Leadership by Example

Should we really question what the financial institutions are doing when they are only following the example set for them by our country's leaders?
Please research the fact that the Democratic Leadership is screaming about extras such as Citi Bank's New Jet, the remodeling of offices at Merrill Lynch, etc. and yet Pelosi has her private jet to take her around the country and Obama has a decorator from the stars in Hollywood redecorating the White House and lets not forget the 140-150 million that was just spent on the innaugaration. We must have leadership by example in America .Is this why we need the stimulus? or is it part of the stimulus?

A closer look at our current conditions

Everywhere You Look:
Big Government Spending
As President Obama settles into his new office, it is imperative that we encourage him and Congress to exercise prudence when attempting to rescue the economy. Massive deficit spending will only throw our country further into economic shambles, as the current stimulus and SCHIP bills do little more than increase our debt and healthcare costs. Consider the following issues with the "stimulus" bill:

1) The $825 billion bill would dump $10,520 of new debt per household into the laps of our children and grandchildren. The interest on this debt ($347 billion) will dump even more.

2) Under the stimulus, new groups of children and adults would be eligible for Medicaid, the welfare program for the poor. These expansions are on top of spending $89 billion to bailout out failing state Medicaid programs.

3) The current "stimulus" bill will be the largest spending bill ever enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small, accounting for inflation.

4) President Obama anticipates that spending over $800 billion will create 3.7 million new jobs. That means each job will cost more than $200,000, which is roughly equivalent to 5 times what the average American worker earns!

5) The bill is full of wasteful spending, including $21 million on new sod for the National Mall in Washington, $600 million on cars for government bureaucrats, and $650 million for digital television converters.



Also in Congress this week is the SCHIP bill that would essentially allow states to cover children of any income level, and even some adults and immigrants. This bill and the Medicaid expansions found in the economic stimulus package are moving the country closer to the tipping point where government will control more health care spending than the private sector, giving individuals and families less freedom over their personal health care decisions.

Many commentators and politicians have rushed to compare our current economic situation with the epic struggles endured by Americans during the Great Depression. However, it is often forgotten that even members of FDR’s Cabinet admitted that the vast amount of federal spending that defined the New Deal was not the solution necessary for economic recovery. Real stimulation will come from the private sector, who can create wealth to restore our economy—not the government, who can only redistribute wealth by taxing and borrowing.

http://www.askheritage.org/Default.aspx?utm_source=HannityWebSite728x90&utm_medium=Banner&utm_content=AskHeritageCreative&utm_campaign=2009RadioCampaign

And people wonder why we need a new way of thinking

Unions and liberal activist groups are pressuring key Republican senators to get on board with the Obama administration's economic stimulus proposal, after every Republican in the House voted against the plan Wednesday.

MoveOn.org, along with the Service Employees International Union and other groups, announced Thursday they will run a set of ads in five states urging Republican senators up for election in two years to support the plan, which passed the House despite GOP opposition.

The ad feature clips of President Obama talking about how his plan will save or create at least 3 million jobs and get the economy back on track.

"Tell Senator ... to support the Obama plan for jobs, not the failed policies of the past," the announcer says.

The ad will target Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Olympia Snowe, R-Maine; Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Adding to the pressure, committees in the House have released data breaking down funding in the stimulus package by state.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office also put out a statement saying Republicans were voting against job creation and tax cuts.

Pelosi told reporters Republicans in Washington were out of touch with Republicans in their own districts.

"Republicans in the country support this legislation. ... Whatever the tactics of the Republicans in Washington is another thing," she said.

But Republican leaders say the stimulus does little to create jobs and did not incorporate their ideas despite pledges from Democrats of bipartisan cooperation.

taken from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/29/activist-groups-pressure-republican-senators-stimulus/

Where the Jobs are a new paradigm

Herman Trend Alert: Where the Jobs Are and Will Be January 28, 2009

Though the media in the United States is filled will news of layoffs, what is not being widely reported is some companies are still hiring---notably Whole Foods, Boston Consulting Group, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Fuld and Company, Scotts LawnService, URS, and more. The company that made it to the top of Fortune's "100 Best Places to Work" list this year, NetApp, which sells innovative storage and data management solutions, is also hiring.

The other companies that are hiring are in a wide variety of fields. Convenience stores like 7-Eleven which is looking for employees in operations, accounting, information systems, merchandising, and marketing.

Do you love animals? Here is an employer for you. Banfield, the largest general veterinary practice treating pets in the world, is currently looking for veterinarians, pet nurses, office managers, and client service coordinators.

