Burris denies 'pay-to-play' claim


Illinois Senator Roland Burris has denied that he attempted to "buy his seat" from the state's disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich.

The denial comes a day after a judge released a transcript of a wiretapped conversation between Mr Burris and Mr Blagojevich's brother.

Mr Burris offered to "personally do something" for Mr Blagojevich's campaign fund, the transcript revealed.

Mr Blagojevich was charged last year with trying to "sell" the seat.

As governor, it was Mr Blagojevich's responsibility under state law to pick someone to replace Barack Obama when he became US president.

He was arrested on 9 December and charged with corruption.

'Negative connotations'

After his arrest, officials published transcripts of Mr Blagojevich's wiretapped conversations, in which the ex-governor was overheard discussing what he could get in return for the seat.

He eventually picked Mr Burris to fill the vacancy.

At the time of his appointment, Mr Burris denied that he had spoken to any members of the governor's team about the senate seat, but later acknowledged that he had discussed it with Blagojevich aides.

The newly-released transcript indicates that Mr Burris spoke about the seat to Mr Blagojevich's brother Robert, who was in charge of fundraising for the former governor.

"I mean, so Rob, I'm in a dilemma right now wanting to help the governor," Mr Burris told Robert Blagojevich, according to the transcript.

"I know I could give him a check," Mr Burris added. "Myself... I will personally do something, okay."

"God knows No. 1, I wanna help Rod," he continued. "No. 2, I also wanna, you know, hope I get a consideration to get that appointment."

But the transcript reveals that Mr Burris was aware of the impression that a donation to Mr Blagojevich might give.

"If I put on a fundraiser now... it has so many negative connotations that Burris is trying to buy an appointment from the governor for the senate seat."

Mr Burris has rejected the claim that the transcript indicates he was trying to offer the governor cash in return for the senate seat.

"Did I try to buy the seat? Never," Mr Burris told reporters on Wednesday.

"If you look at the transcript you can see what I was saying I did not know anything about a pay-to-play. I knew if I raised money, it would be a problem."

The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating Mr Burris's appointment and will take the transcript into account when making its report.

Mr Blagojevich was removed from his position as Illinois governor on 29 January.

He was indicted by a federal grand jury last month on corruption charges and is currently awaiting trial.

Obama promotes clean energy, stimulus in Nevada

In a Western trip devoted mainly to raising political money, President Barack Obama is highlighting two favorite issues: clean energy and his economic stimulus plan.

The president was scheduled to tour the "photovoltaic array" at Nellis Air Force Base, near Las Vegas, on Wednesday. The solar-powered cells provide a quarter of the base's power needs, White House officials said.

Obama also was expected to discuss the progress of his $787 billion stimulus package, which Congress passed three months ago. The money is paying for thousands of projects in construction and other fields throughout the country.

Obama sandwiched the midday event between two political fundraisers: one on Tuesday night in Las Vegas for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and one set for Wednesday night in Los Angeles for the Democratic National Committee.

Officials said Obama would address about 400 people at Nellis, including Air Force personnel, civilian workers and families living on the base.

The base's $100 million public-private solar power system covers 140 acres and generates more than 14 megawatts of electricity. It sells energy to Nellis, as well as selling Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to Nevada Power, said Susan DeVico, spokeswoman for Renewable Ventures, the private investor.

The system's solar collectors track the sun's path for greater efficiency, she said.

Debate Begins Over Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

Burris calling on party leaders for 2010 run


As I am sitting down with Sen. Roland Burris to discuss his Senate career to date and his future election plans, Burris gestures toward the front of his office to point out that he is using Paul Simon's desk and Barack Obama's chair.

Appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to replace Obama after he won the presidency, Burris seems to relish the connection with the two former Democratic senators from Illinois.

"With my experience, my knowledge of Illinois, my knowledge of Washington, I think I am right on course," Burris is telling me. He is wearing City of Chicago cuff links.

"Naturally, all of the flak caused re-adjustment and sort of a setback."

Burris has had substantial fallout to deal with from his stormy beginning in the Senate -- stemming mostly from whether he gave misleading statements about his dealings with Blagojevich cronies while Blagojevich was under federal investigation for, among other corruption charges, allegedly trying to sell Obama's seat. He has hanging over him a Senate Ethics Committee probe and a Sangamon County state's attorney investigation.

Despite calls for him to resign -- Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate assistant majority leader, said if he were in Burris' shoes, he would quit -- Burris dug in. "I'm not going anywhere," Burris told me. "I didn't pay any attention to that."

On the government side, Burris has an operation up and running in Washington and in regional offices in Illinois. In mid-April Burris moved from temporary quarters to more space in the Russell Senate Office Building. After a bumpy start -- a chief of staff left a few weeks after Burris was sworn in last January -- Burris has put together a seasoned staff who know their way around the Capitol. Burris told me he has not heard from the ethics panel.

