Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Coaching to be a good father
From The Hindu
While sociologists have documented the heightened consumption of superhero comics and movies during hard times, this weekend the United States turned to a more ordinary champion of American family values – fathers.
And it is U.S President Barack Obama who has been at the forefront of a sustained effort to underscore the importance of fatherhood for a generation of children that has likely seen tremendous economic pressures erode the very foundations of the American family.
With nearly one in ten persons unemployed and the march of home foreclosures across states continuing unabated, a sense of hopelessness has gripped the middle class in recent months as the government seems to be unable reverse these trends.
The impact on children, especially, has been exacerbated by the reality for many military families where U.S. engagement in conflicts overseas has often required servicemen and women to spend months of continuous service away from their families.
It was with this backdrop, and reflecting upon his own fatherless upbringing, that Mr. Obama said on the occasion of Father’s Day this Sunday, “I grew up without my father around... I felt his absence. And I wonder what my life would have been like had he been a greater presence.”
Acknowledging the turbulent times for ordinary families, Mr. Obama said that while life was tough for a lot of Americans today and “more and more kids grow up without a father figure,” every father had a personal responsibility to do right by his children.
Admitting that the recession had taken a harsh toll, Mr. Obama said “If you’re out of a job or struggling to pay the bills, doing whatever it takes to keep the kids healthy, happy and safe can understandably take precedence over all else.”
Among those elements of parenting that he had understood to be the most important were the need to give children quality time, the need for structure, including self-discipline and responsibility, and the need for unconditional love, he said.
The President touched upon some of his administration’s efforts to support fathers across the nation, in particular highlighting its work with community and faith-based groups focused on fatherhood, its partnerships with businesses to offer opportunities for fathers to spend more time with their children outside the office, and its outreach to military chaplains to help deployed fathers connect with their children.
Many of these efforts were outlined in detail at the government website for fathers, Fatherhood.gov, Mr. Obama noted.
On a personal note the President also proudly announced that he had taken up a “second job,” as Assistant Coach for his daughter Sasha’s basketball team. He said that on Sundays, he would get the team together to practice, and he had help coach the games on a few occasions.
“It was a lot of fun – even if Sasha rolled her eyes when her dad voiced his displeasure with the refs,” he added, describing fatherhood as “my hardest, but always my most rewarding job.”
Labels: American family, Barack Obama, Father’s Day function, fatherhood, Sasha Obama, U.S. President
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Obama announces re-election bid
Using a video posted on the YouTube website (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ) United States President Barack Obama informally kicked off what appears to be another grassroots campaign for his 2012 re-election bid.
In a move that likely presages a campaign that will intensively use social media, Mr. Obama also reached out to Americans through Twitter and e-mail, where he said: “Today, we are filing papers to launch our 2012 campaign. We are doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you — with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbours, co-workers, and friends.”
Mr. Obama said in his message that even though he was “focused on the job you elected me to do, and the race may not reach full speed for a year or more”, the work of laying the foundation for his campaign “must start today”.
The announcement of the re-election bid, though widely expected, comes at a time when the Republican leadership is relatively fragmented and, according to some pollsters, is yet to throw up a candidate who could mount a serious challenge to Mr. Obama's campaign in 2012.
According to a poll by Gallup late last month, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were “bunched in the top tier while another dozen or so possibilities bring up the rear”.
Similarly, a survey by the Pew Research Center in March also indicated “a fairly tight cluster”, with Mr. Romney at 21 per cent, Mr. Huckabee at 20 per cent, Ms. Palin at 13 per cent and Mr. Gingrich 11 per cent.
Mr. Obama's job approval ratings, which hit an all-time low last year, ticked up to above 50 per cent following his January deal-making with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the American middle class.
While some polls such as Rasmussen placed the proportion of people who “somewhat approved” of his performance down at 45 per cent in March, observers noted that the steady improvement in job market conditions for the last four months is likely to buoy Mr. Obama's prospects if it persists. In the month of March the economy added 216,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.8 per cent.
