Obama Bails on Debt Talks

Well, the news you've all been waiting for!

At Los Angeles Times, "Obama ends tense debt talks with a warning":

Reporting from Washington— President Obama abruptly left debt negotiations with congressional leaders Wednesday at the White House when a top Republican said there was no longer time to engage in the large-scale deficit reduction discussions the White House is now seeking as part of a vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The flare-up came at the end of the nearly two-hour session during which House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told the president that Congress should instead consider a series of debt ceiling votes based on spending cuts that already have been identified. Talks could then continue to identify additional cuts for subsequent votes, he said.

Republicans have refused Democrats' call for taxes on the wealthy. The president responded by ending the meeting, sources said.

"I suggested we were so far apart I didn't see in the time before us how we get to where he wants us to be," Cantor told reporters after the meeting.

Obama warned Cantor not to set such an ultimatum, and according to congressional and administration aides repeated his vow to veto legislation that would extend the debt ceiling only for a short period.

"The president told me, 'Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to take this to the American people,' " Cantor said.

Aides described it as the tensest meeting yet in the months of discussions, with the president at one point accusing both sides of posturing.

More at the link above. And at National Review, "Obama ‘Abruptly’ Walks Out of Debt Talks."

BONUS: Also at Politico, "No yelling at Obama today." And the segment's a little after 20 minutes:

Mitch McConnell Isn't Selling Out Republicans

There was a lot of fire and brimstone on the right in response to McConnel's comments, but check WSJ, "Debt-Limit Harakiri":

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday he's concluded that no deal to raise the debt ceiling in return for serious spending restraint is possible with President Obama, and who can blame him? We've never thought the debt ceiling was the best leverage for a showdown over the entitlement state, and now it looks like Mr. Obama is trying to use it as a way to blame the GOP for the lousy economy.

This may have been the President's strategy all along: Take the debt-limit talks behind closed doors, make major spending cuts seem possible in the early days, but then hammer Republicans publicly as the deadline nears for refusing to raise taxes on business and "the rich."

This would explain the President's newly discovered fondness for press conferences, which he has rarely held but now rolls out before negotiating sessions. It would also explain why Mr. Obama's tax demands have escalated as the August 2 deadline nears. Yesterday he played the Grandma Card, telling CBS that seniors may not get their August retirement checks. Next he'll send home the food inspectors and stop paying the troops.

The reality is that Mr. Obama is trying to present Republicans with a Hobson's choice: Either repudiate their campaign pledge by raising taxes, or take the blame for any economic turmoil and government shutdown as the U.S. nears a debt default. In the former case Mr. Obama takes the tax issue off the table and demoralizes the tea party for 2012, and in the latter he makes Republicans share the blame for 9.2% unemployment.

This is the political context in which to understand Mr. McConnell's proposal yesterday to force Mr. Obama to take ownership of any debt-limit increase. If the President still insists on a tax increase, then Republicans will walk away from the talks.

More at that top link, and see Fred Barnes, "Republicans Introduce Plan, Go On Offensive."

Gunrunner Money in Obama's Stimulus Package

Instapundit has been all over this story.

And check this editorial at IBD, "The Stimulation of Murder."

RELATED: "Obama’s Watergate."

U.S. Builds Up Electronic Attack Arsenal

At LAT, "U.S. is using electronic warfare to attack in waves":

In the skies above Libya, the U.S. Navy has been deploying a small fleet of supersonic EA-18 Growler jets to "jam" Moammar Kadafi's ground radar, giving NATO fighters and bombers free rein to strike tanks, communication depots and other strategic targets.

It's the latest demonstration of "electronic attack" hardware — the "EA" in the Growler's name. Armies have been waging electronic warfare since World War II, but today's technology packs a strategic wallop unforeseen even a decade ago.

With foreign adversaries continuing to improve their radar capabilities and air defense networks, and terrorists worldwide using modern consumer electronics to trigger explosives, the United States is spending billions of dollars in a massive effort to respond. These jammers, for instance, spew radio waves and emit other electromagnetic noise to jumble enemy electronic signals.

"War fighters have gone from using physical weapons like spears and knives, to chemical weapons such as gunpowder and explosives, to electronics with radio waves and computer codes," said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "It's a natural evolution in warfare."

At a time when the defense budget is being eyed for cuts, electronic attack technology is one of the few areas — along with drones and cyber security — in which President Obama wants to boost spending.

Continue reading.

Unemployment Up to 9.2 Percent, Raising Doubt About Economic Recovery

At Los Angeles Times:

The U.S. employment picture went from bad to ugly in June as employers added almost no new net jobs and the unemployment rate edged up for the third straight month, to 9.2%.