He joined the Veterans' Affairs and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. He attends a weekly prayer group with other senators. He is a reliable Democratic vote. He co-hosts with Durbin the Illinois constituent breakfast. He is working on small business and minority hiring issues. The only African American in the Senate, Burris is active in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Burris has earned an unusual reputation for diligently going -- and staying -- at hearings most other senators jump in and out of.

"He's been a very faithful member of the committee," Homeland panel chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman told me. ". . . He does not act as if there is a cloud over his head. It's interesting. He just goes about trying to be a good senator."

Sen. Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on the committee, told me Burris "comes to virtually every hearing we have in Homeland Security and he asks good questions."

With Lieberman and Collins, Burris is on a bill to give state officials -- such as the comptroller he once was in Illinois -- more money to administer the economic stimulus package. He also has sponsored two "private bills" to prevent the deportations of three Chicago area illegal immigrants from Bulgaria and Mexico. He has also submitted requests for scores of earmarks for Illinois projects scattered around the state.

Burris told me Sen. Charles Schumer invited him to a dinner, along with three other Senate Democrats appointed to the job to fill vacancies created by Obama -- New York's Kirsten Gillibrand, Delaware's Edward Kaufman and Colorado's Michael Bennet.

Schumer, said Burris, was "just wanting to make sure that we were getting the grasp of the Senate and if we had any issues and we can bring things to him if we have any problem."

I asked Burris if he took Schumer up on his offer. "He needs to write me a check for about $10 million." Noticing my startled look, Burris said, "just kidding."

Burris wants to jump in the 2010 election, despite longshot odds. Durbin will not support him. The Senate Democratic political operation is trying to recruit Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to run. On the day we talked -- May 19 -- Burris met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his political future. Earlier, he conferred with Sen. Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And the day before -- May 18 -- Burris called on William Daley.

Will be back in the office on May 26,2009

GOP can yet prevail in a diverse America

Mississippi governor and former Republican Party chairman Haley Barbour doesn’t put much stock in a Democratic strategist’s prediction that the GOP is destined to wander in the political wilderness for decades as a result of changing voter demographics.

In fact, he dismisses it.

“In politics, nothing is ever as bad as it seems and never as good as it seems,” Governor Barbour told reporters Wednesday at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast.

Amid post-election soul-searching by Republicans, who for most of the past 30 years have not been accustomed to being the minority party, comes a salt-in-the-wound new book by Democratic activist James Carville, “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation.” In it, he argues that “the demographic foundations of the Republican Party are crumbling.” Among other things, Mr. Carville notes the Republican Party’s especially weak standing among young and nonwhite voters.

GOP voter identification on the downswing

Some 39 percent of voters identify with the Republican Party versus 53 percent with the Democrats, according to 2009 polling data from the Gallup Organization. In 2001, by contrast, the parties were evenly matched. Among young people ages 18 to 29, only 32 percent say they are Republicans, down 9 percentage points since 2001. Among nonwhite voters of all ages, just 21 percent say they are Republicans.

Barbour, who served as chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) from 1993 to 1997 and before that was political director in Ronald Reagan’s White House, acknowledges that “demographics certainly matter.” But he also argues that his party’s performance among various groups of voters does not have to remain at its current depressed level.

“I don’t believe, from my experience in politics, that voters of demographic groups, because they went in one way in one election, are going to necessarily be that way every election,” he says. “Except for the African American-vote, which is the most monolithic demographic group, a lot of these voters move around depending on who the candidate is, what the issues are.”

Governors’ races in 2010 will be key

Barbour argues that statehouse races will be key to his party’s efforts to rebuild.

“I am actually optimistic about the party’s future. We have two very, very competitive governor’s races this year. At this stage, Republicans are ahead in both of them – New Jersey and Virginia,” Barbour says. “We have 36 governors’ races in 2010, and I see those, the governors, as the most critical office for rebuilding the party.” He refers to this as a “grass-roots-up” strategy.

The governor dodged reporters’ efforts to get him to comment on the performance of Michael Steele, the current party chairman. Barbour notes that when he was RNC chairman he was criticized even by his friends. “I am not going to try [to] critique somebody else,” Barbour says.

Gradations of conservatism

The Republican stalwart did call for his party to tolerate different views.

“For a party that got 60 percent of the vote for president in my lifetime, it is silly to think everyone is going to agree on everything. We are not. In a two-party system, both parties are coalitions. We are the conservative party of the United States; the Democrats are the liberal party of the United States. And within our party, there are going to be a lot of people who are not conservative enough to get elected to Congress from Sugarland, Texas,” Barbour says.

Sounding at times like potential presidential candidate himself, the term-limited Barbour offered sharp critiques of Barack Obama’s policies.

