[ Only in California can a 6 year old kid get charged with sexual battery for brushing up against another kid while playing tag ]
Hercules Family Battles Sex Assault Claim Against 6-Year-Old
January 27, 2012 7:27 PM
Share this http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...ground-sex-assault-claim-against-6-year-old/# 1.3K
View Comments
Filed under
HERCULES (CBS 5) – An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.
The parent, who asked only to be identified as Oswin, said his son was accused of brushing his best friend’s leg or groin while the two were playing on the playground at Lupine Hills Elementary in Hercules two months ago.
Oswin said his child was kept in the principal’s office for two hours until he confessed. He was suspended, and a sexual battery charge was placed on his permanent school record.
“To me, I think it’s an overreaction,” said Marilyn Cheeks, a Lupine Hills Elementary parent
Legally, there’s no such thing as sexual assault for a six year-old in California.
It wasn’t until Oswin and his wife got a lawyer that the school backed off. District officials declined to discuss specifics. They did confirm that an investigation was conducted, and that the child could not be charged with sexual battery. The claim was removed from the boy’s record.
Oswin’s son is attending another school now. He said he only hopes no one else will have to go through what his family did.
[ Obama and his lawyers bitch slapped again ]
Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim
By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Mr. Clement.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Outside the court, supporters and opponents of the law rallied, while the line for observers snaked around the court building more than an hour before the argument began.
Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim
By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
-
Charles Balogh, from Alexandria, Va., demonstrates April 25, 2012, in front of the Supreme Court in Washington as the court holds a hearing on Arizona’s “show me your papers” immigration law. (Associated Press)
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Mr. Clement.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Outside the court, supporters and opponents of the law rallied, while the line for observers snaked around the court building more than an hour before the argument began.
Interesting how Obama keeps saying the GOP is against him on this student loan interest issue... even though Romney said he's fine with keeping it at 3%. OOPS! Not to mention that the only reason it's going from 3% to 6% is because that's what Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid wrote in the bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-casts-gop-barrier-low-cost-education-105134077.html
SB 1070 Author: Law Has Already Led to Thousands of Self-Deportations, Lower Crime Rates, 13 School Closings
By Penny Starr
April 24, 2012
Subscribe to Penny Starr's posts
Former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and the copy of the Arizona immigration law he authored at a press conference on April 24, 2012 on Capitol Hill. The U.S. Supreme will hear arguments for and against the law on Wednesday. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments for and against four parts of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill, which were signed into law two years ago, its lead author said the six portions that were not blocked by a federal judge have already had a positive impact in the state.
Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (SB 1070) was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010. The U.S. Justice Department is challenging Arizona to try to stop the law, as are other groups. A federal judge of the Ninth District issued a temporary injunction against four parts (out of 10) of the law in July 2010, and the case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
At a press conference on Tuesday on Capitol Hill, former State Senator Russell Pearce said that the law has achieved several of its goals, including the voluntary departure of thousands of illegal aliens from Arizona, a reduction in crime and prison population, and a shrinking number of students in Mesa Public Schools that led to the closure of 13 elementary schools.
At the press conference -- one day before arguments are heard before the Supreme Court on certain aspects of the Arizona law -- Pearce responded to a question from a reporter about whether the blockage of the law by the U.S. Justice Department has had a negative impact on the state.
“First of all, [the law] is not blocked,” Russell said. “And those six [legal steps] that are in effect are really the meat of 1070.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against four portions of SB 1070. The portions include allowing Arizona law enforcement officers, upon reasonable suspicion, to determine the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped, detained or arrested; making it a state crime for an unauthorized immigrant to violate federal registration laws; criminalizing working or attempting to work by any unlawfully present alien; and authorizing Arizona law enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe a person has committed an offense that makes them removable from the United States.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points at President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
The parts of the law that went into effect 90 days after the legislation was passed and signed into law have been “good” for Arizona, according to Pearce.
Pearce said that statistics from the Department of Homeland Security and other groups show that between 100,000 and 200,000 illegal aliens have voluntarily left the state since most of it went into effect in 2010.
“We have a violent crime rate drop by three times that of the national average,” Pearce said. “My school district – Mesa – the largest school in the state, can close 13 elementary schools because of the declining population in K-12, out of neighborhoods known for high concentrations of illegals.”
“Our prison population’s on the decline for the first time in the history of the state of Arizona,” Pearce said, adding that there are about 2,500 fewer inmates in Arizona prisons today than there were before the law went into effect.