The report Friday from the Labor Department was a huge disappointment and raised fresh questions about the sustainability of the recovery, now technically starting its third year.

Major stock indexes fell sharply. Economists once again ratcheted down their expectations for future growth. And many others implored the federal government, deadlocked on how to address the deficit and intent on cutting spending, to step up and help the flagging economy and the millions of unemployed get back on their feet.

Continue reading.

Also, at Bloomberg, "U.S. Payrolls Grow at Slowest Pace in 9 Months." (Via Memeorandum.)

Obama Proposes Social Security Cuts

The PBS clip is informative, but no mention of calls to reform Social Security.

But see the Washington Post, "In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

The proposal doesn't seem very specific on reforming Social Security, other than perhaps reductions in the annual inflation adjustments for recipients. That's a step in the right direction, but there's no shortage of proposals for fixing entitlements, so I'll be interested to hear what else comes up.

See also New York Times, "President Looks for Broader Deal on Deficit Cuts."

The Republican Party May No Longer Be a Normal Party

And that should be a good thing, except that David Brooks is arguing that the GOP is missing an historic opportunity to balance the budget, if only it would compromise on closing tax loopholes, etc., and so forth. At New York Times, "The Mother of All No-Brainers":

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

David Brooks is a the left's token big government conservative, and there's some icing on the cake there, as he's operating from the hallowed perches of the New York Times. What's interesting is how this story remained on top at Memeorandum all day yesterday, with progressives weighing in on Brooks' righteousness, and even Megan McArdle agreeing with the notion of some kind of crazed GOP party cult. I can't speak on the budget negotiations, because I'm not in the least convinced that anything the administration and Congress do will make the slightest difference regarding the long term fiscal balance sheet (think entitlement reform). What we need is growth. With a growing economy and a robust job sector we'll begin to pay down the debt as long as nothing else screws things up, like a lousy momentary policy (and Democrat housing policy). Anyway, I'll try to read up a bit anyway, and update with something more knowledgeable. Here I'm mostly ranting at how David Brooks once again shows his true colors as the favorite RINO of the moment.

Attack on Oil Pipeline Highlights Egypt's Threat to Israel

At Al Arabia, "EGYPTIAN GAS PIPELINE TO ISRAEL AND JORDAN BOMBED AGAIN."

And Los Angeles Times, "Pipeline explosion underlines opposition to gas deal with Israel."

The third attack by saboteurs in six months against the pipeline supplying natural gas to Israel and Jordan underscores security lapses and the opposition of many Egyptians to their nation's contract to ship low-cost energy to Israel.

Early-morning blasts Monday were carried out by masked men who tied up security guards and planted bombs at the Bir el Abd pipeline station near the town of Al Arish in the Sinai Peninsula. The official state news aganecy, MENA, reported that the assailants remotely activated the bombs by firing gunshots. No casualties were reported.

The pipeline was attacked two other times this year: a few days after the Feb. 11 overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak and a second assault on April 27 (pictured) that interrupted supplies to Israel for weeks.

Also, from Barry Rubin, "Egypt Gas Pipeline to Israel Sabotaged Again: A Consequence of Egypt’s Revolution":

For the third time since February, terrorists have blown up the gas pipeline from Egypt that provides 45 percent of Israel’s natural gas. As I predicted, this pipeline will never function normally again. This serious economic disruption is the first material cost to Israel of Egypt’s revolution. The Obama Administration’s help in bringing down a stable (yes, a dictatorial regime but prepare for much worse) has already damaged Israel’s economy and security. And this is not the end of the story by a long shot.

Obama: Eliminating 'Tax Breaks' is a 'Spending Cut'

President Obama can't even come out and say he's for raising taxes, which is what eliminating "tax breaks" is. Democrats used to call tax hikes revenue enhancements. Now they've got Orwell: Freedom is tyranny, poverty is theft, repealing tax breaks is spending cuts. At about 1:40 minutes:

And see Human Events, "Top 10 Obama Attacks on Capitalism." (Via Cold Fury.)

Obama Administration Seeks Warm Relations with Islamists

The Wall Street Journal reports, "U.S. Reaches Out to Islamist Parties":

The Obama administration is reaching out to Islamist movements whose political power is on the rise in the wake of Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.

The tentative outreach effort to key religious political groups—the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahdha in Tunisia—reflects the administration's realization that the spread of democracy in the region requires it to deal more directly with Islamist movements the U.S. had long kept at arm's length.