Labels: Barack Obama, re-election bid, U.S. President
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Historic vote repeals gay ban in military
From The Hindu
The United States Senate took a historic step forward over the weekend as Congress passed a bill to repeal the controversial “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) law, a ban on openly gay persons serving in the U.S. military.
In a statement following the repeal of DADT in the Senate, which voted 65 for versus 31 against the bill, President Barack Obama said, “As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. ”
While the U.S. House of Representatives had already passed the repeal as an attachment to a Pentagon spending bill earlier this year, this weekend Senate Democrats passed the bill with the help of eight Republicans Senators who crossed the floor.
The passage of the repeal represents both a narrow escape as well as a major victory for Democrats and Mr. Obama. With the 112th Republican-dominated U.S. Congress set to convene in January, the failure to pass the repeal before the end of December would have risked killing off its prospects altogether. Yet the fact that it succeeded will strengthen the hand of Mr. Obama and Democrats who had made it a top policy priority earlier this year.
In particular observers noted that the repeal of DADT would help partially rectify the damage caused to the White House’s liberal support base, which has been stung by the President’s deal with Republicans, earlier this month, to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.
While the repeal’s passage was strongly supported by the military’s top brass, including Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and an overwhelming majority of service members surveyed by the Pentagon, Mr. Obama said that he recognised that it was important to “responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.”
Commenting on the passage of the repeal Mr. Gates said, “Once this legislation is signed into law by the President, the Department of Defence will immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposefully.”
He cautioned that it was important that defence personnel understood that while the military’s policy would change following the vote, its implementation and certification process would take place gradually, during which time the current law and policy would remain in effect.
Earlier this year both Mr. Obama as well as Mr. Gates criticised a decision passed by Virginia Phillips, a California federal judge, who ruled that DADT militated against the First Amendment rights of armed service officers and the military should therefore to stop enforcing the law. Subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court stayed Judge Phillips’ order, following a request by the U.S. Justice Department.
The Obama administration has consistently said that it preferred a Congressional repeal of the law to any court-mandated order to that effect, particularly as the former approach would provide the necessary procedural manoeuvrability required to implement the repeal.
The DADT law, which was introduced in 1993 as a compromise to allow gay persons to serve in the military, has reportedly led to over 12,500 members of the armed forces being discharged. In November an official survey found that more than two-thirds of the armed forces in the U.S. “do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform.”
Labels: Barack Obama, gay ban, military service, U.S. President
Saturday, October 02, 2010
U.S. apologises for human experiments
From The Hindu
The United States has apologised to Guatemala for a series of human experiments its researchers had conducted on Guatemalan prison and mental hospital inmates between 1946 and 1948.
U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior administration officials issued public statements of deep regret this week after archival research by Professor Susan Reverby of Wellesley College revealed that vulnerable Guatemalans were clandestinely infected with sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhoea, and chancroid.
The study, funded by a Department of State grant to the U.S. National Institute of Health, was purportedly aimed at testing the effectiveness of penicillin, which was relatively new at the time. The experiments, acknowledged by officials to be a gross violation of modern-day bioethics standards, were led by the late John Cutler, a U.S. Public Health Service medical officer.
Commenting on the episode the White House issued a statement on Friday saying that Mr. Obama had spoken with President Alvaro Colom of Guatemala to express his “deep regret” regarding the study, and to extend an apology to all those affected. He also reaffirmed the U.S.’ commitment to ensuring that all human medical studies conducted today would meet “exacting U.S. and international legal and ethical standards.”
In a joint statement Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius further said that they were “outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health.” They added that they deeply regretted that the “clearly unethical” experiments had happened and apologised to all the individuals affected by such “abhorrent research practices.”
Officials also remarked that the study had revived memories from another dark period in U.S. medical ethics – the Tuskegee, Alabama, experiments, in which nearly 400 African-American men were infected with syphilis without informed consent. In that case, treatment through Penicillin was not provided.
