them needing wins in seven of eight toss-up Senate races in Democratic-held states -- California, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and West Virginia -- to regain Senate control.

"The odds are against the Republicans taking the Senate, but the odds are in favor of them getting very close," said Peter Brown, a Quinnipiac University pollster.

"It's going to come down to three or four seats that all have to go the Republicans' way," he said.

A narrow one- or two-seat Democratic majority in the Senate would almost certainly ensure partisan gridlock on Obama's legislative initiatives like climate change and immigration unless he is willing to make significant concessions.

It also would probably prompt Republicans to try to entice conservatives like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and independents like Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to join their party as they try to repeal Obama's healthcare overhaul and cut federal spending.

OBAMA TO HELP REID

Obama also will campaign this week for threatened Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who is in a tight battle for re-election in Nevada against a Tea Party favorite.

Incumbent Democrats Reid, Boxer and Murray, along with Michael Bennet in Colorado, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, are in danger of falling victim to the foul public mood over the economy and government in Washington.

Boxer and Murray have solidified small leads in California and Washington in recent weeks as Democratic voters become more engaged. Democratic Senate candidates in Democratic-leaning states in the East like Connecticut and New York also have seen their leads widen.

“A narrow one- or two-seat Democratic majority in the Senate would almost certainly ensure partisan gridlock on Obama’s legislative initiatives like climate change and immigration unless he is willing to make significant concessions”

All of this gridlock bull is ridiculous. Many things have been accomplished across the aisle. Dems are losing seats because Americans don’t like Obama’s policies.

The result is gridlock?

How about compromise of which Obama has done nothing of the sort.

Unless you consider closed door sessions and reconciliation a compromise.

These bills are DOA because Obama does not want compromise, he wants in your face, screw you, Chicago politics.

Wake up America, wake up west coast.

BHOlied Report As Abusive

I hope the Dems are right. If the GOP and their corporate masters have their way they will just grease the skids of our national decline. The GOP hasn’t done anything right in twenty years. What makes anyone think they’ve got any answers to what ails us now? Oh, right, lower taxes and smaller government. Look at how well that silly mantra has worked for us in the past.

IntoTheTardis Report As Abusive

obama HELP read?? he is like “the kiss of death ” for anyone he has tried to “help” get re elected.
The country is finally on to the vision obama has of the “new” u.s. and most do not like it a bit.

chrisvb Report As Abusive

Well Barak, how would you east coast politicians and media know what is going on out here. You only show up once every four years. Otherwise you are sitting in your ivory towers or going on paid vacations. You deserve a good whippin at the poles.

fred5407 Report As Abusive

As Thanksgiving comes around the corner, aren’t we supposed to smell Turkey? Why does it smell so much like lame duck cooking? We may not be able to get him out of the office, but we can sure hogtie him (politically speaking).

Texicano Report As Abusive

Remember, Republicans want you to focus on what is going on now, so that you don’t remember what they did when they were in control. Unfortunately, SO many American voters only think of the here and now. Kind of like my dog.

idlespire Report As Abusive

Never have so many people been so anxious to vote.

Wonder why that is? Ooo, those nasty Republicans. Surely, it must be their fault.

giveitthought Report As Abusive

I’m just curious. Do Republicans really believe if McCain had won the election we’d have lower unemployment now?

Obama took on the presidency at the worst of all possible times, following 8 years of George W. Bush, 2 wars, the worst recession since the Great Depression, high unemployment, record deficits, and a very divided country. The Right’s reaction to Obama makes it clear that racism is still a major influence in America’s political landscape. Never has a president been so openly reviled and yet he’s a very centrist politician, too centrist for what we need now, and a very intelligent, hardworking, decent family man. People on the right just can’t accept having a black man as president.

I was walking my dog this morning and ran into a neighbor. She started talking about Obama and how much she can’t stand him. (She won’t say she hates him because she’s a good Christian woman.) It was interesting to me to hear her say that it wasn’t about his race or his religion. I didn’t say anything about his race or his religion. His religion? It was about his attitude toward our country, the disdain his has for America, and that we’ve never been in worse shape than we are now (because of Obama).