“[Bill] Clinton’s proposals were liberal but not nearly as far left as Obama’s. I can remember when President Clinton said the era of big government is over. President Obama is offering us a size of government beyond anything that any Democrat or Republican has ever campaigned for,” he says. “There is nobody who has ever been willing to go out and campaign for a government as enormous, expensive, in debt, or as much in control of the American economy – whether it is healthcare, energy, or Wall Street.”

Barbour also was outspoken about Obama administration proposals to counter climate change.

“It is an issue that has to be addressed, but the cost of what the president has proposed is so enormous that it is an awful attempt at a solution,” he says. “The energy policy of America ought to be more American energy, more affordable energy. Obama’s policy is more expensive energy and it will reduce the amount of American energy.”

President Obama Says U.S. Economy Showing ‘Return to Normalcy’

President Barack Obama told his board of outside economic advisers that the U.S. economy is showing “some return to normalcy” and developing alternative energy sources and boosting exports are crucial to future growth.

Obama addressed the 16-member group, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and drawn from the ranks of business, labor and government, as it gathered at the White House today for its first full meeting.

“We expect there’ll be some stabilization of the economy,” Obama said, and that “the engines will start to turn again.” He offered no timetable.

Created to provide outside perspective on the administration’s plans to revive the economy, the President’s Economic Advisory Board will draft recommendations after the meeting that will then be presented to Obama. The topics were energy and jobs.

Members of the panel include General Electric Co. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson, former Fed Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson, UBS Americas Chairman and CEO Robert Wolf, and Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.

Advice to White House

Since March, the board’s members have been a source of economic advice for administration officials and the president, in constant contact on issues including regulatory reform, job growth and health care.

Payrolls in the U.S. shrank by 539,000 in April, the least in six months, signaling the worst recession in half a century started to ease. Purchases of new homes in March were higher than anticipated even as the median sales price decreased 12 percent from a year ago. Industrial production in the U.S. fell in April at the slowest pace in six months.

Still, the unemployment rate jumped to 8.9 percent last month, the highest level since 1983.

Volcker said told the president and the board “it’s going to take a lot of investment over time” to reshape the U.S. economy in a post-recession era.

“Impressive Consensus’

Obama, seated next to Volcker, said there has been “impressive consensus” on the link between developing alternative sources of energy and creating jobs.

“You’re seeing industry, labor and government working together more cooperatively and in a better spirit” than “in a long time,” Obama said.

He cited the steps he announced yesterday to toughen auto- emissions and fuel-efficiency standards as one such agreement among sometimes competing groups that will aid the economy. Obama said the move “will take a real bite out of oil imports.”

In the discussion about job creation, Obama told the board, “There’s no doubt that manufacturing’s not going to return to the share of the economy that it was in the 1950s, regardless of what our policies are.”

Immelt told Obama that dealing with energy, emissions and climate change can help the economy.

“Clean energy is the most exciting, fastest growing industry in the 21st century,” he said. Immelt said GE’s 70 “energy-efficiency” products are generating about $18 billion of revenue this year, accounting for about 50,000 jobs within the company and “our supply chain” of small and medium companies.

Lead in Technology

“We have to have a broad inspiration to lead in technology” in such areas as coal gasification and nuclear power, he said. “It’s out there to be had.”

Obama is pressing Congress to move forward on energy and climate legislation that would create a market-based cap on greenhouse-gas emissions from utilities and other human sources.

Ferguson, a finance and insurance expert who now is president and chief executive of TIAA-CREF, told Obama that he’ll find there is wide support for climate legislation.

Many people in the finance and insurance industries support this because “think it’s good economic policy as well as social policy,” Ferguson said.

Laura Tyson, a professor at the University of California at Berkley and head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton administration, said afterward that climate change must remain priority for the administration.

“There is the need for the U.S. to lead in this area,” she said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

Running the Board

While Obama announced the Volcker-led board last November, legal issues establishing the group’s charter, personnel decisions and frictions with National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers forced a delay in getting the panel running.

Volcker has met with Obama at least 10 times since the president’s January inauguration and is in Washington almost every week, either meeting with Obama and administration officials or speaking to members of Congress, White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said.

On regulatory reform, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and Summers frequently reach out to Volcker as well as David Swensen, chief investment officer at Yale University, UBS’s Wolf, Donaldson and TIAA-CREF’s Ferguson.

“They had a fairly big influence” on the administration’s decision to roll out its regulatory proposals in pieces, Goolsbee said.

Administration officials emphasize that the board is advisory in nature and not meant to act as a shadow economic entity setting policy. Rather it’s modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which provides an independent voice outside of regular government channels on intelligence.

Guantanamo detainee move blocked

Senators voted by 90-6 to block the transfer of 240 inmates, also stalling a request for $80m .

Correspondents say it is a rebuke to President Barack Obama's plans to close down the camp by January 2010.

Meanwhile, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress detainees could support terror in the US if allowed to go free.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing to terrorists, [and] radicalising others," Mr Mueller told a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Separately, a federal judge said the US can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely without any charges.