To further examine the question of adherence to bioethics standards the government also announced two investigations into the experiments. The first would be undertaken by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, and the second by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
The depth of the concern was further underscored by Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, who noted that no fewer than 40 such studies, “where intentional infection was carried out with what we would now consider to be completely inadequate consent in the U.S.,” had been carried out by U.S. researchers.
Commenting on the involvement of minority and vulnerable communities in medical research Dr. Collins added that the Tuskegee study had involved the same Dr. Cutler, and did “great damage to the confidence and the trust that individuals, particularly from the African American community, had in medical research.”
He noted that Professor Reverby’s would be yet another example of medical research being conducted on vulnerable populations “in a way that is reprehensible.”
Labels: Guatemalan prison abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. President
Friday, March 19, 2010
Democrats feel healthcare heat
From The Hindu
With the 72-hour deadline for passing the contentious healthcare reform bill approaching rapidly Democrats, under steady fire from across the aisle, are scrambling to get to the “magic number” of 216 votes required for its passage in the House of Representatives on Sunday.
This week a barrage of criticism was levelled at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for attempting to get the bill through the House using the “deemed passed” rule. By this procedure, House members would simply vote on additional changes to the Senate version of the bill rather than the Senate bill itself. However, after this vote the Senate bill, along with the changes, would be “deemed passed.”
The idea behind this would be to give fence-sitters in the House the option of not having to affix their signature to a Senate bill that they have fundamental doubts about. One major difference between the two versions of the bill is the Senate version's language on funding for health insurance policies that include abortion is weaker than the House's so-called “Stupak amendment.”
Republicans, already mounting stronger attacks against what they have called a “government takeover of healthcare” came out strongly against the proposed House procedure. John Boehner, House Minority Leader described it as a “slaughter solution,” saying it was nothing more than an incumbent protection programme for “Democrats afraid to stick their necks out because they know how much the American people oppose this bill.”
Yet a key development in favour of the Democrats' ambition to win over some 36-odd wavering members of their party was the updated cost-benefit “scoring” provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this week. The CBO ruled that the proposed reform programme would cost $940 billion and lead to a reduction in the deficit by close to $138 billion over the next 10 years — an estimate that cheered Democrats for showing a lower cost level than what was assumed earlier.
However, the Republicans countered this strongly too: Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said, “My Democratic colleagues never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no CBO score… and what it reveals is nothing more than a guess.”
Meanwhile President Obama has busied himself delivering a slew of fiery speeches in Washington and elsewhere, seeking to win support for a bill whose passage would help him end the U.S.'s painful struggle with healthcare reform.
With the 72-hour deadline for passing the contentious healthcare reform bill approaching rapidly Democrats, under steady fire from across the aisle, are scrambling to get to the “magic number” of 216 votes required for its passage in the House of Representatives on Sunday.
This week a barrage of criticism was levelled at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for attempting to get the bill through the House using the “deemed passed” rule. By this procedure, House members would simply vote on additional changes to the Senate version of the bill rather than the Senate bill itself. However, after this vote the Senate bill, along with the changes, would be “deemed passed.”
The idea behind this would be to give fence-sitters in the House the option of not having to affix their signature to a Senate bill that they have fundamental doubts about. One major difference between the two versions of the bill is the Senate version's language on funding for health insurance policies that include abortion is weaker than the House's so-called “Stupak amendment.”
Republicans, already mounting stronger attacks against what they have called a “government takeover of healthcare” came out strongly against the proposed House procedure. John Boehner, House Minority Leader described it as a “slaughter solution,” saying it was nothing more than an incumbent protection programme for “Democrats afraid to stick their necks out because they know how much the American people oppose this bill.”