“That means less crime, less victims, that means a little more respect for law,” Pearce said. “So the good things are pretty clear.”
Pearce predicted at the press conference that the Supreme Court would reach a 5-3 decision in favor of the Arizona law, which the Obama administration will argue preempts the federal government’s authority to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
“The states have never, ever been preempted from enforcing immigration law,” Pearce said. “Had Congress wanted to preempt the states from enforcing that law they could have used their plenary powers.”
“That has never been done,” Pearce said. “The courts have sided with states and the historical and constitutional state powers on this issue alone for the last 40 years.”
Parties who have filed amicus briefs in support of SB 1070 and Arizona include the Landmark Legal Foundation, Liberty Legal Foundation, Cochise County (Arizona) Sheriff Larry Dever and Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Those joining the Obama administration’s Department of Justice in filing amicus briefs against the Arizona law include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, the Anti-Defamation League and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The court is expected to rule on the case sometime in June.
In a statement on its amicus brief, the ACLU said: “Immigration has long been regarded as a federal responsibility. In exercising that responsibility, Congress has enacted a comprehensive set of rules governing who can enter the country and who can remain. Arizona, followed by other states, has enacted its own law, S.B. 1070, that gives state law enforcement officers broad authority to interrogate, arrest and detain undocumented persons. The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups have challenged SB 1070 on the ground that it is inconsistent with federal law and preempted under the Supremacy Clause. We have made the same arguments in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in this case.”
In a statement from July 2010 by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose office joined with the DOJ against the Arizona law, she said: “We are actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which this is one. While this bipartisan effort to reform our immigration system progresses, the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce the laws on the books by enhancing border security and removing criminal aliens from this country.”
By Penny Starr
April 24, 2012
Subscribe to Penny Starr's posts
Former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and the copy of the Arizona immigration law he authored at a press conference on April 24, 2012 on Capitol Hill. The U.S. Supreme will hear arguments for and against the law on Wednesday. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)(CNSNews.com) – As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments for and against four parts of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill, which were signed into law two years ago, its lead author said the six portions that were not blocked by a federal judge have already had a positive impact in the state.
Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (SB 1070) was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010. The U.S. Justice Department is challenging Arizona to try to stop the law, as are other groups. A federal judge of the Ninth District issued a temporary injunction against four parts (out of 10) of the law in July 2010, and the case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
At a press conference on Tuesday on Capitol Hill, former State Senator Russell Pearce said that the law has achieved several of its goals, including the voluntary departure of thousands of illegal aliens from Arizona, a reduction in crime and prison population, and a shrinking number of students in Mesa Public Schools that led to the closure of 13 elementary schools.
At the press conference -- one day before arguments are heard before the Supreme Court on certain aspects of the Arizona law -- Pearce responded to a question from a reporter about whether the blockage of the law by the U.S. Justice Department has had a negative impact on the state.
“First of all, [the law] is not blocked,” Russell said. “And those six [legal steps] that are in effect are really the meat of 1070.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against four portions of SB 1070. The portions include allowing Arizona law enforcement officers, upon reasonable suspicion, to determine the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped, detained or arrested; making it a state crime for an unauthorized immigrant to violate federal registration laws; criminalizing working or attempting to work by any unlawfully present alien; and authorizing Arizona law enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe a person has committed an offense that makes them removable from the United States.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points at President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)The parts of the law that went into effect 90 days after the legislation was passed and signed into law have been “good” for Arizona, according to Pearce.
Pearce said that statistics from the Department of Homeland Security and other groups show that between 100,000 and 200,000 illegal aliens have voluntarily left the state since most of it went into effect in 2010.
“We have a violent crime rate drop by three times that of the national average,” Pearce said. “My school district – Mesa – the largest school in the state, can close 13 elementary schools because of the declining population in K-12, out of neighborhoods known for high concentrations of illegals.”
“Our prison population’s on the decline for the first time in the history of the state of Arizona,” Pearce said, adding that there are about 2,500 fewer inmates in Arizona prisons today than there were before the law went into effect.
“That means less crime, less victims, that means a little more respect for law,” Pearce said. “So the good things are pretty clear.”
Pearce predicted at the press conference that the Supreme Court would reach a 5-3 decision in favor of the Arizona law, which the Obama administration will argue preempts the federal government’s authority to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
“The states have never, ever been preempted from enforcing immigration law,” Pearce said. “Had Congress wanted to preempt the states from enforcing that law they could have used their plenary powers.”