If you are job hunting, there are two sectors that stand out---insurance and healthcare. State Farm, HealthMarkets, and Farmers Insurance are all looking for employees. Farmers is particularly looking for bilingual associates, while State Farm seeks a wide range of candidates including people to work in claims, underwriting, and systems/information technology. HealthMarkets, a nationwide health insurance provider, is recruiting agents to sell to self-employed individuals and their families.

In the realm of healthcare, Gentiva Health Services, a provider of home care services, is looking for a range of highly skilled employees, including nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists and other clinicians; as well as sales, management and administrative support professionals. Sutter Health, a group of doctors, not-for-profit hospitals, and other healthcare service providers, is also seeking a variety of people to provide bedside care, implement lifesaving technology, and take administrative positions.

Since we value our mobile phones more highly than our laptops. (See http://www.hermangroup.com/alert/archive_3-19-2008.html.), it will come as no shock that the sales of cell phones and PDAs (personal digital assistants) have not diminished significantly. Verizon and AT&T continue to hire sales people and store managers, especially those with language skills.

The only employers seeking unskilled workers right now are in the insurance and call center areas. Our forecast is highly skilled workers will continue to enjoy opportunities, no matter how high unemployment goes. Next week, we will cover the Green Job opportunities

A New Paradigm is needed in our Press...

Below is a segment of an article that was written by the Associated Press, "Obama Breaks from Bush avoids divisiveness". I did not agree with much that Bush did in his last months but how can this be journalism? It shows bias from the start. Is now the press just a marketing tool for the new administration? I want Obama's Presidency to work but if there is no objectivity in the Press how will we know the truth about what is happening in our country? How will we be any different than Russia or China with state run media? Has the Associated Press become the same thing as the National Enquirer now?

Below is a segment of the article that I have referred to ...

Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisiveness
President focuses on economy, world image and cleaning up government



updated 2:29 a.m. CT, Sun., Jan. 25, 2009
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.

"What an opportunity we have to change this country," the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. "The American people are really counting on us now. Let's make sure we take advantage of it."

In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.

The Opacity of Hope

The Opacity of Hope


A President of great personal talents but public elusiveness

Barack Obama takes the oath of office today amid a sense of expectation and opportunity rare even for new Presidents. Partly this is due to his heritage and the historic nature of his triumph, partly to our current economic troubles, and partly to a nation looking for a fresh start after the difficulties of the Bush era. The paradox is that in order to succeed Mr. Obama will soon need to turn the opacity of his hope into clear and often difficult choices, some of which will upset his most passionate supporters.