Constituency concern

The Senate decision to block a war funding bill meant for the camp followed a similar decision by the House of Representatives.

Democrats and Republicans each argue that there needs to be a better plan for closing Guantanamo, situated on US territory on the island of Cuba.

spoof s President Obama: Blame it on The E-E-E-E-Economy

Transcript:President Obama's Notre Dame speech


THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. (Applause.) Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins -- (applause) -- the aunts, the uncles -- all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. (Laughter.) You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. (Applause.) Your continued and courageous -- and contagious -- commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all. (Applause.)

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. (Applause.) And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation. And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. (Laughter.) So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. (Laughter and applause.) Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. (Laughter and applause.) I guess that's better. (Laughter.) So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!
AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. And since --

AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

THE PRESIDENT: We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan's adage that we don't do things easily. (Laughter.) We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. (Laughter.) No, don't worry, I'm not going to talk about that. (Laughter.) We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world -- Bookstore Basketball. (Applause.)

Now this excites me. (Laughter.) I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." (Laughter and applause.) Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" did not pull it out this year. (Laughter.) So next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live. (Laughter and applause.)

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare -- periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world -- a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations -- and a task that you're now called to fulfill.

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit -- an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work. (Applause.)

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. (Applause.)

And it's this last challenge that I'd like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. (Laughter.) For the major threats we face in the 21st century -- whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease -- these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times. We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved. (Applause.)
The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "„mdifferences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago -- also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew -- Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents -- all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help -- to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods -- perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. (Laughter.) Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. (Applause.) For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads -- unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And I'd like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work. You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. (Laughter.) Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about -- by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame -- by the last count, upwards of 80 percent -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution. (Applause.)

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens -- when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another -- then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. (Applause.) So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin -- (applause) -- where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. (Laughter.) And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away -- because life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Florida governor to make Senate run


Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced Tuesday that he'll skip a second term as the state's chief executive and run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Republican Mel Martinez next year.

Crist, 52, has maintained approval ratings in the high 60s despite the state's gloomy economy, budget cuts, a high foreclosure rate and the highest unemployment since 1975.

The moderate Republican faces a primary challenge from former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative who is questioning Crist's commitment to Republican principles.

"The challenges that Florida faces are not just Florida challenges, they're national issues," Crist said. "I believe I can best serve the people of Florida — if they're willing to allow me — as their next United States senator."

Crist drew immediate support from the national party establishment, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, head of the Senate GOP campaign committee, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"Gov. Crist's support appears to be both wide and deep," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute. "As for a primary, although some conservative activists have grown disillusioned with him, there is no evidence that unhappiness has spread to the GOP rank-and-file."

Rubio, 37, a Miami lawyer and son of Cuban immigrants, posted a YouTube video showing Crist welcoming President Obama to Florida.

The image in the video is from an appearance Crist made with Obama to promote the $787 billion federal stimulus package, which was opposed by all congressional Republicans except three.

"Borrowed money from China and the Middle East, mountains of debt for our children and a terrible threat to a fragile economy. Today, too many politicians embrace Washington's same old broken ways," an announcer says on the Rubio video. "Let the debate begin."

In an interview on Fox News Channel, Rubio said his party needs to "choose what we want 'Republican' to mean." He said he likes Crist but "his view of Republicanism is different than mine."

Last year, Crist was a vocal supporter of Republican John McCain and a frequent spokesman for his party's presidential nominee.

The governor has been an atypical Republican in other ways. Crist refused to get involved in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case when he served as attorney general. During the governor's race in 2006, he took a "live and let live" attitude on same-sex civil unions and said he wants to change hearts and not abortion laws.

Since taking office, he has championed some issues important to Democrats, including banning touch-screen voting machines, helping felons get their voting rights back and pushing for tough clean-energy standards for electric plants.

In 1998, Crist left the state Senate to seek the same U.S. Senate seat, losing to Democratic incumbent Bob Graham. That race helped Crist build his name recognition and a network that helped him win the next three statewide races he entered: education commissioner in 2000, attorney general in 2002 and governor in 2006.

Democrats will target Crist as they try to maintain what could be a 60-vote majority in the Senate, the number they need to overcome GOP filibusters and help pass Obama's legislative agenda. Democrats would likely control 60 votes if Al Franken, who is leading after a recount, is declared the winner in the Minnesota Senate race.

"My fear is that the governor's Senate candidacy is not going to be as smooth and effortless as it seems at this point," said Roger Stone, a Republican political consultant.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which had already been running a TV ad against Crist in Tallahassee, quickly pointed out Florida's economic problems and budget cuts.

"Too many in Florida are hurting because Gov. Crist has failed to provide leadership and a way out of this mess. He's jumping ship when he's needed the most," committee spokesman Eric Schultz said.

Florida Democrats running for Senate include U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Sen. Dan Gelber, both from Miami-Dade County.