Speaking to reporters during a visit Thursday to Budapest, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration is now seeking "limited contacts" with Muslim Brotherhood members ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections slated for later this year.

"It is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence," Mrs. Clinton said. "We welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us."

Seems to me some folks were rejecting the Muslim Brotherhood as a governing party in Egypt just a few months ago. I'll check for a link. Meanwhile, here's this from Frank Gaffney, "The Tipping Point: Embracing the Muslim Brotherhood":

The Obama administration chose the eve of the holiday marking our Nation's birth to acknowledge publicly behavior in which it has long been stealthily engaged to the United States' extreme detriment: Its officials now admit that they are embracing the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic). That would be the same international Islamist organization that has the destruction of the United States, Israel and all other parts of the Free World as its explicit objective.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to downplay the momentousness of this major policy shift by portraying it during a stopover in Budapest as follows:

"The Obama administration is continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years." In fact, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out in a characteristically brilliant, and scathing, dissection of this announcement, Team Obama's official, open legitimation of the Brotherhood marks a dramatic break from the U.S. government's historical refusal to deal formally with the Ikhwan.

Read it all at the link above. And see also, Andrew McCarthy, "The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood." And Big Peace, "No Evidence Muslim Brotherhood Is Committed To Democracy."

Ticketless Nigerian Exposes Holes in Air Security

Dude was a stowaway, avoiding arrest for five days.

At Los Angeles Times, "Another tear in the airport security net":

Virgin America Flight 415 from New York to Los Angeles was already two hours into its journey when some passengers in the upscale "Main Cabin Select" section complained that the man seated in 3E reeked of body odor.

A flight attendant asked Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi for his boarding pass and was surprised to see it was from a different fight and in someone else's name. She alerted authorities, and Noibi went back to sleep in his black leather airline seat. When the plane landed, authorities chose not to arrest Noibi, allowing him to leave the airport.

On Wednesday, Noibi was arrested trying to board a Delta flight out of Los Angeles. Once again, he had managed to pass undetected through security with an expired ticket issued in someone else's name. Authorities found at least 10 other boarding passes, none of which belonged to him. Law enforcement sources told The Times they suspect Noibi has used expired plane tickets to sneak on to flights in the past. On his website, Noibi describes himself as a "frequent traveler."

Now, federal authorities and Virgin America are trying to explain how the Nigerian American was able to get through layers of security — and then avoid arrest for five days after officials discovered he was a stowaway.

Aviation safety experts said they see several major breakdowns in security procedures. Transportation Security Administration and airline officials should have noticed the ticket was expired and not in Noibi's name when he boarded at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, they said. He was allowed onboard by showing his expired university ID card, even though college identification cards are not on the TSA's list of valid IDs and federal transportation sources said that it alone should not have been accepted.

Maybe TSA should spend more time checking African vagrants than 95-year-old travelers in Depends.

VIDEO: President Obama News Conference Addresses Debt Ceiling and Taxes

At Los Angeles Times, "Obama challenges GOP on tax breaks at press conference." And at USA Today, "Obama challenges Congress on taxes, debt limit":

WASHINGTON — President Obama warned Wednesday about "unpredictable" cuts in federal programs if Congress fails to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit by Aug. 2. He challenged lawmakers to "do their job."

In a news conference notable for its defiant tone, Obama defended both his leadership on the issue and his insistence that tax increases be included among the trillions of dollars all sides want to cut from future deficits while raising the debt ceiling.

The Republican leaders' position that as much as $4 trillion should be cut from spending alone, without any tax changes for the wealthy or profitable companies, isn't "sustainable" in bipartisan talks, Obama said.

"This is a jobs issue. This is not an abstraction," he said of the Aug. 2 deadline, which the Treasury Department has said could change by a few days. "The consequences for the U.S. economy will be significant and unpredictable. We don't know how capital markets will react."

See also, National Journal, "Obama: It's Kids Versus Corporate Jets on Debt-Ceiling Talks," and New York Times, "Obama: Republican Leaders Must Bend on Taxes" (via Memeorandum).

Obama Courts Wealthy Contributors

Yeah, because Hope-and-Change has worn thin with the progressive youth of '08.

At Los Angeles Times, "Obama campaign team courts wealthy donors."

President Obama's reelection team has launched an invigorated effort to draw money from wealthy donors, buttressing the campaign against a potential decline in contributions from the everyday supporters who helped fuel his massive take in 2008.

A new program called Presidential Partners asks supporters to commit $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint project of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

That would put Democratic contributors at the maximum they are allowed to give national party committees for the entire 2012 cycle — leaving then unable to donate to the party's congressional fundraising entities.