APThe Illinois Democrat brings impressive talents to the White House -- not least the self-confidence that he can do the job. Though only four years out of the state Senate, he seems remarkably undaunted by the task and the moment. His rhetorical gifts are formidable, no small virtue in a job whose influence depends chiefly on the power to persuade. The President-elect's transition has also gone more smoothly than most, certainly in contrast to Bill Clinton's in 1993.
Mr. Obama is likewise equipped with a first-class temperament. He wore the pressures of an epic campaign as lightly as anyone since Ronald Reagan. While his opponents lurched amid this or that headline, the man from Hawaii via Harvard and Chicago never lost his cool. This equanimity will serve him well amid the crises to come, assuming his confidence doesn't slide into an arrogance that sometimes attends 70% Presidential job approval.
Yet for all of those personal virtues, there remains an elusiveness, an opacity, to Mr. Obama's political character. This is in contrast to Reagan, who was personally distant but publicly well defined. Mr. Obama won the primaries and then the White House with a campaign based on the gauzy promise of change more than on a clear agenda. He became a political Everyman into whom Democrats, independents and even many Republicans could pour their great expectations.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
This lack of definition has also marked his personnel choices. When given the chance to pick someone from one policy camp or another, Mr. Obama has typically chosen both: Free-trader Ron Kirk and protectionist Hilda Solis; command-and-control regulator Carol Browner and more market-oriented Cass Sunstein; Tim Geithner, who has voted to open the monetary floodgates, and Paul Volcker, who is worried about the dollar; Tom Daschle, who wants to nationalize all U.S. health care, and Peter Orszag, who believes current entitlements must be reformed.
Soon Mr. Obama will have to choose. That is especially true on the struggling economy, which is the main reason he won so handily. For 25 years from the moment the Reagan policy mix took hold in 1983, the U.S. has had a run of economic expansion marred only by two mild recessions. Younger Americans have grown accustomed to rising incomes and growing 401(k)s. Mr. Obama was elected on his promise to restore that middle-class prosperity. He can best serve the country, and his own Presidency, by focusing his political capital on policies that promote growth.
Yet over that same 25 years Mr. Obama's political coalition has amassed a wish-list of regulatory and redistributionist ideas that would undercut that effort. The global warming crowd wants a huge new carbon tax that would hit the South and Midwest especially hard. Big Labor wants to make union organizing easier, which would slow job creation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is agitating to raise taxes immediately, even amid recession, to finance a spending spree we haven't seen since LBJ's Great Society. Part of Mr. Obama's success will depend on whether he says no to these liberal interests. If he does, he will make it easier for the economy's natural recuperative powers to work -- and he and his party will benefit.
Mr. Obama can also go a long way toward removing the bile from the debate over national security. For some on the left, the Bush era must be repudiated with prosecutions and a return to the pre-9/11 status quo. John Conyers and the New York Times want heads on pikes. Down this road lies wasted political capital for the new President, and risks for U.S. security.
Mr. Obama seems to recognize this, given his recent comments that he prefers to "look forward" rather than back; that Guantanamo may take his entire first term to close down; and that "Dick Cheney's advice was good" to assess Bush policies before leaping to undo them. Now that he is responsible for American security, Mr. Obama is in a position to validate the Bush programs that have kept us safe, perhaps with some political window dressing that mutes the opposition from the anti-antiterror left.
Mr. Obama is also uniquely placed to ask Americans of all races and incomes to show a greater sense of personal responsibility. His own rise to the White House is a walking affirmation of American opportunity. His reaching out to evangelical pastor Rick Warren, both in the campaign and for his Inaugural, is a shrewd and welcome sign that he wants to temper the social furies. Our particular hope is that he will also find a way to take on the teachers unions as the main obstacle to inner-city opportunity. He could revolutionize the school reform debate in an instant.
As a matter of political character, many of these questions hang on Mr. Obama's toughness. We know he is intelligent and clever. What we don't know is if he can make a difficult decision in the national interest that is unpopular, and then endure the consequences. Reagan showed his steel by staring down the Patco strike at home and Soviet scare-tactics against missile deployments abroad. Whatever his mistakes in Iraq, George W. Bush's "surge" was a lonely call that has proven to be right. As far as we know, Mr. Obama has had to make no such decision in his short public life.
The complicated nature of our world means that every modern Presidency is to some extent a leap into the unknown. Mr. Obama's meteoric rise makes him a bigger leap than most. We don't know if he is a genuine man of the left, or a more traditional pragmatist. The audacity of our hope is that as President he will use his considerable talents to return his party to the policies of growth, opportunity and the vigorous defense of U.S. interests that marked it the last time the country had such great expectations for a Democratic President -- under JFK.

A shift in Paradigm is needed for truth in Politics and a stop to cover up or "spin"

Biden tries to shush wife after state-VP slip

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer 36 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Joe Biden's wife said Monday that he had his pick of being Barack Obama's running mate or the secretary of state nomination that eventually went to Hillary Rodham Clinton, a slip that the vice president-elect immediately tried to shush.
Jill Biden's comment came during an appearance with her husband on "The Oprah Winfrey Show," taped at Washington's Kennedy Center on the eve of the inauguration.
"Joe had the choice to be secretary of state or vice president," she said. Her husband turned to his wife with his finger to his lips and a "Shhhh!" that sent the audience into laughter. "OK, he did," Jill Biden said in her defense.
The vice president-elect blushed, grimaced and gave his wife a hug while the audience continued to erupt in laughter. "That's right," he finally said to his wife. "Go ahead."
Mrs. Biden said she told him vice president would be better for the family.
"If you're secretary of state, you'll be away, we'll never see you, you know," she said. "I'll see you at a state dinner once in a while."
After the exchange aired on television three hours later, Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander denied Jill Biden's account in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
"To be clear, President-elect Obama offered Vice President-elect Biden one job only — to be his running mate," the statement said. "And the vice president-elect was thrilled to accept the offer."
While the statement denies that Obama ever offered Biden the secretary of state job, it doesn't rule out that the two discussed the possibility. Obama's transition office did not respond to questions about their private discussions.
Clinton's spokesman declined to comment about the suggestion that she was the second choice.
Obama made no reference to the comments Monday night, when he praised the Bidens at a dinner honoring his running mate at Washington's Union Station. Obama invited the two on stage, where he kissed Jill Biden's cheek and hugged her husband.
On Winfrey's program, Joe Biden said he didn't immediately take the vice presidential offer since he wasn't sure it was the best place for him to serve. But Biden, who ran against Obama in the Democratic primary race, said he agreed after getting some assurances from Obama about his role.
"This is a partnership," Biden said. "He's president of the United States, but as I said to him when he asked me, I said, `Barack, don't ask me unless the reason you're asking me is you're asking me for my judgment. I get to be the last guy in the room when you make every important decision. You're president. Any decision you make, I will back.'
"He said he wanted to have a confidant and somebody who wouldn't be a yes man. He's pretty sure about that last part," Biden said with a laugh.
Alexander's statement said, "Like anyone who followed the presidential campaign this summer, Dr. Jill Biden knew there was a chance that President-elect Obama might ask her husband to serve in some capacity and that, given his background, the positions of vice president and secretary of state were possibilities. Dr. Biden's point to Oprah today was that being vice president would be a better fit for their family because they would get to see him more and get to participate in serving more."
The Bidens made a surprise appearance on Winfrey's show. The celebrity-filled show also included the premiere of "America's Song," performed by Faith Hill, Seal, Bono, Mary J. Blige, Will.i.am and David Foster in honor of the occasion and available for free download on Winfrey's Web site for 24 hours.
Winfrey also interviewed movie star couple Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher about how Obama has inspired them to pledge to help end slave labor around the world and encourage other people to make a pledge to improve their communities. Other celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, Justin Timberlake and Forest Whitaker appeared by videotape to talk about what Obama's election means to them.
Winfrey, who made her first ever presidential endorsement for Obama, heralded the significance of the moment particularly coming the day after Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
"I feel like I am better because of his being elected," Winfrey said. "And I think that the country is going to be better. I feel like it is a beautiful thing, and we all start to see ourselves differently, the possibility."
___
On the Net:
http://www.oprah.com
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Recommendation for ideas--JOHN PIPER