“That has never been done,” Pearce said. “The courts have sided with states and the historical and constitutional state powers on this issue alone for the last 40 years.”
Parties who have filed amicus briefs in support of SB 1070 and Arizona include the Landmark Legal Foundation, Liberty Legal Foundation, Cochise County (Arizona) Sheriff Larry Dever and Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)Those joining the Obama administration’s Department of Justice in filing amicus briefs against the Arizona law include the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, the Anti-Defamation League and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The court is expected to rule on the case sometime in June.
In a statement on its amicus brief, the ACLU said: “Immigration has long been regarded as a federal responsibility. In exercising that responsibility, Congress has enacted a comprehensive set of rules governing who can enter the country and who can remain. Arizona, followed by other states, has enacted its own law, S.B. 1070, that gives state law enforcement officers broad authority to interrogate, arrest and detain undocumented persons. The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups have challenged SB 1070 on the ground that it is inconsistent with federal law and preempted under the Supremacy Clause. We have made the same arguments in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in this case.”
In a statement from July 2010 by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, whose office joined with the DOJ against the Arizona law, she said: “We are actively working with members of Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of which this is one. While this bipartisan effort to reform our immigration system progresses, the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce the laws on the books by enhancing border security and removing criminal aliens from this country.”
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Harry Reid on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 in a Senate floor speech
Harry Reid says 8 million jobs lost during George W. Bush's years in office
During a Senate floor speech on Aug. 2, 2011 -- shortly before a vote on the final debt-ceiling bill -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., compared the job-creation records of President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
"My friend (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.) talks about no new taxes," Reid said. "Mr. President, if their theory was right, with these huge (tax cuts) that took place during the Bush eight years, the economy should be thriving. These tax cuts have not helped the economy. The loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years, two wars started, unfunded, all on borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money -- if the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving. If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created."
A reader asked us whether Reid was correct that there was a "loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years." So we looked into it.
As always, we looked at jobs numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment data.
During Bush’s eight years in office -- January 2001 to January 2009 -- the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)
This isn’t remotely close to what Reid claimed. Reid's office didn't respond to our request for information, but we think we know what he was referring to.
From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs came in January 2008, while the low point for jobs came in February 2010.
This means the starting point for Reid’s measure came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure, and the low point occurred about a year into Barack Obama’s tenure.
In other words, Reid had a point in saying that there was a "loss of eight million jobs" -- but it didn’t come "during the Bush eight years." The loss of eight million jobs occurred during a roughly two-year period shared more or less equally between Bush and Obama.
Reid may blame Bush’s policies for every single one of those jobs lost -- an opinion he’s entitled to, but one we are unable to fact-check. Still, his statement is incorrect as spoken.
Reid went on to say, "If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created." We looked at the BLS numbers and found that Reid was basically correct in that claim. From January 1993 to January 2001, the nation gained 22.7 million total jobs.
This means that Reid specifically counted Clinton’s job-creation numbers from his inauguration day to the date he exited from office, but he did not do so for Bush, even though he used the Clinton figure as a direct comparison. It strikes us as a clear-cut case of cherry-picking.
So where does this leave us? Reid is correct that more than 8 million jobs were lost in the United States during the recent economic downturn, but he’s flat wrong to say that it happened "during the Bush eight years." Compounding the error, Reid makes a direct comparison between Bush and Clinton, yet he uses one method that makes Clinton’s number seem strong and Bush’s number seem weak. We rate Reid’s statement Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...reid-says-8-million-jobs-lost-during-george-/
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Barack Obama on Thursday, March 15th, 2012 in in campaign video “The Road We’ve Traveled”
President Barack Obama campaign video says auto companies 'repaid their loans'
The Obama campaign film "The Road We've Traveled" was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who has done documentaries on climate change and charter schools.
A new Barack Obama campaign video narrated by Tom Hanks portrays the president’s bailout of General Motors and Chrysler as courageous and successful — with loans repaid by car companies.
"Because of the tough choices the president made, the stage was set for a resurgent U.S. auto industry," Hanks says in the 17-minute highlights reel of Obama’s presidency, titled The Road We’ve Traveled.
"With business booming, (GM and Chrysler) repaid their loans," he later concludes.
It’s a claim we’ve heard before from the CEOs of GM and Chrysler in 2010 and 2011. At the time, we rated their claims Half True.