Yet a key development in favour of the Democrats' ambition to win over some 36-odd wavering members of their party was the updated cost-benefit “scoring” provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this week. The CBO ruled that the proposed reform programme would cost $940 billion and lead to a reduction in the deficit by close to $138 billion over the next 10 years — an estimate that cheered Democrats for showing a lower cost level than what was assumed earlier.
However, the Republicans countered this strongly too: Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said, “My Democratic colleagues never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no CBO score… and what it reveals is nothing more than a guess.”
Meanwhile President Obama has busied himself delivering a slew of fiery speeches in Washington and elsewhere, seeking to win support for a bill whose passage would help him end the U.S.'s painful struggle with healthcare reform.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, healthcare, Stupak amendment, U.S. President
Monday, March 15, 2010
Three linked to U.S. consular office killed in Mexico
From The Hindu
Three people including a pregnant employee of the United States Consulate and husband were gunned down by a suspected drug gang in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico over the weekend.
Lesley Enriquez, 35, and her husband, Arthur Redelfs, 34, were shot as they were driving in a car. Their 7-month old daughter was discovered crying in the back seat; however she was not wounded. The killings occurred in broad daylight as the victims were returning home from a social gathering.
In another incident the husband of a Mexican employee at the Consulate was also killed, officials said, and his two children in the car were wounded. The killings occurred a few minutes apart.
U.S. President Obama was “deeply saddened and outraged” at the events, according to White House officials. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “I have spoken with our Ambassador in Mexico and we are working with the Government of Mexico to do everything necessary to protect our people and to ensure that the perpetrators of these horrendous acts are brought to justice.” Mexican President Felipe Calderon said he was indignant and promised a swift investigation, according to reports.
While Mexican security forces gave no information on the likely motive, reports quoted U.S. State Department spokesman Fred Lash as saying the three slain people had attended the same social event before the attacks.
However the killings come in the wake of a surge in drug-related violence that has steadily tightened its grip on Mexico, claiming close to 18,000 lives in the in the past three years.
According to reports the latest round of attacks came even as the U.S. was just authorising government employees at six Mexican consulates to send their families out of the region due to the bloodshed.
President Obama further said the U.S. would “continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderon… to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent.”
Secretary Clinton echoed the concern about Mexican drug cartels, saying the assaults “underscore the imperative of our continued commitment to work closely with the Government of President Calderón to cripple the influence of trafficking organizations at work in Mexico.
She added that this was a responsibility the two countries should jointly shoulder, “particularly in border communities where strong bonds of history, culture, and common interest bind the Mexican and the American people closely together.”
Three people including a pregnant employee of the United States Consulate and husband were gunned down by a suspected drug gang in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico over the weekend.
Lesley Enriquez, 35, and her husband, Arthur Redelfs, 34, were shot as they were driving in a car. Their 7-month old daughter was discovered crying in the back seat; however she was not wounded. The killings occurred in broad daylight as the victims were returning home from a social gathering.
In another incident the husband of a Mexican employee at the Consulate was also killed, officials said, and his two children in the car were wounded. The killings occurred a few minutes apart.
U.S. President Obama was “deeply saddened and outraged” at the events, according to White House officials. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “I have spoken with our Ambassador in Mexico and we are working with the Government of Mexico to do everything necessary to protect our people and to ensure that the perpetrators of these horrendous acts are brought to justice.” Mexican President Felipe Calderon said he was indignant and promised a swift investigation, according to reports.
While Mexican security forces gave no information on the likely motive, reports quoted U.S. State Department spokesman Fred Lash as saying the three slain people had attended the same social event before the attacks.
However the killings come in the wake of a surge in drug-related violence that has steadily tightened its grip on Mexico, claiming close to 18,000 lives in the in the past three years.
According to reports the latest round of attacks came even as the U.S. was just authorising government employees at six Mexican consulates to send their families out of the region due to the bloodshed.
President Obama further said the U.S. would “continue to work with Mexican President Felipe Calderon… to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent.”
