Scott Conroy, RCP
President Obama on Thursday cited "significant progress" in Afghanistan, but the administration's own annual review of the situation on the ground in the nearly decade-long conflict indicates a perilous road ahead on an issue that has already become a defining facet of his presidency and could add to his political vulnerability as the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into high gear."This continues to be a very difficult endeavor," Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday. "But I can report that thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and...
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Maya Angelou's Cooking Advice: Ignore The Rules
In her new cookbook, the poet says too much rushing around and too many rules are crushing the practice of good cooking. Eating good food, she says, should be a time to enlighten the spirit.
Source: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/16/132080094/maya-angelous-cooking-advice-ignore-the-rules?ft=1&f=100
Cool Roofs: An Easy Upgrade
Ed. Note: Cross-posted from the Energy Blog.
Check out Google Earth – the ‘view from above’ of your favorite American city. And look at the roofs of the office buildings, warehouses, shopping centers, and even the homes. Most of them are probably pretty dark in color – and this means they heat up a lot when the weather is warm – up to 50 degrees hotter than light roofs. All of those dark roofs mean that as a nation we’re using a lot more air conditioning than we need to. At least a billion dollars a year in extra power bills, in fact. And when you combine hot roofs with dark roads and parking lots, we get the ‘urban heat island’ effect: cities tend to be 2-5 degrees hotter than less urban areas just because of all the dark surfaces.
But there’s something we can do about it: changing to a ‘cool roof.’ The Department of Energy just did this in our Washington, DC headquarters. It was time to replace our roof anyway, so for no extra cost we went to a ‘cool’ white material. And we’re hoping others follow this lead.
Here's a video of Secretary Chu giving his thoughts on our new cool roof:
var params = { allowscriptaccess: "always", allowfullscreen: "true" }; swfobject.embedSWF("http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/q0GKcdgxHsk&hl=en&fs=1&showinfo=0", "flashcontent", "480", "295", "8", null, {}, params); Viewing this video requires Adobe Flash Player 8 or higher. Download the free player.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/14/cool-roofs-easy-upgrade
Bernie Sanders Bill Clinton Bill Nelson Bill Richardson Bob Casey, Jr
Cool Roofs: An Easy Upgrade
Ed. Note: Cross-posted from the Energy Blog.
Check out Google Earth – the ‘view from above’ of your favorite American city. And look at the roofs of the office buildings, warehouses, shopping centers, and even the homes. Most of them are probably pretty dark in color – and this means they heat up a lot when the weather is warm – up to 50 degrees hotter than light roofs. All of those dark roofs mean that as a nation we’re using a lot more air conditioning than we need to. At least a billion dollars a year in extra power bills, in fact. And when you combine hot roofs with dark roads and parking lots, we get the ‘urban heat island’ effect: cities tend to be 2-5 degrees hotter than less urban areas just because of all the dark surfaces.
But there’s something we can do about it: changing to a ‘cool roof.’ The Department of Energy just did this in our Washington, DC headquarters. It was time to replace our roof anyway, so for no extra cost we went to a ‘cool’ white material. And we’re hoping others follow this lead.
Here's a video of Secretary Chu giving his thoughts on our new cool roof:
var params = { allowscriptaccess: "always", allowfullscreen: "true" }; swfobject.embedSWF("http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/q0GKcdgxHsk&hl=en&fs=1&showinfo=0", "flashcontent", "480", "295", "8", null, {}, params); Viewing this video requires Adobe Flash Player 8 or higher. Download the free player.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/14/cool-roofs-easy-upgrade
John Barrasso John Cornyn John Edwards John Ensign John F. Kerry
Saving Money on Government IT
For too long, many government IT projects cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than they should, took years longer than necessary to deploy, and delivered technologies that were obsolete by the time they were completed.
This summer we took a hard look at 26 high priority projects that were either over budget, behind schedule, or at high risk for the kinds of problems that too often plague our large IT efforts. We completed the review of two projects in October, and this week, we announced the results from our review of the next 16 projects.
-
One project has been terminated entirely, as the agency decided the project was too troubled to continue.