But it’s been months since we’ve looked at this question, so we thought we’d ask again.
We’re not checking the overall merit of the government’s efforts to support the car companies, which relies on opinion. Instead, we’re checking some of the facts marshaled by filmmakers. In another item, we checked whether auto bailout money had run out by the time Obama took office. We rated that Mostly True. And here we’ll check whether GM and Chrysler "repaid their loans" from U.S. taxpayers.
The bailouts
We reached out to the car companies, consulted a detailed accounting of Bush and Obama administration rescues kept by the Pulitzer-winning ProPublica, consulted the U.S. Treasury and reviewed other reports and fact-checks on this topic.
The story begins in late 2008, when the U.S. economy was crashing. By early December, GM and Chrysler told the government they couldn’t get the credit they needed to survive, threatening more than 1 million jobs, according to a report from the Congressional Oversight Panel.
President George W. Bush’s administration provided the auto companies with short-term funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program — remember TARP? — support that was continued under Obama with additional loans that financed the companies’ bankruptcy reorganizations.
The 2009 report predicted, "Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount." In September 2011, the Treasury reported that it expected the auto bailouts to "cost the taxpayer just under $24 billion."
How does this square with the statement that the companies have "repaid their loans"?
Some government money was offered as loans — but much more was used to purchase stock. Meanwhile, during restructuring, GM and Chrysler were divided into "old" and "new" companies. And the car companies' consumer finance arms also received aid in the effort to avoid shutdowns.
Our tally of ProPublica’s work on General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial Services shows that of $80 billion spent by taxpayers on the entire bailout, we’re still waiting on nearly $40 billion, a number confirmed by the Treasury Department. At some point, selling taxpayers’ stock in GM and GMAC may earn back a chunk of the rest. But all of it? The story’s not over yet.
What part of that was loans? Let's look at each automaker.
Chrysler
The government’s bailout of "Chrysler" actually involved government infusions totaling more than $12 billion to three companies. One was the automaker prior to its bankruptcy reorganization, the old Chrysler. One was the reorganized company, Chrysler Group. And the third was the company that provided consumer auto loans, Chrysler Financial Services.
Just two of the three have satisfied their government obligations. But the film's "repaid" rhetoric reflects solely the Chrysler Group — the new Chrysler. What’s the larger story?
• Since Chrysler Group LLC was formed in June 2009, it has repaid its U.S. loans of $5.1 billion "in full, with interest, six years early," according to a fact-sheet from Katie Merx, financial communications manager for the reorganized company. (The Treasury also says so.) Another chunk of money bought the government a small ownership stake in the new company, but that’s already been bought by Fiat. So, the Chrysler Group, the entity that arose out of the bankruptcy, has repaid its loans and has shed government ownership.
• Chrysler Financial Services, now TD Auto Finance, has paid off its loan of $1.5 billion — and taxpayers made $22 million on the deal, according to the Treasury Department and ProPublica.
• But the amount taxpayers loaned to Chrysler before it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009 — the entity now dubbed "Old Carco" — was chalked up as a loss by the federal government. That’s a $1.3 billion loan that will never be repaid. (The old company is still grinding through liquidation, but the government doesn’t expect to collect any more.)
So, new Chrysler has "repaid its loans," as has Chrysler Financial Services. But old Chrysler was lent $1.3 billion that won’t be repaid. Even so, taxpayers have fared better than most folks thought — a government official suggested in 2009 that $7 billion might be lost.
Instead, most taxpayer money has been restored, and the new company says it has added more than 9,000 jobs.
General Motors
GM’s story is even more dramatic.
Its $67 billion bailout also involved three companies, the old GM, the GM that emerged out of bankruptcy reorganization and auto financing arm GMAC, which is now Ally Financial.
• The new company received $6.7 billion in secured loans. In April 2010, GM repaid them with interest — and touted it had "repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule." But billions of dollars more had been converted to a 61 percent stake in the new company, said James Cain, financial news manager for GM. That stake is now down to 32 percent of the company’s common stock. The question is how much that stock will earn taxpayers to offset $27 billion not yet recouped from old and new GM. A third of GM’s entire stock value as of March 19, 2012, was just $13 billion. (Check its current market capitalization.)
• The former GMAC still has substantial government ownership – more than 70 percent of its common stock is held by taxpayers, according to the Treasury Department — but no loans. According to ProPublica, there’s more than $11 billion left on the GMAC ledger. So it’s not yet clear how taxpayers will fare.