How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of CondemnationJanuary 17, 2009 By: John Piper Category: Commentary
At Barack Obama’s request, tomorrow in the Lincoln Memorial, Gene Robinson, the first openly non-celibate homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, will deliver the invocation for the inauguration kick-off.
This is tragic not mainly because Obama is willing to hold up the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse, but because he is willing to get behind the church endorsement of sexual intercourse between men.
It is one thing to say: Two men may legally have sex. It is another to say: The Christian church acted acceptably in blessing Robinson’s sex with men.
The implications of this are serious.
It means that Barack Obama is willing, not just to tolerate, but to feature a person and a viewpoint that makes the church a minister of damnation. Again, the tragedy here is not that many people in public life hold views (like atheism) that lead to damnation, but that Obama is making the church the minister of damnation.
The apostle Paul says,
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves , nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
What is Paul saying about things like adultery, greed, stealing, and homosexual practice? As J. I. Packer puts it, “They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation.” (Christianity Today, January 2003, p. 48).
In other words, to bless people in these sins, instead of offering them forgiveness and deliverance from them, is to minister damnation to them, not salvation.
The gospel, with its forgiveness and deliverance from homosexual practice, offers salvation. Gene Robinson, with his blessing and approval of homosexual practice, offers damnation. And he does it in the name of Christ.
It is as though Obama sought out a church which blessed stealing and adultery, and then chose its most well-known thief and adulterer, and asked him to pray.
One more time: The issue here is not that presidents may need to tolerate things they don’t approve of. The issue is this: In linking the Christian ministry to the approval of homosexual activity, Christ is made a minister of condemnation.

Is this a changed paradigm?

Switching Terms from a "bailout"

to a more Politically Correct

Term..."stimulous package"

Not a changed paradigm...just

a different word for the same idea!

Will we learn....

The first "bailout" with the financial industry was done with a doomsday fear painted to us by both parties. Now we hear complaints about a deficit that is growing and a new economic stimulus (notice the name change for PC purposes) that we are being told again that needs to be shoved through at NASCAR speeds through Washington. On one side we are told that there can be suggestions, ideas etc. but it must be done by preferably the day after Obama's Inauguration. Pelosi is even threatening as the Principal of the House that if it is not finished by late January to make the people in Congress work on the weekends and even more severe of losing some of their holidays. The key is to the Democratic Trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is to push it through quick as possible before anyone is able to ask any questions.

Shouldn't we have learned from the first doomsday rush failure that haste makes waste?

The key with every paradigm is to think things through which we might not be doing currently at this time in our country...Obama is looking for projects that are "shovel ready" (his words) but we may be getting things that are just be shoveled at us ....we must stop an think!