The effort to court deep-pocketed backers comes amid uncertainty about whether Obama will be able to reproduce the level of small donations that were estimated to have made up about half of the $745 million he raised in the 2008 campaign.

The Obama campaign has not given up on recharging that source of support: A recent email solicitation offered four supporters a chance to have "Dinner with Barack" for as little as a $5 donation.

But the increased emphasis on major fundraisers — including those who gathered money for Hillary Rodham Clinton's competing presidential bid — carries some risks. While Obama continues to woo supporters at low-dollar fundraisers, his meetings with high rollers — including a $35,800-a-plate dinner Thursday night with Wall Street executives in a posh Manhattan restaurant — could undercut the image he has tried to craft.

Yeah. "Dinner with Barack." And with Joe "Big Effin' Deal" Biden. Losers:

'The Local Government Pension Squeeze'

We're going to be hearing more and more about stuff like this, particularly as the Obama Depression deepens.

From Stephen Malanga, at Wall Street Journal (via RealClearPolitics).

RELATED: The process is playing out in one of the cities right next door to where I live. See NBC News Los Angeles, "Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Talks About Unprecedented City Cuts." And at Los Angeles Times, "Costa Mesa's police chief abruptly quits over council's plan to slash workforce," and O.C. Weekly, "Costa Mesa Police Chief Resigns With a Letter, Calling City Council 'Incompetent' and the City's Fiscal Crisis a Lie."

BONUS: "Republicans promote Costa Mesa as a pension-slashing leader."

A New Constitutional Understanding of War Powers?

Bruce Kesler takes Charles Krauthammer to task, quite effectively, at Maggie's Farm, "Krauthammer Goes From Frying Pan to Fire, and Misses the Point."

'The Crush at the Afghan Exits'

An editorial at the Wall Street Journal.

The NATO allies will follow Obama's move and cut-and-run from the deployment: "France to gradually pull troops from Afghanistan."

I noted previously that it's not the Afghans who're forcing us out. Domestic political calculations are driving policy, and I pray the region doesn't deteriorate into a million Mumbais, but that's asking a lot from the Man Upstairs.

Huma Abedin's Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Jamie Glazov interviews Walid Shoebat at FrontPage Magazine, "The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin."

Glazov also interviewed Robert Spencer, "Abedin/Weiner: A Marriage Made by Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

And at World Net Daily, "Weiner's mother-in-law a member of Muslim Brotherhood."

Sen. Jeff Sessions Calls on President Obama to Halt Secret Debt Ceiling Negotiations

At The Hill, "Sen. Sessions challenges Obama to make debt-ceiling talks public" (via Memeorandum).

And Sessions on Fox News earlier today:

And Sessions hammers Obama yesterday from the floor of the Senate:

And see the latest at Wall Street Journal, "Obama Joins Tense Debt Talks."

Progressives of course blame Republicans as has having "temper tantrums." So, FWIW, here's Journo-Lister Ezra Klein's take, "No matter who wins the debt showdown, we lose."

Michele Bachmann: 'I Stand With Israel'

I saw this clip at Power Line yesterday, "BACHMANN ON ISRAEL." And following the links takes us to Atlas Shrugs, "MICHELE BACHMANN ON ISRAEL."

The greatest speech by an American leader on Israel. This is what America needs in the White House. Seriously, this is greatness. What a breath of fresh air and righteousness in Obama's current climate of hatred and jihad-enabling.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

And Blazing Cat Fur links to Caroline Glick, who writes:

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more pro-Israel speech by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

I cannot remember EVER hearing a more cogent explanation of Israel's importance to the US by ANY American presidential candidate in my life.

And this speech came out of nowhere. She's not pandering for votes. No one asked her to say this. She just decided that she had to make a statement.

What a great woman. What a great leader. What a great American.

God bless you Michele Bachmann!

Presidential War Powers and Obama's Wars

Video c/o Reason.

This is a fascinating exchange. Gene Healy opens with a compelling argument, but comes off as more ideological. Michael Ramsey, speaking second, sounds more scholarly, and makes implicit reference to the political science consensus on the expansion of presidential power. Healy gives short shrift to the impact of the Cold War, and especially the concentration of power in the executive dealing with a U.S. response to nuclear danger. There are no more existential threats than those the U.S. faced from Soviet strategic weapons during the Cold War. Has the U.S. gone too far with the war on terror? Perhaps. It's worth noting that we're having the most robust discussions on the War Powers Resolution in decades under a Democratic administration. A needed discussion, in any case. If it were me, we wouldn't be in Libya and we'd be fighting to win in Afghanistan :