President Obama pushes Congress to speed healthcare reform

Reporting from Washington -- President Barack Obama, meeting behind closed doors with congressional leaders of both parties today, stepped outside of the West Wing between sessions this morning to urge Congress to enact sweeping healthcare reforms by the end of this year.

"The stars are aligned," Obama suggested, attempting to portray a sense of momentum among congressional leaders and representatives of the healthcare industry for a campaign promise to deliver healthcare to millions of Americans now uninsured.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), joining the president on the driveway of the South Lawn, predicted that the House will have its healthcare reforms moving in short order.

"Our goal is to have a healthier America," said Pelosi, promising that legislation "will be on the floor by the end of July -- I am quite certain."

"We've got to get going this year," said Obama, flanked by Democratic House leaders after his morning meeting. "We've got to get it done this year. . . . We don't want any excuses."

Obama will meet with Republican leaders today before heading to Arizona State University to deliver his first commencement address of the spring graduation season.

The president, hailing the House's promise to address healthcare "before they head out for the August recess," called on the Senate to act before the end of the year.

"Our healthcare system is broken," Obama said. "It is unsustainable for families and businesses. It is unsustainable for state governments and the federal government."

The president met at the White House this week with representatives of the healthcare industry who have pledged to cut the increase in costs by 1.5% a year, potentially saving $2 trillion over the coming decade.

The president maintains that this will complement congressional efforts to provide healthcare for more Americans.

Medicare, which provides insurance for about 45 million Americans, will run out of money in eight years, the trustees of the program reported this week -- the program paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes by 2016.

As part of his long-range budgetary plans, the president is calling on Congress to set aside more than $600 billion for healthcare reform in the years ahead, with tax increases starting in 2011 providing some of the money, proposed savings in healthcare costs the rest.

At the same time, the president is pledging to cut the federal budget deficit -- projected at $1.84 trillion this year and $1.25 trillion next year -- in half by the end of his term.

"The fact of the matter is, the most significant driver, by far, of our long-term debt and long-term deficits, is ever-escalating healthcare costs," Obama said today. "We're also, obviously thinking . . . of American families out there . . . struggling to pay premiums that have doubled . . . and 46 million who have no health insurance at all.

"We are not going to rest until we have delivered the kind of healthcare reform that is going to bring down costs" and provide healthcare to more Americans, the president said.

Attorney General Says Craigslist Agrees to End Erotic Ads

Under pressure from law enforcement officials, the popular Web site Craigslist plans to get rid of its controversial "erotic services" section, the Illinois and Connecticut attorneys general said today.

The ads section will be replaced with a new adult services category that site employees will review.

Details of the section were not immediately available from Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office. Craigslist officials could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the company informed him Tuesday night that it would eliminate the erotic services ads within seven days, create a new adult services section and "manually review every ad posted there."

"Craigslist is heeding our clear call for conscience and common sense, sending a strong signal that Internet sites must police themselves to protect others," Blumenthal said in a statement.

"We will be monitoring closely to make sure that this measure is more than a name change from erotic to adult and that the manual blocking is tough and effective to scrub prostitution and pornography," the statement said.

Madigan, Blumenthal and Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster met with Craigslist lawyers last week, demanding the site to remove ads they contend are advertisements for illegal sexual activities. The South Carolina attorney general last week also threatened a criminal investigation of Craigslist officials if the site did not remove postings he said were pornographic or encouraged prostitution.

Obama, Health Industry Pledge to Cut Health Spending Growth by $2 Trillion

Hoping to sell a health care reform package to Congress by the end of the year, President Barack Obama pledged that with the help of other “stakeholders” in the health care industry, the growth of costs can be cut by $2 trillion by 2019.

Representatives of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital industries, as well as doctors and organized labor met with Obama at the White House on Monday to discuss ways to cut costs by 1.5 percent a year for the next 10 years.

“Their efforts will help us take the next and most important step – comprehensive health care reform – so that we can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years,” Obama said.

“What they're doing is complementary to and is going to be completely compatible with a strong, aggressive effort to move health care reform through here in Washington with an ultimate result of saving health care costs for families, businesses and the government,” said Obama.

“That's how we can finally make health care affordable, while putting more money into the pockets of hardworking families each month. These savings can be achieved by standardizing quality care, incentivizing efficiency, investing in proven ways not only to treat illness but to prevent them,” the president said.

Obama was accompanied when he spoke by Thomas Priselac, CEO of Cedars Sinai Health System; Richard Clark, CEO of Merck & Co.; George Halverson of the Kaiser Foundation; James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association (AMA); Dennis Rivera of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Michael Mussallem, CEO of Edwards Life Science.

The annual growth rate of public and private health care expenditures is projected to average 6.2 percent through the next decade.