• Old GM got nearly $1 billion in loans, and the Treasury Department has so far squeezed $136 million out of the company as it is liquidated in bankruptcy court. But it’s not clear how much taxpayers will ultimately recoup.
GM has certainly used the reboot to roar back into the marketplace. Its sales, along with those of its Chinese affiliates, were No. 1 in the world in 2011. (Aided the fact that its main competitor, Toyota, grappled with an earthquake, tsunami and floods.) But we’re not measuring the bailout’s success — merely the question of loan repayment.
As with Chrysler, new GM has repaid its "loans," while old GM may fail to repay $850 million. Unlike Chrysler, the government still owns a third of GM and more than 70 percent of the former GMAC — stock that taxpayers can hope will one day earn enough to make them whole.
Our ruling
So the Obama campaign is echoing a claim from GM and Chrysler that the auto companies "repaid their loans." But for both companies, that’s some careful framing that doesn’t tell the whole story. Loans represent about 20 percent of the bailout. Meanwhile, the statement is only fully true of the new automakers. A look at the entire bailout shows loans to the old car companies that may never be repaid, plus outstanding stock investments in GM and the former GMAC.
The new companies, which got about 85 percent of the loans, have repaid them all.
In our lengthy discussions about this claim, we considered everything from Mostly True to Mostly False. We’re not weighing Obama’s courage or the bailout’s success. We can say the claim the current companies "repaid their loans" is accurate but leaves out important details and context. On the larger bailout, it’s too early to say how taxpayers will make out. This statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate the claim Half True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ent-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Barack Obama on Friday, February 10th, 2012 in a briefing at the White House
Barack Obama says preventive care 'saves money'
It’s been a staple of health care politics for years -- the claim that preventive care saves money. A little money up front, lots of money saved on the back end. Patients living longer and healthier lives. That makes sense, right?
But while there’s little doubt that preventive care saves lives, the money is a different story. In general, academic studies do not support the idea that paying for preventive care ultimately saves money.
We first published that conclusion in 2009, when we rated True a claim by New York Times columnist David Brooks that preventive care does not save the government money. When President Barack Obama claimed it did save money in a September 2009 speech to Congress, we rated it False.
On Feb. 10, 2012, Obama revived this line of argument. His comments came during a media briefing to announce a partial reversal of a policy that would require church-affiliated organizations such as hospitals to provide a package of free preventive coverage, including contraception. Catholic groups criticized the policy -- which was set in motion by Obama’s health care law in 2010 -- on the grounds that it conflicted with churches’ religious beliefs.
In announcing a partial shift of policy, Obama said, "As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money –- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody. That’s because it’s a lot cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat one."
However, as we wrote in 2009, it’s not true that preventive care generally "saves money."
Brooks' critique relied on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in an Aug. 7, 2009, letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, the top Republican on a congressional subcommittee involved in the debate.
Elmendorf explained that while the cost of a simple test might be cheap for each individual, the cumulative cost of many tests adds up:
"But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it."
In fact, a government policy to encourage prevention could end up paying for services that people are already receiving, including breast and colon cancer screenings and vaccines, Elmendorf said.
Other studies backed up the CBO's analysis, including a Feb. 14, 2008, article in the New England Journal of Medicine that was written in response to campaign promises for more preventive care.
"Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention ... are overreaching," according to the paper. "Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs." They write that "the vast majority" of preventive health measures that were "reviewed in the health economics literature do not" save money.
"Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost," the authors write. "In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient."
Meanwhile, a separate study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."
To make sure that the data hadn’t changed dramatically since we last looked at this issue, we contacted Peter J. Neumann, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies at Tufts Medical Center. He was one of the three co-authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article.
He said the patterns his group found in 2008 have not shifted dramatically since then.
"Sometimes preventive measures save money, sometimes not," Neumann said. "The general message is that it depends."
Milton C. Weinstein, one of Neumann's co-authors, agreed. "In general, the comparative effectiveness literature supports the general proposition that preventive care does not save money," said Weinstein, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Our ruling
As a general notion, the idea that "preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody" is no more true today than it was in 2009. Yes, preventive measures often save lives and keep patients healthier. Certain preventive measures may save money as well. But the findings of CBO and physicians who have studied the medical literature indicate that Obama’s sweeping generalization that preventive services save money is not accurate. We rate the statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...arack-obama-says-preventive-care-saves-money/
[ Real unemployment >15% - but we've got brainless idiots (trolls) in here like akphidelt raving about the economy... ]
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Mitt Romney on Saturday, February 4th, 2012 in a speech in Las Vegas, Nev., on Feb. 4, 2012
Mitt Romney says a broader measure of national unemployment exceeds 15 percent
The last time we rated a Mitt Romney claim on unemployment, we dinged him with a Half True for using a big number without describing it accurately. This time, he got it right.