Secretary Clinton echoed the concern about Mexican drug cartels, saying the assaults “underscore the imperative of our continued commitment to work closely with the Government of President Calderón to cripple the influence of trafficking organizations at work in Mexico.
She added that this was a responsibility the two countries should jointly shoulder, “particularly in border communities where strong bonds of history, culture, and common interest bind the Mexican and the American people closely together.”
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, three killed, U.S. President, US Consulate
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Encore for the old Obama magic
From The Hindu
Should Obama seek to go toe-to-toe with would-be maligners across the aisle? Or, should he retreat once again to his role as a thoughtful yet hesitant President?
Finally, it happened. It was no more than a flash, of burnished, steely determination glinting in the sun. But it was there and no mistaking it for anything other than the old Obama magic
What was so startling about President Obama's fiery, provocative speech at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pennsylvania on Monday was the powerful surge of déjà vu that it brought, the invocation of a stirring within every member of the audience. By the end of it, all of them were swept away in the crescendo of his words as he roared, “And if you share that belief, I want you to stand with me and fight with me” to thunderous applause. The General had returned.
The “belief” that the President referred to, of course, was America's faith in the urgent need for healthcare reform. Why did it evoke déjà vu? Because after weary, interminable months of tackling the relentless siege of opposition obstructionism, the memory of Candidate Obama had, unbelievably, faded.
And faded not just for those all-important swing voters in what is still very much a polarised American polity. It had faded for even his strongest base of supporters, the so-called Millennial voters, who until today the polls indicated were disillusioned with the President's inability to deliver change.
So low is the ebb of hope today that few would readily recall that this was the man who brought a tired, frustrated and internationally unappreciated America back up to its feet with a renewed sense of purpose.
Yet finally, after more than thirteen months of gentlemanly conduct, he stepped out on the front foot and no apologies. Finally, after more than a year of putting his faith in quiet persuasion and patient interlocution, he did more than just block a punch. He rolled up his sleeves (literally, he did). He took off his jacket, saying “It's hot up here!” And, lo and behold, the man started punching.
First an uppercut: “When you're in Washington, folks respond to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question: What does this mean for the next election?”
Then a jab: “Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they've got pre-existing conditions. Every year, they drop more people's coverage when they get sick… Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher. Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 per cent. Anybody's paycheck gone up 40 per cent?”.
A feint to the left: “The other day, there was a conference call that was organised by Goldman Sachs… in which an insurance broker was telling Wall Street investors… that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums, but because there's so little competition in the insurance industry, they're okay with people being priced out.”
And finally that killer hook: “So what should I tell these [chronically ill] Americans? That Washington is not sure how it will play in November? That we should walk away from this fight, or [that] we'll do it incrementally, we'll take baby steps? [AUDIENCE: “No!”] So they want me to pretend to do something that doesn't really help these folks.”
Of course when Obama fights, it ain't no brawl — so he took some time with the Arcadia crowd, as he did for seven and a half hours in a recent summit with Republicans, to carefully lay out the reasons why his reform would help the healthcare system cut costs, increase coverage, reduce its deficit impact and end the tyranny of insurance companies enriching themselves to the detriment of ordinary Americans.
The experience was salutary. Obama could not have missed that fact. His audience certainly did not. Yet with all eyes, including Democrats', on Congressional elections in November, Monday's speech and the reaction bring an important behavioural question to the fore: should Obama seek to go toe-to-toe with would-be maligners across the aisle? Or, should he retreat once again to his role as a thoughtful yet hesitant President?
In truth the answer may well not matter, because regardless of the stormy weather November may bring, it will be followed by a whole two years during which possibly 30 million more Americans will be returned to a life of dignity, security and affordable, quality healthcare. And they will not forget their President when he needs them.
In Obama's own words, he would have put doing what is right before doing what is politically expedient. If that high moral choice might also result in the transformation of a purely exploitative system, then Republican objections become irrelevant. Let them kick and scream.