That could mean health spending will go from 17.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product now to 20.3 percent in 2018, according to a letter to the president from leaders of Advanced Medical Technology Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, AHA, AMA, PhRMA, and the SEIU.

“We are determined to work together to provide quality, affordable coverage and access for every American,” the letter said. “It is critical, however, that health reform also enhance quality, improve the overall health of the population, and reduce cost growth.

“We believe that the proper approach to achieve and sustain reduced cost growth is one that will: improve the population's health; continuously improve quality; encourage the advancement of medical treatments, approaches, and science; streamline administration; and encourage efficient care delivery based on evidence and best practice,” the letter added.

Obama’s goal is to create a public health insurance plan that would compete with private health insurance companies.

On other fronts, the economic recovery package that he signed into law earlier this year contained $20 billion for health information technology, which apparently will put the medical information of every American on a centrally linked system by 2014.

Also, the bill put $1.1 billion toward a “comparative effectiveness” council, which will seek the most cost-effective treatments. Critics say this will lead to health care rationing.
“I’m committed to building a transparent process where all views are welcome, but I'm also committed to ensuring that whatever plan we design upholds three basic principles,” Obama said.

“First, the rising cost of health care must be brought down; second, Americans must have the freedom to keep whatever doctor and health care plan they have, or to choose a new doctor or health care plan if they want it; and third, all Americans must have quality, affordable health care,” the president said.

“It is reform that is an imperative for America's economic future, and reform that is a pillar of the new foundation we seek to build for our economy – reform that we can, must, and will achieve by the end of this year,” he said.

Without measurable policy proposals, what the president and industry leaders talked about at the White House on Monday was “bumper sticker policy,” said Robert Moffitt, director of health policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“Government projections on health care programs are worthless when you look at Medicare and Medicaid projections,” Moffitt told CNSNews.com.
While more efficiency is usually better, cost-cutting is not automatically a positive thing in health care, he said.

“Health care is 17 percent of the Gross Domestic Product [the total value of all goods and services produced in the United States]. If we do nothing between now and 2025, it will be 25 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. How do you prevent that expansion?” said Moffitt.

“Unless you resort to some sort of supply restriction or prescription restrictions, physician payment reform and hospital payment reform is not going to do it. Hospital spending dwarfs all other spending. How do you limit that? Cut hospital stays?” he added.

The Obama budget for fiscal year 2010 creates an incentive-penalty program based on hospital readmissions in a 30-day time period. According to the White House, readmissions patients within a 30-day time frame often result from a bad discharge policy and follow-up.

Under the proposal, hospitals will receive bundled payments that cover not just hospitalization of an individual, but follow-up care. Hospitals with high rates of readmissions will be paid less if patients are readmitted to the hospital in the same 30-day period.

While Obama has pledged that, under his plan, all consumers would be able to choose between a government-run program and a privately run program, a study by the non-partisan Lewin Group suggested a government insurance plan could crowd out private insurance.

“Premiums under the public plan would be up to 30 percent less than private insurance plans if Medicare payment levels are used,” Lewin Group Vice President John Shelis told the House Ways and Means Committee in April.

“Due to the substantial cost advantage, we estimate that up to 119.1 million of the 171.6 million people who now have private employer or non-group coverage would move to the public plan,” Shelis added.

That would put private firms at a competitive disadvantage, Moffit said.

“President Obama's promise that anyone who wants to can keep their private health insurance cannot be kept,” Moffitt said.

Estimate of Budget Deficit Now Tops $1.84 Trillion

Records suggest Pelosi, others were told of harsh interrogations

Congressional leaders were briefed repeatedly on the CIA's use of severe interrogation methods on Al Qaeda suspects, according to new information released by the Obama administration Thursday that appears to contradict the assertions of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The records describe dozens of congressional briefings about CIA decisions that since have emerged as major sources of controversy -- including the agency's use of waterboarding and its destruction of videotapes of interrogation sessions.

A chart compiled by the CIA indicates that Pelosi (D-San Francisco) was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, on the agency's interrogation of alleged Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, and that the session covered "the particular [enhanced interrogation techniques] that had been employed." The chart does not list the specific methods covered during the briefing. But during the preceding month, the CIA had used the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times, according to a Justice Department memo released last month.

Pelosi has acknowledged being briefed on the CIA's interrogation program, but said she was told only about methods the agency was considering, not about techniques it had actually employed.

As recently as a week ago, Pelosi said, "We were not -- I repeat were not -- told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, disputed the CIA's account. "As this document shows, the speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002," he said Thursday. "The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not been used."

The CIA declined to comment on why the chart does not make it clear whether waterboarding was covered in the Pelosi briefing. But a federal official familiar with the list indicated that the agency's records may not have been that specific. "The descriptions don't go beyond what the records themselves say," said the official, who requested anonymity when discussing intelligence matters.

Republican congressional officials familiar with the document and other still-classified records on congressional briefings said it would have been negligent for CIA briefers to fail to mention the use of waterboarding after Abu Zubaydah had been subjected to the method so extensively.