I found it to be very bazaar, though very telling and not surprising. I didn’t engage her in any kind of a debate because it was clear from the outset that her mind was awash in neocon Koolaid and couldn’t be reached. The morning was beautiful and I just wanted to get away from her. Apparently she was under the wrong impression that everything was fine until that black man showed up and started screwing things up (not that she has anything against black men). I also couldn’t help but wonder just what religion she thought Obama was, but it sure wasn’t her religion. She most likely believed that he is a Muslim, which of course would be a bad thing.

Since Obama is getting the blame for all of America’s miseries, a part of me wishes he had done nothing, letting America lose it’s auto industry, doing nothing to save jobs, banks, housing, doing nothing to help Americans afford health care, doing nothing about fixing the problems in Wall Street and our finance industry, and not lowering taxes on the Middle Class and small businesses. We deserve the depression we barely avoided and seem to so cravenly want. Eventually, America will get what it’s asking for. It’s sad: we’ve gotten too dumb for our Republic to function effectively.

ginchinchili Report As Abusive

View the original article here

Reid, Angle Trade Barbs in Nevada Senate Race - FOXNews

LAS VEGAS -- In a crackling campaign debate, Republican challenger Sharron Angle attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a career politician Thursday night who lives in a fashionable Washington condominium and has voted to raise taxes 300 times. The four-term veteran called his tea party-backed rival extreme and an ally of special interests.

"My opponent favors big banks, she's against Wall Street reform," Reid said, adding that her views are sympathetic to big health insurance companies.

Angle played the aggressor from the opening moments of the hour-long debate, at one point taunting the Democratic leader to "man up, Harry Reid" as she urged him to concede that Social Security faces financial difficulty.

Across a stage at a local PBS station, there was little or nothing the two agreed on -- not taxes, not health care, immigration, energy policy or federal spending.

Reid took aim at Angle's statement that it's not the job of a senator to create jobs. "What she's talking about is extreme," he said.

"Harry Reid, it's not your job to create jobs," she replied sharply. "It's your job to create policy" that leads to the creation of jobs.

With their debate, Reid and his challenger shared a local stage and a national spotlight, the only joint appearance of a campaign pitting the embodiment of the Democratic establishment against a challenger who was little known outside Nevada before winning the nomination in an upset.

For Angle, a 61-year-old former state lawmaker, the encounter was a chance to counter Reid's months-long attack on her as an extremist who is bent on destroying Social Security and other government programs.

For Reid, 70 and seeking a fifth Senate term, it marked an opportunity to persuade skeptical constituents that he deserves re-election at a time when unemployment in Nevada, at 14.4 percent, is the highest in the country.

The two rivals had a quiet, private word in the moments before the debate began and shook hands and exchanged pleasantries once it had ended. In between, she frequently looked at Reid when it was his turn to speak.

The debate unfolded at a particularly critical moment in their race, with early voting set to begin over the weekend and polls showing an extremely tight contest.

Under the debate ground rules, moderator Mitch Fox posed questions to the candidates by turn, and at one point, asked Angle the same question twice after she sidestepped when asked if health insurance companies should be bound by any coverage mandates.

"The solutions to the health care insurance cost problems are simple and they reside within the free market," she said.

Reid pounced on her reply.

"Insurance companies don't do things out of the goodness of their heart; they do it because of the profit motive," he said. "We need them to be forced into" covering mammograms, colonoscopies and other tests, as well as autism and other conditions.

Angle's reference to Reid's Washington condominium appeared part of a campaign-long effort to make him look like he has lost touch with the state that he has represented in Congress for decades.

She returned to the same theme nearly an hour later, much more pointedly, when she said he had gone into public service with little money and now was among the wealthiest men in the Senate.

"How did you become so wealthy on a government payroll?" she asked accusingly.

As he had at other points, Reid said Angle had her facts wrong. He said he had practiced law before entering politics, had been successful at it and has managed his investments well in the years since.

Both candidates unveiled new television attack ads in the hours leading up to the debate.

Previewing her attack in the debate's opening moments, Angle's commercial Reid, saying he has voted to raise taxes more than 300 times.

Reid's ad called Angle a "wild" legislator who would force pregnant rape victims to give birth and dismantle Social Security.

Former President Bill Clinton campaigned with Reid earlier in the week and urged voters not to take their anger over the economy out on the four-term senator.

But Angle jolted Democrats in the state and in Washington when her campaign announced it had raised $14 million in the three months ending Sept. 30, a staggering sum that reflects her rise to prominence as the Republican challenger to the Senate's top Democrat.