Finally, it happened. It was no more than a flash, of burnished, steely determination glinting in the sun. But it was there and no mistaking it for anything other than the old Obama magic
What was so startling about President Obama's fiery, provocative speech at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pennsylvania on Monday was the powerful surge of déjà vu that it brought, the invocation of a stirring within every member of the audience. By the end of it, all of them were swept away in the crescendo of his words as he roared, “And if you share that belief, I want you to stand with me and fight with me” to thunderous applause. The General had returned.
The “belief” that the President referred to, of course, was America's faith in the urgent need for healthcare reform. Why did it evoke déjà vu? Because after weary, interminable months of tackling the relentless siege of opposition obstructionism, the memory of Candidate Obama had, unbelievably, faded.
And faded not just for those all-important swing voters in what is still very much a polarised American polity. It had faded for even his strongest base of supporters, the so-called Millennial voters, who until today the polls indicated were disillusioned with the President's inability to deliver change.
So low is the ebb of hope today that few would readily recall that this was the man who brought a tired, frustrated and internationally unappreciated America back up to its feet with a renewed sense of purpose.
Yet finally, after more than thirteen months of gentlemanly conduct, he stepped out on the front foot and no apologies. Finally, after more than a year of putting his faith in quiet persuasion and patient interlocution, he did more than just block a punch. He rolled up his sleeves (literally, he did). He took off his jacket, saying “It's hot up here!” And, lo and behold, the man started punching.
First an uppercut: “When you're in Washington, folks respond to every issue, every decision, every debate, no matter how important it is, with the same question: What does this mean for the next election?”
Then a jab: “Every year, insurance companies deny more people coverage because they've got pre-existing conditions. Every year, they drop more people's coverage when they get sick… Every year, they raise premiums higher and higher and higher. Just last month, Anthem Blue Cross in California tried to jack up rates by nearly 40 per cent. Anybody's paycheck gone up 40 per cent?”.
A feint to the left: “The other day, there was a conference call that was organised by Goldman Sachs… in which an insurance broker was telling Wall Street investors… that insurance companies know they will lose customers if they keep on raising premiums, but because there's so little competition in the insurance industry, they're okay with people being priced out.”
And finally that killer hook: “So what should I tell these [chronically ill] Americans? That Washington is not sure how it will play in November? That we should walk away from this fight, or [that] we'll do it incrementally, we'll take baby steps? [AUDIENCE: “No!”] So they want me to pretend to do something that doesn't really help these folks.”
Of course when Obama fights, it ain't no brawl — so he took some time with the Arcadia crowd, as he did for seven and a half hours in a recent summit with Republicans, to carefully lay out the reasons why his reform would help the healthcare system cut costs, increase coverage, reduce its deficit impact and end the tyranny of insurance companies enriching themselves to the detriment of ordinary Americans.
The experience was salutary. Obama could not have missed that fact. His audience certainly did not. Yet with all eyes, including Democrats', on Congressional elections in November, Monday's speech and the reaction bring an important behavioural question to the fore: should Obama seek to go toe-to-toe with would-be maligners across the aisle? Or, should he retreat once again to his role as a thoughtful yet hesitant President?
In truth the answer may well not matter, because regardless of the stormy weather November may bring, it will be followed by a whole two years during which possibly 30 million more Americans will be returned to a life of dignity, security and affordable, quality healthcare. And they will not forget their President when he needs them.
In Obama's own words, he would have put doing what is right before doing what is politically expedient. If that high moral choice might also result in the transformation of a purely exploitative system, then Republican objections become irrelevant. Let them kick and scream.
Labels: Arcadia University in Glenside, Barack Obama, Pennsylvania, U.S. President
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Rebates for retrofitting
From The Hindu
President Barack Obama today announced a new multi-pronged policy to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil consumption and create new jobs after the worst recession in a generation.
Speaking at a training facility at Savannah Technical College, Georgia, Mr. Obama described the policy, called HOMESTAR, as aiming to create jobs by encouraging American families to invest in energy-saving home improvements.