Overall, the chart describes 40 briefings over a seven-year period during which CIA and other U.S. intelligence officials described the agency's interrogation program to senior lawmakers.

The records were requested by congressional Republicans, who have accused Democrats on Capitol Hill of hypocrisy for expressing outrage in recent weeks over the CIA's use of harsh interrogation methods after the release of Justice Department memos describing them in detail.

Porter J. Goss, former House Republican and former CIA director, wrote last month in an opinion piece that he was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as 'waterboarding' were never mentioned." Goss described the lawmakers' claims as "a disturbing epidemic of amnesia."

Goss attended the September 2002 briefing with Pelosi in what the records indicate was the first time congressional officials were told about the so-called enhanced interrogation program. At the time, Goss was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Pelosi was the panel's ranking Democrat.

In other entries on the chart, waterboarding is specifically mentioned. In February 2003, for example, the records indicate that Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) were told about the agency's interrogation methods "in considerable detail," including "how the waterboard was used." Roberts was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, and Rockefeller was ranking Democrat. In recent years, Rockefeller has been an outspoken critic of the CIA's interrogation program.

"Sen. Rockefeller was briefed but was not presented with the full picture, nor was he told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program's legality and effectiveness," said Jamie Smith, a Rockefeller spokeswoman. "With more information coming to light in 2004, Sen. Rockefeller became increasingly concerned about the program, and in early 2005 he launched a full-scale effort to investigate. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review is ongoing, and he believes it is critically important that there be a full accounting of the Bush administration's interrogation policies."

The records indicate that Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) and other lawmakers were told in early 2003 that the CIA intended to destroy videotapes of interrogation sessions. Harman, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has said that she sent a letter to the agency at the time warning that doing so was a "bad idea." The tapes were destroyed in 2005, after the scandal over detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Although the records describe early briefings on the CIA program, they also indicate that the operation was shielded from the vast majority of lawmakers for years. It wasn't until September 2006, four years after Goss and Pelosi initially were briefed, that the agency's interrogation program was described to the full House and Senate intelligence committees.

Obama proposes $17 billion in cuts

As his staff unveiled details of a $3.4 trillion budget today, President Obama preferred to dwell on $17 billion in proposed cuts for this year.

"We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," Obama said at the White House.

Joe Pounder, a spokesman for House Republican Whip Eric Cantor,quickly pointed out that Obama's $17 billion in cuts - event if enacted - comes from a $3.4 trillion budget.That's about one-half of one percent.

Obama specified some of the 121 proposed cuts, including an Education Department office located in Paris. He added that everything adds cup and that $17 billion in one year is a lot of money, "even by Washington standards."

Senate strips Specter of seniority after party switch


Arlen Specter was in the driver's seat when the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled the two newest Supreme Court justices back in 2005, but the Pennsylvania senator won't be front and center next time.

Specter jumped from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party last week, putting the Democrats within reach of a 60-seat "supermajority" that could make it all but impossible for Republicans to block Democratic legislation.

On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed that the party switch dropped Specter to the bottom of the heap in terms of seniority.

That means when the Judiciary Committee questions President Obama's yet-to-be-named nominee to replace Justice David Souter, Specter will be the very last to speak -- after even Sen. Ted Kaufman of Delaware, who has been a senator for all of four months.

In fact, only two of the 18 other senators on the committee have been in the upper house longer than Specter -- and he has been in the Senate longer than seven other committee members put together

But there is more at stake than Specter's ego or bragging rights.

The old saw "rank hath its privileges" holds true in the U.S. Senate as in few other places. With seniority comes the ability to influence legislation.

Specter lost his seniority on other committees as well, including the powerful Appropriations Committee -- the one that doles out money. He's now junior to Montana's Sen. Jon Tester, who has been in the Senate since 2007.

Specter has been citing his seniority on the Appropriations Committee as he hits the campaign trail as a Democrat.

"My senior position on Appropriations has enabled me to bring a lot of jobs and a lot of federal funding to this state," Specter said at a town hall meeting on Monday.

Over and over, he made a point of telling an auditorium filled with medical faculty and staff about the hundreds of millions of dollars he delivered to the Keystone State, thanks to the power he's accumulated in his 29 years in the Senate.

Obama’s Corporate Tax Plan Unnerves Indian Business

President Obama’s proposal to change the American corporate tax system is winning few fans in India, where some say it is aimed at curbing the country’s outsourcing industry.

Perhaps that is because Mr. Obama specifically struck out at the epicenter of Indian outsourcing.

The president vowed Monday to overhaul a tax code that allowed companies to pay less tax to, as he said, “create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.” One major element to that change could be the elimination of a deduction that American companies get when they invest in subsidiaries outside the United States.