-
For seven projects we have accelerated delivery of meaningful functionality.
-
For eight projects, we’ve rescoped the projects back to increase the likelihood of success and reduced budgets in the process.
The bottom line is that we’ve reduced lifecycle cost by $1.3 billion, and cut the time for delivery of functionality down by more than half, from two to three years down to an average of 8 months.
In reviewing 38 total projects, we have significantly accelerated delivery in 12 projects, with increased functionality coming online every few quarters rather than every few years, and reduced the scope or terminated 15 others, achieving a total of $3 billion in lifecycle budget reductions.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/10/saving-money-government-it
Kirsten Gillibrand Kit Bond Lamar Alexander Lindsey Graham Lisa Murkowski
Today?s Health Care Court Ruling
Today’s narrow ruling in Virginia on the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act is just one of many recent rulings on similar cases that have come down in recent months. Since the law passed, opponents of reform have filed more than 20 different legal challenges. Judges have already granted the Administration’s motion to dismiss 12 of these cases. And in two cases, federal judges looked at the merits of the opponents’ arguments, determined that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and upheld the law.
We disagree with the ruling issued today in Virginia and the Department of Justice is considering its appeal options.
We are pleased that Judge Hudson agrees that implementation of the law will continue uninterrupted. In the nine months since the health reform law was passed, we’ve made tremendous progress to strengthen our health care system, including lowering costs and implementing a new patient’s bill of rights to end some of the worst insurance company abuses. That work continues. And we’re confident that when it’s all said and done, the courts will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional.
History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- were all filed and all failed. Contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.
Opponents of reform claim that the individual responsibility requirement – the requirement that all Americans carry a minimum level insurance by 2014 –exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes economic “inactivity.” Make no mistake -- individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively engaged in economic decision making – the decision to pay for health care out-of-pocket or to seek uncompensated care. Every year millions of those who have chosen to go without health insurance actively seek medical care, which is evident in the billions of dollars spent on uncompensated care every year.
The Affordable Care Act came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation. This cost-shift added on average $1,000 to family premiums in 2009 and roughly $410 to an individual premium.
This concept is clearly seen in other areas of commerce. For example, in most states, drivers are required to carry a minimum level of auto insurance. Accidents happen and when they do, they need to be paid for quickly and responsibly. Requiring drivers to carry auto insurance accomplishes this goal. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for.
It’s no surprise then, that President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried recently wrote, “the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution.” Two federal judges that recently ruled on the challenge to the constitutionality of the reform law in Michigan and Virginia agreed. These lawsuits were dismissed, with the federal judge in Virginia concluding “how and when to pay for health care are activities…in the aggregate…substantially affect[s] the interstate health care market.”
Two federal judges have agreed with this argument. In an earlier ruling in the Western District of Virginia, a federal judge wrote:
“I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market…Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care…Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies.”
The Affordable Care Act also bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with preexisting conditions. Here’s why: If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance – especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover – then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide. We don’t let people wait until after they’ve been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don’t want to do that with healthcare. If we’re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance.
There have been many rulings on court cases regarding health reform and we know there will be many more. In the end, the Affordable Care Act will prevail and the American people will enjoy the benefits of reform.
Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/13/today-s-health-care-court-ruling
John Edwards John Ensign John F. Kerry John Kerry John McCain
President Obama Meets with CEOs on the "Path That Will Lead to Economic Success"
As the President prepared for a meeting this morning with some of America's top CEOs on ways to get the economy moving again, the Senate was preparing to pass the tax cut and unemployment insurance compromise, which they did by a wide bipartisan margin. The President explained why he hoped the House would do the same:
I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector. It will help lift up middle-class families, who will no longer need to worry about a New Year’s Day tax hike. It will offer emergency relief to help tide folks over until they find another job. And it includes tax cuts to make college more affordable; help parents provide for their children; and help businesses, large and small, expand and hire.
The President also explained what he was hoping to focus on in the meeting:
Joe Biden Joe Lieberman John Barrasso John Cornyn John Edwards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)