Pelosi's words as she opens congress- Second in a series

Pelosi's words as she opens congress-

Second in a series

notice again the words that Pelosi uses which instead of being inspirational and motivational spurring on the leaders of our country to handle all our issues "as one" have "jabs" to the other party and their past leaders...Pelosi must see the need to shift to a new paradigm of leadership and conflict management before she destroys the country....see what you think about her words with the actual transcript of her words from January 6,2009 as she opened

“Thank you, Leader Boehner.
“Together, we welcome the many new Members of Congress who today join the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Congratulations to all of our new Members and our re-elected Members.
“Your constituents have placed great trust in you. Your families have given you the love and support to make your leadership possible. Let us join together to salute our families of the 111th Congress.
“I also want to thank my family: my husband of 45 years, Paul Pelosi; our children – Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, and Alexandra; my grandchildren –Alexander, Madeleine, Liam, Sean, Ryan, Paulie, and Thomas. I also want to acknowledge my brother Tommy D’Alesandro III, former Mayor of Baltimore.
“I want to express my appreciation to the people of San Francisco for granting me the privilege of representing them and serving them in Congress.
“And thank you to my caucus for granting me the historic opportunity of breaking the marble ceiling and to serve, once again, as the first woman Speaker of the House.
“Leader Boehner: thank you for your generous words and for your commitment to put country ahead of party. Without reservation, let us stand together–not just today, but in the days ahead–to live up to that resolve.
“Few Congresses and few Presidents in history have been given the responsibility and the privilege of serving the nation in a time of such profound challenge.
“We do so renewed and refreshed by the new Members who join our ranks today.
“It is in that spirit that I pledge to you–let us all pledge to the American people that: we will look forward, not backward; we will join hands, not point fingers; we will rise to the challenge, recognizing that our love of country is stronger than any issue which may divide us.
“This is the lesson and legacy of the last election: the American people demanded a new era of change and accountability.
“Yes, we have problems as grave as our country has faced in generations. But now we enter a new Congress and a new era with a powerful sense of hope and pride in our great country.
“Two weeks from today, as Mr. Boehner indicated, on the steps of this Capitol, we will inaugurate the 44th President of the United States. From the inaugural platform he will look down the long stretch of the National Mall and see the steps of the Lincoln Memorial from which Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. called us to the deepest truth of our founding dream.
“When Barack Obama raises his right hand and takes the oath of office, we will know and the world will witness how far America has come. We will celebrate that moment, but recognize that it is only a beginning.
“Together, with our new President, we as a Congress and as a country must fulfill the rest of America’s promise. All of that promise will not be redeemed quickly or easily. But it must be pursued urgently–with spirited debate, and without partisan deadlock or delay.
“Hardworking, and still hopeful Americans who are losing their jobs, businesses, retirement savings, homes, or are facing foreclosure, cannot wait any longer for us to move from the depths of a recession to the solid ground of honest and fair prosperity for the many and not just the few.
“We need action and we need action now.
“Families and children without health care, and millions more who fear losing coverage or are facing rising costs, cannot afford to wait any longer.
“We need action and we need action now.
“States facing financial crises, which are threatening the education and the health of our children, the well-being of our seniors, and the public safety of our communities, cannot afford to wait any longer.
“We need action and we need action now.
“Our country is challenged by the climate crisis, the need for energy security, and the need for a twenty-first century infrastructure. On all of these issues and many more, we cannot afford to wait.
“Our nation needs action and we need action now.
“America’s crises at home are matched by conflicts abroad– a terrorist threat that could strike there or here.
“We cannot afford to wait to renew our alliances, our leadership, and our respect in the world.
“We cannot afford to wait to deploy the power of our ideals.
“And for the sake of our security, for the courageous Americans who serve on the front lines, and for our veterans who have bravely served, we cannot afford to wait to modernize and rebuild our military.
“Every chance we get we must express our appreciation to our heroic men and women in uniform and to their families for their service and their sacrifice to our country.
“Let us show America and the world that we are equal to every test of a turbulent and unprecedented time.
“Let us listen to each other. Let us respect every voice and view. And then together, let us act.
“As we in Congress pledge to reach across the aisle, we recognize that history will measure this decisive moment not just by what we do here in Washington –
but by how we reflect and respect how all Americans work together for the common good to strengthen America’s future and faith in itself.
“As we take the oath of office today, we accept a level of responsibility as daunting and demanding as any that previous generations of leadership have faced.
“With the help of God, the light of our values, the strength of the American people, and the hopes that we have for our children and their future, God will bless us so that America will continue to be, as our Founders predicted more than 200 years ago, ‘a rising not a setting sun.’
“May God bless our work. And may God continue to bless America.
“And now as I am sworn in to take the oath of office, I am joined by my grandchildren and invite all the children of the House to the podium.”
Following her speech, the Speaker was sworn in by Rep. John Dingell, the Dean of the House, and the Speaker administered the Oath of Office for the Members of the 111th Congress:

Shift into a new paradigm utilizing the power of the pen and the polls!