After identifying building supplies and systems that would save energy over time, Mr. Obama said, the scheme would make any homeowner putting in new windows, replacing a heating unit or redoing a roof eligible for a rebate from the store or the contractor for 50 percent of the cost of each upgrade up to $1,500.
In this regard the scheme mirrors the Cash for Clunkers initiative launched last year, a $3 billion federal scrappage programme that created incentives for individuals to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Domestic employment would result from HOMESTAR, Mr. Obama explained, as “energy-efficient windows or insulation… are products that are almost exclusively manufactured right here in the United States of America”. It is very hard to ship windows from China, Mr. Obama quipped.
With a focus on quality retrofitting, the government will insist that contractors be certified to perform efficiency installations and independent field audits are conducted to ensure that the upgrades actually produce energy savings.
Mr. Obama’s hope is that this scheme will reduce energy use by an equivalent of the output of three coal-fired power plants per year, saving $200-$500 per year in the residential energy costs, while at the same time creating “tens of thousands” of jobs.
Touching on the importance of building up the nation’s environmentally sustainable infrastructure he said, “I'm convinced that the country that leads in clean energy is also going to be the country that leads in the global economy. And I want America to be that nation”. With 25 percent unemployment in the construction industry, demand has declined rapidly since the onset of the mortgage crisis.
Alluding to some business leaders in the construction industry who were present at the meeting, Mr. Obama said, “These are companies ready to take on new customers; they’re workers eager to do new installations and renovations; factories ready to produce new building supplies. All we’ve got to do is create the incentives to make it happen”.
This is neither a Democratic nor Republican idea but common-sense, he argued.
President Barack Obama today announced a new multi-pronged policy to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil consumption and create new jobs after the worst recession in a generation.
Speaking at a training facility at Savannah Technical College, Georgia, Mr. Obama described the policy, called HOMESTAR, as aiming to create jobs by encouraging American families to invest in energy-saving home improvements.
After identifying building supplies and systems that would save energy over time, Mr. Obama said, the scheme would make any homeowner putting in new windows, replacing a heating unit or redoing a roof eligible for a rebate from the store or the contractor for 50 percent of the cost of each upgrade up to $1,500.
In this regard the scheme mirrors the Cash for Clunkers initiative launched last year, a $3 billion federal scrappage programme that created incentives for individuals to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Domestic employment would result from HOMESTAR, Mr. Obama explained, as “energy-efficient windows or insulation… are products that are almost exclusively manufactured right here in the United States of America”. It is very hard to ship windows from China, Mr. Obama quipped.
With a focus on quality retrofitting, the government will insist that contractors be certified to perform efficiency installations and independent field audits are conducted to ensure that the upgrades actually produce energy savings.
Mr. Obama’s hope is that this scheme will reduce energy use by an equivalent of the output of three coal-fired power plants per year, saving $200-$500 per year in the residential energy costs, while at the same time creating “tens of thousands” of jobs.
Touching on the importance of building up the nation’s environmentally sustainable infrastructure he said, “I'm convinced that the country that leads in clean energy is also going to be the country that leads in the global economy. And I want America to be that nation”. With 25 percent unemployment in the construction industry, demand has declined rapidly since the onset of the mortgage crisis.
Alluding to some business leaders in the construction industry who were present at the meeting, Mr. Obama said, “These are companies ready to take on new customers; they’re workers eager to do new installations and renovations; factories ready to produce new building supplies. All we’ve got to do is create the incentives to make it happen”.
This is neither a Democratic nor Republican idea but common-sense, he argued.
Labels: Barack Obama, HOMESTAR, recession, U.S. President
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Obama steps up pressure on healthcare reform
From The Hindu
Tens of millions of individuals and small business in the United States are being denied affordable and adequate health insurance cover and they cannot wait any longer, President Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday.