Democrats responded by noting that Angle had not disclosed how much of the money she had remaining in her campaign treasury, suggesting she had already spent most of what she reported raising. But at the same time, Reid rushed out a fundraising appeal that said Angle's surge in donations meant she might be able to swamp him on television in the campaign's final days.

The antagonism between the two sides has also spilled over into the streets.

Police said they had issued summonses to two men after an Angle supporter dressed in a sheep costume taunted one of Reid's backers during Clinton's appearance.

View the original article here

US Senate leader calls for Nevada foreclosure halt - Reuters

* Reid letter sent to largest mortgage servicers

* Call comes as Obama sends back foreclosure-friendly bill

* Reid in tough race for re-election, Nevada hard-hit (Adds comments from Reid, background on foreclosure problems)

By Corbett B. Daly

WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called for the largest mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosures in hard-hit Nevada.

"I write to request that your mortgage-servicing division suspend foreclosures on Nevada homeowners until systems are in place to ensure Nevadans are not being improperly directed into foreclosure proceedings," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, wrote in a letter to the companies, which he did not specifically name.

So far, Ally Financial Inc's GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase & Co JPM.N and Bank of America (BAC.N) have announced that they are suspending some of their foreclosures to review whether they have been conducting them properly.

Reid released his letter on Thursday, shortly after President Barack Obama announced his opposition to a bill passed by Congress that could have made it more difficult for homeowners to challenge unjustified foreclosure actions. Obama said he would send the measure back to the House of Representatives in a procedure called a "pocket veto."

The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously, would have required courts to accept all out-of-state notarizations, including those stamped en masse by computers in a practice that critics say has been improperly used to expedite foreclosure orders.

False notarizations figured in disclosures that Ally Financial, JPMorgan and other big mortgage processors filed false affidavits in thousands of cases, part of the the wave of foreclosures that followed the financial crisis.

Reid is in tough race for re-election in Nevada, which holds the nation's record in jobless and foreclosure rates.

Reid noted that some servicers have halted foreclosure in the 23 states that have judicial foreclosure proceedings.

"While Nevada is not among those states, suspending foreclosures on Nevadans is also justified because the reports of shoddy and defective affidavit preparation suggest that servicers might not be reviewing a home owner's loan documents with the requisite care," Reid said in his statement. (Reporting by Corbett Daly; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Presently Senator Reid is posturing, to suddenly represent the enigma of bank fraud and foreclosures. We must however look to the immediate future and the damage Reid and his cohorts can do to our fragile economy.In the new session of Congress–Lame Duck or not–Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) will focus the Senate to enacting Sen. Robert Menendez,( D-NJ).law; a crippling blow to the 15 million out of work Americans by passing immigration Reform Package. If he has adequate votes this Liberal Senator clothed as a Democrat, will crack his whip and bring to the table another Amnesty by any other name. Stealthily hidden in the bill will not–ONLY–contain the Dream Act, but Agjobs attachment law for more Guest Workers for farms, by giving some structure of mass Amnesty. Since the 1986 Amnesty at least 3-4 million low income workers got their legal immigration papers and then determined that they could bring in immediate family members under Family Unification laws. As legal residents they could sponsor family members as long as the affidavit of financial support was signed. In many cases this became a game of fraud, as soon after this obligation was dropped and family members ended up in the welfare line.

Chain Migration refers to the unceasing and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are permitted to immigrate because the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their absolute, non-nuclear family members. According to FAIRS quote “In 2001, the United States admitted 1,064,318 immigrants–enough people to create a major city the size of Chicago” In 1986 between 1.34 and 2.66 million illegal immigrants in the country who could qualify for immediate legality. Philip Martin, a professor at the University of California at Davis and one of the leading experts on the IRCA program, described the 1986 bill as “rife with fraud.”5 In total, nearly 1.1 million illegal’s received amnesty under SAW, even though there were only an estimated 400,000 eligible. This implies 700,000 fraudulent legalizations. Somewhere between 4 and 5 million people gained entry under this bill.