Many may question why we need new paradigms when the old ones have been o.k. in the past. The first question we must ask is ,"Have they really been o.k.?" Secondly, we must remind ourself of the definition of insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing day after day and expecting different results. Currently we are in a time where every day it seems that another piece of bad news is hitting our country. Yesterday ALCOA announced that they will be laying off over 13,000 employees in the coming months. Yet with every chance our leadership in Congress continues to take every chance to take a "jab" at the other party. Pelosi continually states that she wants to be bipartisan and to put the needs of the country first yet every action state an opposite message. In her speech before the "bailout" votes she created a firestorm of controversy. Now with the start of this congress she continues to forget what the new paradigm of leadership must be if our country is to pull itself out of the economic recession/depression that we are in currently. Notice her words that are highlighted below from January 5. Notice her cutting remarks when she stated, "...and now we have a President that wants to work with us to that end." If our Political Leaders will not shift into a new paradigm of putting the needs of our country first and stopping the "Bobby Knight/George Patton style of leadership" then we must as citizens exercise the power of the pen and the polls. First writing our officials to let them know of our desires for a shift in leadership paradigms. Secondly writing the media to take stands on critical issues such as our leadership having petty political squables while families in our country do without food, are losing their homes, companies go bankrupt and our national debt grows into numerical amounts that we never learned in our schooling. Thirdly, if our leaders such as Pelosi, Reid, Franks and others can not shift into the new paradigm of "country first" understanding that we have a national emergency as much now as in the days after Sept.11 then people from all political persuasions need to go to the polls who will be willing to shift into a new paradigm.
Richard Reynolds M.Div,M.Ed.,Ed.S.

Pelosi Remarks

Following Bipartisan

Leadership Meeting With

Obama, Biden
Monday, January 5, 2009

Contact:Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616


http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/webreturn/?url=http://www.house.gov%2Fpelosi
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Democratic House and Senate leaders held a press conference today following their bipartisan meeting with President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
Below are the Speaker’s opening remarks:
“Thank you, Mr. Leader. It is a new day here on the Capitol. The President-elect came and called together a meeting of the bipartisan leadership, Democrats and Republicans of the House and Senate. He talked about extending a hand of friendship, to work with civility, with fiscal responsibility, and with a sense of urgency, because the American people are hurting.
“People are concerned about losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes. Families are concerned about the health of their children. States are concerned about their financial situation, which affects the education and the health of their children, the well-being of seniors.
“And our country and our economy need an economic recovery package that will create jobs immediately and will grow the economy. And that's what we talked about today -- how we could do this expeditiously, deliberatively, and to act upon it soon.
“I won't make an announcement about how soon, but we all know what our tasks are. We'll return to our houses, and respective houses, to work on legislation.
“This legislation will begin in the House of Representatives. We know what the time constraints are. They are dictated by the sense of urgency that the American people have about their economic well-being.
“Lots of expectations have been placed on the new President. As a new Congress, we look forward to working with him, again, in a bipartisan way to bring relief to the American people.
“I commend the President-elect for his determination to act in a bipartisan way. That's what we all came here to do. And now we have a President who wants to work with us to that end.”

The New York Times
January 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Fighting Off Depression
By PAUL KRUGMAN

“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.
The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.
So will we “act swiftly and boldly” enough to stop that from happening? We’ll soon find out.
We weren’t supposed to find ourselves in this situation. For many years most economists believed that preventing another Great Depression would be easy. In 2003, Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, in his presidential address to the American Economic Association, declared that the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.”
Milton Friedman, in particular, persuaded many economists that the Federal Reserve could have stopped the Depression in its tracks simply by providing banks with more liquidity, which would have prevented a sharp fall in the money supply. Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, famously apologized to Friedman on his institution’s behalf: “You’re right. We did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”
It turns out, however, that preventing depressions isn’t that easy after all. Under Mr. Bernanke’s leadership, the Fed has been supplying liquidity like an engine crew trying to put out a five-alarm fire, and the money supply has been rising rapidly. Yet credit remains scarce, and the economy is still in free fall.
Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy.
But these plans may turn out to be a hard sell.
News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.
In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years.
More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.
The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.
This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful.
All of this leaves me concerned about the prospects for the Obama plan. I’m sure that Congress will pass a stimulus plan, but I worry that the plan may be delayed and/or downsized. And Mr. Obama is right: We really do need swift, bold action.
Here’s my nightmare scenario: It takes Congress months to pass a stimulus plan, and the legislation that actually emerges is too cautious. As a result, the economy plunges for most of 2009, and when the plan finally starts to kick in, it’s only enough to slow the descent, not stop it. Meanwhile, deflation is setting in, while businesses and consumers start to base their spending plans on the expectation of a permanently depressed economy — well, you can see where this is going.
So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?