In a clear indication of his administration’s intention to step up the pressure on Republicans in the aftermath of last Thursday’s bipartisan healthcare summit, Mr. Obama said, “No final bill will include everything that everyone wants. That’s what compromise is”.
A bipartisan meeting on healthcare reform last week failed to improve the prospects of Congress passing a comprehensive bill. Since then there has been a growing probability that the Democrats may get their proposals passed through reconciliation, a legislative procedure that bypasses the requirement of a 60-seat supermajority.
Alluding to victories in the Winter Olympics by U.S. athletes such as Lindsey Voh, Apolo Ohno and the men’s hockey team, Mr. Obama argued that to compete on the world stage as well as the U.S. did in Vancouver, Congress would have to find common ground on healthcare reform.
“We need to move past the bickering and the game-playing that holds us back and blocks progress for the American people,” he said.
Mr. Obama reiterated that Thursday’s caucus yielded both areas of agreement as well as differences across party lines. The common ground found so far included the rising cost of healthcare, the need for access to an insurance marketplace and pooling of purchasing power.
Reflecting on some of the more bipartisan suggestions coming from the Republican side, he said, “I heard some ideas from our Republican friends that I believe are very worthy of consideration”.
Yet there is a serious divergence of opinions on some critical issues, including whether insurance companies should be held accountable when they deny people care or arbitrarily raise premiums, and on giving tax credits to small businesses and individuals.
Emphasising the impact of such credits on the ordinary American he said, “This would be the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, and I believe we should do it.”
Co-operate or else
While Mr. Obama said he was willing to move forward with members of both parties on health care if the Republicans were serious about coming together to resolve differences, he also warned that he would be unwilling to wait much longer to get a bill passed.
“The tens of millions of men and women who cannot afford their health insurance cannot wait another generation for us to act. Small businesses [and] Americans with pre-existing conditions cannot wait,” he urged.
Tens of millions of individuals and small business in the United States are being denied affordable and adequate health insurance cover and they cannot wait any longer, President Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday.
In a clear indication of his administration’s intention to step up the pressure on Republicans in the aftermath of last Thursday’s bipartisan healthcare summit, Mr. Obama said, “No final bill will include everything that everyone wants. That’s what compromise is”.
A bipartisan meeting on healthcare reform last week failed to improve the prospects of Congress passing a comprehensive bill. Since then there has been a growing probability that the Democrats may get their proposals passed through reconciliation, a legislative procedure that bypasses the requirement of a 60-seat supermajority.
Alluding to victories in the Winter Olympics by U.S. athletes such as Lindsey Voh, Apolo Ohno and the men’s hockey team, Mr. Obama argued that to compete on the world stage as well as the U.S. did in Vancouver, Congress would have to find common ground on healthcare reform.
“We need to move past the bickering and the game-playing that holds us back and blocks progress for the American people,” he said.
Mr. Obama reiterated that Thursday’s caucus yielded both areas of agreement as well as differences across party lines. The common ground found so far included the rising cost of healthcare, the need for access to an insurance marketplace and pooling of purchasing power.
Reflecting on some of the more bipartisan suggestions coming from the Republican side, he said, “I heard some ideas from our Republican friends that I believe are very worthy of consideration”.
Yet there is a serious divergence of opinions on some critical issues, including whether insurance companies should be held accountable when they deny people care or arbitrarily raise premiums, and on giving tax credits to small businesses and individuals.
Emphasising the impact of such credits on the ordinary American he said, “This would be the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, and I believe we should do it.”
Co-operate or else
While Mr. Obama said he was willing to move forward with members of both parties on health care if the Republicans were serious about coming together to resolve differences, he also warned that he would be unwilling to wait much longer to get a bill passed.
“The tens of millions of men and women who cannot afford their health insurance cannot wait another generation for us to act. Small businesses [and] Americans with pre-existing conditions cannot wait,” he urged.
Labels: Barack Obama, Healthcare reform, Narayan Lakshman, U.S. President, weekly address
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