If we believe the numbers of foreign nationals domiciled in the US by government mouthpieces–there are 11 million and shrinking? In a previous count the Census Bureau has also developed estimates of its own. There assessment at the time of the 2000 Census suggests that the illegal immigration population was about 8 million. We are now Ten years ahead-so how can the administration estimate only 12 million? Create some kind of estimate yourself and give a conservative figure of family members brought here through family unification? Do we really want to be overpopulated? Our highways cannot handle the traffic now. Water shortages, energy disruption and loss of environment open land. Farmland disappearing. Even now water is in short supply in California and other border states. How will we keep up with supplying food to this sized population?

In Nov. 6, 1986 Because of their low education levels, illegal immigrants have a poverty rate that is roughly twice that of native-born Americans and therefore the majority will become public charges. The Immigration Reform and Control Act were passed by Congress in order to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, seen as a threat to the economy. Many members of Congress felt immigration was “out of control” because legal and illegal immigration had come to account for approximately thirty to fifty percent of U.S. population growth. The 1986 bill criminalizes the act of knowingly hiring an undocumented worker (in an unsuccessful attempt to reduce illegal immigration) as Businesses ignored the law and the government’s failure to enforce the laws so the numbers have grown all out of proportion..

Many foreigners are competing with Citizens and legal residents as cheap labor exploited by farms, businesses, the construction industry, factories, services and entertainment commerce. Millions have now materialized in the blue and white collar jobs that should be in the hands of the jobless Americans. Thousands of contractors have sewed their own demise by using cheap labor, dropping wages and the quality of work. Isn’t it time we decide who will push the overall public agenda for a decent future for our families and grandchildren, and not seek to gain votes in future elections by pandering to the major minority population as the Liberals are? One problem being legal households also gives refuge to an illegal alien family member and there are thousands of fraudulent cases of a legal brother loaning his Social Security number to an uncle or Aunt. Even a child given instant citizenship under the 14th Amendment Social Security number is not sacred, as the card is utilized by another in the family circle.

The Democratic leadership including Sen. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Speaker Pelosi do not seem to understand the relative difference in an individual who came to America legally and followed the processing as real immigrants do, if they wish to settle in this great country of ours? The new Tea Party candidates for Congress believe in the “Rule of Law” and understand you cannot cut corners to reside here in the US, and that changing the laws is pandering to millions of illegal aliens who ignored the laws and thought nothing in sliding past the border guards or lying about their true intentions when hoping on a plane. Only the Liberal extremists and the majority of Democrats see this as not a contravention of our laws and are willing to overlook, what to them is a minor civil infraction. Why have Democrats and a few in the GOP gutted the real border fence? Why has ICE director John Holder not arresting every illegal alien to be deported or imprisoned?

Why is California’s Sen. Boxer voted–YES–to supplying funds to Sanctuary Cities or not limiting welfare to illegal aliens? Both politicians are responsible for pressing –ONE-for ENGLISH. Why did Sen. Harry Reid try to table E-Verify, giving fewer accesses of jobs to legitimate US workers and only make the law to extract illegal workers voluntary? Choose who you vote for very cautiously, because returning Sen. Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Napolitano to Washington. ALL INCUMBENTS MUST GO. ANTICIPATE IN STATES WITH A CLOSE RACE, DEMOCRAT ORIENTED LIBERAL modus operandi:have been known to overlook illegal aliens voting for their Pride and Joy? ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. Any new Lib-Dem will certainly bring down another giant amnesty that is like a tree, with very costly hidden roots; that will be digging into your payroll check for extra taxes.Billions of dollars could easily turn into a trillion in public welfare? The Tea Party is extremely conscious that neither party can be trusted in most instances to serve the American people. Democrats are looking for potential future votes and Republicans are looking out for a continuous pipeline of discount labor.

Tea Party activists have their own agenda, to suppress the plans in Washington of both parties. To shrink government and return dignity to the middle class and good paying jobs to all Americans. Tea party candidates are not beholden to Sen. Reid or Minority speaker John Boehner and any associates and will not bend to the will of Washington elites. Both parties must be held accountable and those who ignore the new course for the people will be removed from office as many incumbents will be this November. Give Tea Party candidates a chance to prove their worth and not listen to the same old, tired rhetoric of the usual, entrenched politicians. Even new Tea Party candidates must abide by the rules of the American people, as they are not immune from losing their seat.

Brittanicus Report As Abusive

*We welcome comments that advance the story directly or with relevant tangential information. We try to block comments that use offensive language or appear to be spam and review comments frequently to ensure they meet our standards. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters.