______________________

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

Demanding our leaders to shift for the sake of our country

We

Must

Demand

Our

Leaders

to

Shift

from

Old

Paradigms

CHICAGO - Illinois' embattled governor complained through his spokesman Saturday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is guilty of a conflict of interest in that Reid telephoned him in early December to discuss the seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
Lucio Guerrero, spokesman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, said he didn't know firsthand which candidates the Nevada Democrat supported during the call, but said he knows Reid's candidates did not include Roland Burris, the man the governor recently picked for Obama's seat.
Senate leaders have vowed to oppose the appointment of Burris.
"I think the governor believes there is a conflict of interest — that Reid showed he has a horse in the race and Roland Burris wasn't one of them," Guerrero said.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirmed the majority leader called Blagojevich on Dec. 3 — six days before the governor's arrest on federal corruption charges — to talk about the vacancy. Prosecutors say Blagojevich at the time was trying to peddle Obama's seat in exchange for money or a job in Obama's cabinet.
New York, Colorado openingsManley declined to name the candidates discussed, saying there was "no need to embarrass the people that were subject of the conversation."
Manley added that Reid also spoke to the New York and Colorado governors about openings created when senators from those states accepted Obama administration jobs.
"It is part of his job as majority leader to share his thoughts about candidates who have the qualities needed to succeed in the Senate," Manley said.
Manley said the claim that Reid has a conflict of interest regarding Burris was "absolutely ridiculous."
"The Senate Democratic caucus has said from the very beginning we would not accept an appointment by the governor," he said. "This has nothing to do with Mr. Burris. It is about the man doing the appointing."
Burris wouldn't comment on Reid's conversations with the governor, saying he didn't know the details of what they discussed.
Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, accepted Blagojevich's appointment and is expected to be in Washington on Tuesday and ask to be sworn in along with the rest of the Senate. The Democratic leadership is expected to defer the matter to a rules panel until impeachment proceedings against Blagojevich are settled, apparently in hopes that a new governor will appoint someone else.
Reid is standing by the decision to oppose any appointment by Blagojevich, Manley said.
A political stakeAn attorney representing Burris is lobbying for Senate support, sending a letter to Senate Democratic leaders asking them to seat his client.
In the letter, dated Friday, attorney Timothy Wright called on the Senate leaders to grant the people of Illinois the representation the U.S. Constitution affords them.
The letter was addressed to Dick Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California and to Reid, who has said that anyone picked by Blagojevich will be turned away.
Wright, who said he hadn't received a response to the letter as of Saturday, told AP that he planned to go to federal court if the Senate refuses to seat Burris.
Burris has already asked the Illinois Supreme Court to force Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to certify the appointment, hoping it will help his argument to be seated.
Telephone and e-mail messages left by AP for Wright on Saturday were not immediately returned.
Reid urged Blagojevich to appoint either Illinois Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Saturday, citing anonymous sources.
Reid reportedly opposed the appointments of Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Danny Davis because the Democratic leader feared they would lose the seat to a Republican in the 2010 general election. Reid also allegedly opposed Emil Jones, the powerful black leader of the Illinois Senate, on the same grounds.
"What is clear to me is that every candidate that was African-American was denied and every other candidate was acceptable," said Wright, adding, "I'm not going to read too much into that."
Wright also echoed Blagojevich's claim of a conflict of interest, saying that Reid's call to the governor showed he had a political stake in who took Obama's seat.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28485065/

Who is asking the tough questions?