American companies have tens of thousands of employees in India in wholly owned subsidiaries. Many of these Indian operations handle customer service and back-office functions, particularly for banks and credit card companies. American businesses employ thousands more people in India by contracting out work to local technology and outsourcing companies.

And recently, many American corporations have also expanded their sales, marketing and distribution in India to take advantage of the country’s fast economic growth and expanding middle class.

Many business people in India were upset by Mr. Obama’s tax proposal. The president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India, Sajjan Jindal, said it could “kill the spirit of competition.”

The Indian affiliate of CNN spent Tuesday afternoon asking economists and politicians whether Mr. Obama was “anti-India.” An editorial in The Times of India said Bangalore had become a “catch-all term to hang U.S. economic woes on.”

What is unclear, though, is what, if any, impact Mr. Obama’s proposed tax plan will actually have on jobs in India.

“It’s a tax disincentive to discourage outsourcing to countries like India,” said Uday Ved, head of tax issues at KPMG India. But according to Mr. Ved and other international tax experts, companies do not move jobs to India because the tax rate is lower, they do it because labor costs less.

“We still believe that the cost advantage to India is so high” that American companies will continue to move some jobs to India, Mr. Ved said.

Raymond J. Wiacek, chairman of the global tax practice at Jones Day, said, “I don’t think it’s going to make a bean’s difference to India.”

He added, “India is a highly skilled but inexpensive labor market,” and not one where American companies have been accruing enormous profits in their foreign subsidiaries.

Some big American companies have large numbers of employees in India, in part because of these low labor costs. For example, General Electric has about 14,500 employees in India, I.B.M. more than 74,000, and Citigroup more than 10,000. In addition, India’s information technology and outsourcing companies employ about 2.2 million people, and American companies account for about 60 percent of their business.

“The jobs aren’t coming back to the U.S. as a result of this proposal,” Mr. Wiacek said. The tax proposal is “about revenues and that’s it.”

Rice: Bush wouldn't approve illegal interrogations


Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush administration's policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects Sunday, saying former President George W. Bush would not have authorized anything illegal.He was also very clear that we would do nothing -- nothing -- that was against the law or against our obligations internationally," Rice said during an appearance at a Washington school.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released in April showed Rice was among top Bush advisers who approved the CIA's use of waterboarding -- a technique considered a form of torture for centuries -- on terrorism suspects in its custody. Recently released Bush administration memos showed Justice Department officials argued that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other coercive practices did not violate U.S. laws against torture.

The disclosures have led to calls for investigations of former Bush administration officials. But Rice said Bush "was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country" after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

President Obama has banned the use of techniques such as waterboarding, which he called torture. His administration released the Justice Department memos in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, and he called the legal reasoning behind the memos "a mistake."

Unlike former Vice President Dick Cheney, who criticized the release of the documents, Rice did not criticize the Obama administration's decision.

"I have said many times that the Obama administration is now in power, and he's my president, too," she said. "And, I owe him my loyalty. I will not agree with everything that they do. I will not agree with everything that they say."

Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee to Replace Souter


At first glance, with Democrats a hair away from a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, one would expect President Obama to have no trouble hand-picking a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

But in an ironic twist, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable.

That's because the Judiciary Committee, where Specter was the ranking minority member, requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote.

"I think, in narrow terms, it could present a procedural problem at the committee level, unless the Democrats are going to change the rules of the committee midstream," William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell University, told FOXNews.com.

"Most people presume in a controversial nomination that Arlen Specter would have been the one most likely to vote with Democrats, since he prides himself on being independent of Republicans. But now that he moves over to the Democratic side, the president and Democrats lost their most likely minority vote."

A committee aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the panel, declined to comment on anything connected to Souter's expected retirement or a Supreme Court nomination.

Before the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can form an opposition strategy, they will have to elect a new committee party leader. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has served as chairman before and would need a waiver from members to serve again. Next in line would be Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley.

Jacobson believes the most likely Republican to help Democrats on the committee is South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was one of the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who averted a showdown on President Bush's judicial nominees in 2005.

"If Obama were to nominate someone clearly viewed as a political appointee ... then I think Lindsey Graham would be subject to pressure," Jacobson said. "On the other hand, if he were to nominate someone Republicans don't like but is qualified, like (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan, would Lindsey Graham feel compelled to go along with the gang of 14? I think that is something that remains to be seen."

Graham's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Democrats aren't powerless to stop a potential filibuster at the committee level. They could change the rules to allow the committee to vote on the nominee and send a recommendation to the full Senate without Republican consent.

But Jacobson believes that's unlikely to happen.

"The senators, as political as they can be, they have tended to put value on the rules of conduct," he said. "To change the rules to get a particular nominee confirmed would set a dangerous precedent. I doubt Democrats would want to do that."

He added that changing the rules might tick off the unpredictable Specter who has developed a strong respect for tradition.

"If Democrats were to change the rule to force through a nominee, he might vote with Republicans," Jacobson said