View the original article here

Senate report blasts Pentagon for handling of security contractors - CNN International

Senate report: Failure to keep track of private security contractors puts troops at riskSen. Carl Levin: "We must shut off the spigot of U.S. dollars" to Afghan warlordsCommittee staff: 125 security contracts cost the U.S. more than $100 millionReport cites nonexistent training, violent incidents, warlord affiliations

Washington (CNN) -- A Senate report released Thursday rips into the Pentagon for failing to keep track of tens of thousands of private security contractors in Afghanistan, a failure that places both the mission and U.S. troops at grave risk.

"The report describes a number of private security contractors funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars to Afghan warlords and strongmen who are linked to murder, kidnapping, bribery, pro-Talilban and anti-coalition activities," Armed Services Committee Carl Levin said at a briefing.

"We must shut off the spigot of U.S. dollars flowing into the pockets of power brokers and warlords who act contrary to our interests and who contribute to the corruption that weakens the support of the Afghan people for their government and for our effort," said Levin, D-Michigan.

The committee spent the past year investigating more than 125 Defense Department security contracts that cost the U.S. well in excess of $100 million, according to committee staff. Levin travelled to Afghanistan in July to meet with U.S. military leaders about risks in employing some 26,000 armed contractors.

Levin said some contractors are necessary to provide security, for instance guarding the perimeter of U.S. installations. But too many of them are poorly vetted prior to hiring, and aren't trained or provided with weapons and other equipment.

The report details one incident in February in which Afghanistan contractor guards fired on U.S. Marines who were shouting to identify themselves and using signal flares. The guards shot and killed a Marine. The Marines later detained the guards and found they were high on opium and had been given no training in how to fire their rifles.

Another contractor, according to the report and U.S. military e-mails obtained by the committee, "used rocks to simulate personnel" guarding observation posts.

Another section of the report focuses on guards hired by ArmorGroup as an example of how U.S. and United Nations contracts benefit Afghan warlords.

"The succession of warlords and the guards affiliated with them were implicated in murder, revenge attacks, bribery and anti-coalition activities," the report said. "One of those warlords, known as Mr. White-Two, was holding a Taliban meeting at his home when it was raided by U.S. and Afghan forces." ArmorGroup managers, according to the Senate report, gave the Afghanistan warlords nicknames based on the 1992 crime movie "Reservoir Dogs."

"Those warlords were variously implicated in murder and bribery," Levin said at his briefing. "As a matter of fact, Mr. Pink killed Mr. White-One. They were found to possess landmines, large amounts of ammunition and they were determined by the U.S. military to be in league with the Taliban."

A spokesperson for ArmorGroup's parent company, G4S in London, did not respond to a request for comment.

The Senate report blasted the Defense Department for lack of oversight, saying too much attention was devoted to giving out contracts and too little to keeping them accountable.

"Their workload required them to devote all their efforts to awarding contracts, and as a result they could not provide contract oversight," the Senate report said.

The Senate committee has briefed the Pentagon on their findings. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote Levin Tuesday saying the department had set up task forces to review the issue, had tripled the number of auditors in the warzone and revamped their hiring, training and deployment.

Gates said the Senate report has helped the Defense Department understand the problems.

"Through the new programs we have implemented, I believe, DoD has taken significant steps to benefit our forces on the ground while not providing aid to our enemies.," Gates said in his letter.

Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus also has warned of over-reliance on contractors, telling military leaders to consider who benefits and the impact on their operations.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai cracked down on private contracts at the end of last month.

"In order to protect Afghan life and property, avoid corruption, security irregularities and the misuse of military weapons, ammunition and uniforms by the private security companies which have caused tragic incidents, and after the required assessment, I approve shutting down all private security companies within four months, including both domestic and foreign," the Afghanistan government's decree said.

The heavy dependence on contractors creates multiple problems for the United States. Efforts to build up the Afghan police and security forces are undercut when people can make more money working for private companies. Warlords can siphon off funds and not provide promised manpower.

Levin admitted that in some circumstances there are only risky, difficult choices.

"The decision as to whether or not to utilize a strongman or a warlord, or whatever you want to call them, has to be made at the highest level, it cannot be made casually by someone lower down in the chain of command that takes the easy way out, who says we will use this guy because he can provide protection," Levin said.