Key Democrat: No stimulus by inauguration

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats said Sunday that President-elect Barack Obama probably will have to wait until next month before getting the chance to sign an economic aid bill his team once hoped would be on his desk by his swearing-in Jan. 20.
“It’s going to be very difficult to get the package put together that early,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said. “But we certainly want to see this package passed through the House of Representatives no later than the end of this month, get it over to the Senate, and have it to the president before we break” in mid-February.
Obama planned to meet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Monday to talk about enacting a massive spending plan. The president-elect also scheduled a separate meeting with the entire Democratic and Republican leadership teams.
Reid said they will do their “very very best” to get a package finished as soon as possible, but he was unwilling to set an artificial deadline for completion.
“We’re going to get it done as quickly as we can,” Reid said.
Added Hoyer: “We’re going to move as quickly as possible, given our responsibilities to make sure that we’re passing a package that will work.”
Obama said Congress should pass a plan designed to create 3 million jobs. The Democratic president-elect hasn’t announced a final price for it, but aides said the cost could be as high as $775 billion.
Congressional aides briefed on the measure say it probably would blend tax cuts of $500 to $1,000 for middle-class individuals and couples with about $200 billion to help revenue-starved states with their Medicaid programs and other operating costs. A large portion of the measure will go toward public works projects and include new programs such as research and development on energy efficiency and an expensive rebuilding of the information technology system for health care.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky warned Democrats against trying to move quickly without the GOP’s input.
“This is an enormous bill. It could be close to a $1 trillion spending bill,” McConnell said. “Do we want to do it with essentially no hearings, no input, for example, in the Senate from Republican senators who represent half of the American population? I don’t think that’s a good idea.”
Instead of giving all that money to states as grants, McConnell suggested it go as loans.
“It will make them spend it more wisely,” McConnell said. “The states that didn’t need it at all wouldn’t take any.”
Democrats understand that the GOP has to be involved in anything they do, said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.
“Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid both know that we can’t pass the economic recovery plan that this nation desperately needs without bipartisan cooperation,” Durbin said. “We’ve got to put aside a lot of the squabbling that in the past and come together under this new administration and new leadership, to get the American economy back on line.”
Hoyer said they have only two criteria for passing an economic package.
“Do it as quickly as possible, but do it right, and do it so the American people know what we’re doing, do it so that members of Congress are confident of the action that we’re taking,” Hoyer said. “So those are the two criteria — do it as quickly as possible, but do it right. I think that time frame is hopefully certainly by the end of the month.”
Hoyer spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” Reid appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while Durbin and McConnell were on “This Week” on ABC.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28494694/
MSN Privacy . Legal© 2009 MSNBC.com

Holding our leaders accountable to shifting paradigms!

Holding our leaders accountable to achieving new paradigms...

How can Pelosi,Dodd, Franks,Obama and Harry Reid bail out the "auto industry" which they are considering Ford, GM and Chrysler like when Congress came to the rescue of Iaccoca?

Now the auto landscape in America has changed and contains Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagon, Hyundai, Mercedes, Kia and numerous others so how can one justify assisting three companies when all of these others are operating with a new paradigm and are now just as much
the American Automotive Industry?



If we believe in the Darwinian theory and Capitalism shouldn't we allow the survival of the fittest?



Richard Reynolds M.Div.,M.Ed.,Ed.S.

Consistancy would be nice...

President elect Obama has stirred the emotions of many Americans over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren giving the Invocation as the Inauguration. The emotions that have been stirred are lacking any form of consistency. During the run for the White House when the complaints over Obama having Rev. Wright as a Pastor began to surface and many began to wonder how someone could sit under his preaching for twenty years these people were considered narrow minded by many of the same individuals who are now complaining about Rick Warren giving a prayer. When conservatives were questioning things with Rev. Wright they were devisive, playing partisan politics and racial bigots infringing on Obama's religous liberties. Now the groups that are questioning Obama's judgement with Rick Warren's one prayer and not twenty years of preaching and prayers like they were insisting with Rev. Wright were of little importance are lacking in consistency. Today both the "left" and "right" should remain consistant with their actions and ideologies instead of relying on what is convenient. Our world is screaming for people that will be consistant day by day and not ones that check which way the winds are blowing to decide what they should think.

Richard H. Reynolds M.Div.,M.Ed.,Ed.S.

Where's the Change?

Where's the Change?

by Richard Reynolds M.Div.,M.Ed.,Ed.S.

Year's ago Wendy's had one of the most famous advertisement lines of all times, "Where's the beef?" Currently, as we approach the innaugaration of President elect Obama the line should be, "Where's the change?" His mantra was "Change" throughout his presidential campaign. Yet already his actions are speaking louder than his chants about change. A large percentage of his cabinet and advisors are old guard political officials from the Clinton years or obvious payoffs for support during his election campaign. For example Leon Panetta has been selected for the CIA Chief when he is has as the media calls it ,"no intelligence experience." Yes, he was the Chief of Staff for President Clinton when Terrorism grew at ran unchecked. Obama tried to pay Gov. Richardson back for his support and turning his back on Hillary Clinton during the campaign by nominating him for the Secretary of Commerce. Now, he is resigning because of a possible corruption indictment in New Mexico. Obama also has mastered already the art of staying away from controversial subjects and being far away from hot potato subjects where he can not get burned. Even the left is complaining that he will not make a statement about the current crisis with Israel. While orating about Change during the campaign he pledged to make those hard decisions to bring hope back to America. If he is already doing this and he has not even gotten through the innaugaration will America be asking by this time next year, "Where's the change?" We should all hope for the sake of our country that Obama can succeed with his promises. For that to happen each citizen should hold him to basic truth in advertising standards of requiring him to produce what he has advertised about change. Keep asking ,"Where's the change?"