Levin said that despite efforts by the Pentagon and Congress, problems remain.

"There are contracts that are being implemented today with contractors who have shown to be sloppy, reckless or negligent in terms of implementing those contracts," Levin said. "So the risks exist today."

View the original article here

Senate debate is three-way duel for Crist, Meek and Rubio - Tampabay.com

By Adam C. Smith and Beth Reinhard, Times/Herald Staff Writers
In Print: Thursday, October 7, 2010

Republican Marco Rubio, independent Gov. Charlie Crist and Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek had a friendly greeting before the start of their debate. Things got less jovial from there.

ORLANDO — Marco Rubio got the frontrunner treatment in a combative U.S. Senate debate Wednesday night, with both his rivals attacking him as a right-wing extremist out of step with Florida voters.

"It's abundantly clear that there's an extreme right faction in the Republican Party," said independent candidate Charlie Crist, who defected from the GOP five months ago. "I'm the only candidate that can both win in November and crash that tea party in Washington."

"You want to take us back to Dick Cheney days," added the Democratic nominee, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, describing Rubio as a "radical'' who won't stand up for middle-class Floridians.

Rubio, the former state House speaker from Miami, held his own and cast the race as a choice between two status quo candidates or a Republican who will stand up to President Barack Obama's agenda.

"If you like Obamacare, if you like the stimulus plan, you can vote for Charlie Crist or Kendrick Meek. I'm probably not your candidate," Rubio said.

Rubio is comfortably leading Crist in recent polls, and his basic goal over the next four weeks is to run out the clock and avoid significant mistakes. He didn't make any in the first prime-time televised debate in the race, but he also took some sharp jabs over his own record as a fiscal conservative and on divisive issues such as abortion and Social Security.

Crist charged at Rubio throughout the debate, but didn't come across as angry. Meek cast himself as the scrappy defender of working people.

The candidates sat side-by-side around a triangular table, but their close proximity did nothing to deter them from taking tough shots at each other throughout the lively hourlong debate.

Gov. Crist wants voters to see the race as a two-man contest between him and Rubio, and he was particularly aggressive. He said Rubio wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and stood by an ad by his campaign warning seniors that Rubio wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security.

"You haven't been drinking the Kool-Aid, my friend, you've been drinking too much tea," Crist said, referring to Rubio's support from the conservative tea party movement.

Rubio noted that his proposal would not apply to anyone over 55 and that his 80-year-old mother relies on Social Security.

"For you to suggest that I would somehow advocate ideas that would harm her is outrageous and a blatant lie," Rubio snapped.

"The facts are the facts and facts are stubborn things," Crist retorted.

Meek, who trails well behind both Rubio and Crist in recent polls, noted that both candidates had advocated for private savings accounts in the past.

Rubio scoffed that neither of his opponents had a real proposal for keeping Social Security solvent.

"How about standing up for the middle class," Meek retorted.

"That's not a plan," Rubio said.

It was the second debate between the Senate candidates, and it was moderated by Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos, Brendan McLaughlin from WFTS-Ch. 28 in Tampa and Craig Patrick of WFTV. The debate was televised on ABC affiliates.

Just hours before the debate, Rubio announced he had set a new fundraising record in Florida by collecting more than $5 million in the past three months. That leaves him with $5.5 million for the homestretch. Rubio's jaw-dropping haul will go a long way toward eroding the fundraising advantage that Crist has long enjoyed.

He and Meek have not yet released their latest contribution totals. But in a sign that the Rubio camp may see the race tightening, Rubio began airing his first ad of the race attacking Crist. The spot follows three consecutive negative commercials by Crist. In the ad, Rubio speaks directly to the camera about his rival, calling him a fraud and a flip-flopper.

Crist is relying heavily on winning significant Democratic support, but every televised debate raises the profile of Meek. The governor dropped out of the Republican Party after falling well behind Rubio in the primary and is now walking a tricky line to win support from both parties.

''If you want someone on the far right you've got Marco Rubio, someone on the far left there's Kendrick Meek," Crist said.

Crist accused Rubio, the former House speaker, of putting "pork'' in the budget and steering money to Florida International University, which gave Rubio a no-bid job after he left office, and Jackson Memorial Hospital, which gave him a consulting contract.

"I had to cut 500 million out of the pork you sent me," Crist said.

Rubio countered that he proposed smaller budgets than the governor did and repeatedly accused Crist of distortions and lies.

"Unbelievable," Crist scoffed at one point.

Meek, trying to fend off Crist's courtship of Democrats, is one of the few major Democratic candidates in the country eagerly touting his support for President Obama's agenda, and actually looked pleased when Rubio accused him of being a Nancy Pelosi liberal.

Rubio declined to say he would support more funding for high speed rail in Florida: "Nothing is more important then dealing with this long-term debt issue. That's a priority over virtually everything our country faces.''

That prompted Meek to accuse Rubio of being willing to let Floridians "sit in traffic for the next 20 years."

As for Crist, Meek said he "stands on a wet paper box … because you don't know where he is."

The candidates are slated to face off four more times before the Nov. 2 election, though absentee ballots are already available. Early voting begins Oct. 18.

Beth Reinhard can be reached at breinhard@herald.com. Adam C. Smith can be reached at asmith@sptimes.com.

[Last modified: Oct 06, 2010 11:15 PM]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 St. Petersburg Times

View the original article here

Paul Accuses Conway of Flip-Flopping as Kentucky Senate Candidates Clash - FOXNews

The candidates for Kentucky's open Senate seat, one of the keystones in both parties' plans to hold the majority next year, clashed on "Fox News Sunday" over the nation's economy and over each other's personal integrity, with Republican Rand Paul accusing Democrat Jack Conway of flip-flopping on big issues. 

In a televised debate, Paul described the November midterms as a referendum on President Obama's legislative agenda. Suggesting voters are inclined to vote against that agenda, he accused his Democratic opponent of backing away from the Obama proposals he once supported. 

"What he needs to do is either defend his president or run away -- so far he's running away from President Obama and the agenda," Paul said. 

Paul, arguably the first Tea Party-backed Senate candidate to win a Republican nomination, is trying to cast his opponent as "ambivalent" on economic issues critical to his state. So far, most polls show Paul holding a considerable lead over the state's attorney general - the latest Rasmussen poll put Paul up 11 points. 

But Conway cast Paul as out-of-touch with state voters, particularly on the health care overhaul. Conway said hundreds of thousands of Kentucky residents will have access to health care for the first time, warning that Paul's pledge to repeal the law would strip away premium assistance for low-income families and protections like a ban on denying coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions. 

"I want to fix health care. He wants to repeal it," Conway said. "I think that's a stark difference." 

Conway is standing by the health care law but offers mixed, and allegedly conflicting, reviews on other Obama priorities. Conway said he supported the tax cuts component of the stimulus package but that the "shovel-ready" infrastructure component has had mixed results. He said he would not have supported the bailouts -- which started under former President George W. Bush. 

But Paul said Conway has changed his tune entirely, and repeatedly, on the issue of tax cuts. 

After Congress adjourned without taking action on the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, Conway now says the Bush tax cuts should be extended. But he told the Courier-Journal editorial board in April: "I would favor letting expire probably the majority, the majority of the Bush tax cuts." 

Conway explained Sunday he was talking about "special interest provisions" that allow companies to ship U.S. jobs overseas. He stressed that he was originally for the Bush tax cuts in 2002. 

Paul accused Conway of simply changing his position time after time. "You were for them before you were against them before you were for them again," Paul said. 

He also accused Conway of being on "both sides" of the issue on the so-called "cap-and-trade" bill that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A local Kentucky news report last summer said Conway issued a statement in support of a House version of the cap-and-trade bill. Conway now says he's "against cap-and-trade" and "always have been." 

"Kentuckians are not going to tolerate someone who's ambivalent on cap-and-trade," Paul said. "Cap-and-trade will be a disaster to our economy." 

Conway says he's been consistent in standing up for Kentucky coal miners. 

Conway stressed his work battling pharmaceutical companies and criticized Paul repeatedly for controversial comments he made about the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said he would be focused "like a laser" on jobs creation if elected. 

Paul said his legislative work would be devoted to reducing spending and drawing down the national debt, pledging to introduce legislation to balance the budget. 

The national debt "is threatening the very foundation of our economy," he said. "It's incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly foolhardy." 

Click here for more Fox News "Days to Decide" coverage. 

View the original article here