In a speech after winning the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 4, 2012, Romney said, "If you take into account all the people who are struggling for work or have just stopped looking, the real unemployment rate is over 15 percent."
That's much more accurate than his statement at the Tampa debate on Jan. 23, when he said that "we have 25 million Americans out of work." We rated that Half True, concluding that Romney had used a valid number but had described it incorrectly.
Here’s the background.
Every month, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys a cross-section of Americans to determine, among other things, their employment status. The respondents are characterized as either being in the labor force or out of it.
Those who are out of the labor force are not considered as seeking work at present. Some have no intention of working anytime soon -- they may be full-time students, stay-at-home parents, retired or physically unable to work. But others in this category are considered "marginally attached" to the labor force. They want work, are available to work and have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months -- but by the BLS definition, they do not qualify as being in the labor force because they have not actively searched for work in the previous four weeks.
Now let’s look at those considered to be in the labor force. They are categorized as either employed or unemployed. The "employed" group also has a sub-category -- part-timers who would rather be working full-time but who aren’t due to economic conditions.
For the best-known unemployment rate figure, the BLS divides the total number of the unemployed (that is, those without jobs who are actively looking for work) by the number of people in the labor force (that is, unemployed workers plus employed workers, both full- and part-time).
However, some critics have argued that this definition of unemployment is too limiting. So BLS also offers a broader, alternative measure of "labor underutilization" known as "U-6." It calculates this by dividing the sum of three groups (unemployed, marginally attached to the labor force and working part time for economic reasons) by the sum of the labor force plus marginally attached workers.
To make this methodology more concrete, let’s compare how those numbers looked in January 2012, the most recent month available.
The regular unemployment rate was 8.3 percent. However, the U-6 rate was significantly higher -- 15.1 percent. The difference stems from the fact that many workers are employed part-time when they’d rather be full-time or have given up looking work, at least for now. (Here's a comparison of various BLS measures.)
So Romney is right when he says that "if you take into account all the people who are struggling for work or have just stopped looking, the real unemployment rate is over 15 percent." This is an improvement from his phrasing in the Tampa debate, when he didn’t preface his statistic by noting that he’s referring to the broader, U-6 methodology.
A final bit of context: While it’s certainly bad news to have 15.1 percent of the workforce either unemployed or under-employed, it’s worth noting that this statistic, like the more commonly used unemployment rate, is heading in a favorable direction. After rising as high as 17.2 percent in October 2009, the U-6 is now as low as it’s been since February 2009, the second month of Barack Obama’s presidency.
That said, this level is still historically high. Since the statistic was first published in 1994, it has only broken into double digits for stretches following two previous recessions -- the recessions that hit in 1990-91 and 2001. And the U-6 peaks for those recessions were 11.8 percent and 10.4 percent, respectively -- well below even today’s improved level.
Our ruling
While the U-6 measurement is not the official gauge of unemployment in the United States, it’s a valid statistic to consider in conjunction with others. It's true that BLS describes it as a "labor underutilization" rate rather than an "unemployment" rate, since some of the people it counts are part-time workers who aren't officially "unemployed."
While this distinction is important to PhD economists, we don't think it's a major problem for a speech made to the general public. In other words, for a general audience, we think "the real unemployment rate" is acceptable shorthand for "the labor underutilization rate," especially when a brief description of the measure is provided. So we rate this claim True.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-says-broader-measure-national-unemploy/
[ Yet AKPhiDelt raves that the economy is humming right along... 
hno:^<<^ ]
U.S. ECONOMY SLOWS
9:08AM: Gross domestic product grew 2.2% in the first quarter, down from 3% at the end of 2011.
hno:^<<^ ]U.S. ECONOMY SLOWS
9:08AM: Gross domestic product grew 2.2% in the first quarter, down from 3% at the end of 2011.
Here you go Zit, allow me to pour fuel on the fire.
It cost taxpayers nearly a half-million dollars for first lady Michelle Obama to travel to Spain in 2010, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch.
The right-leaning watchdog group estimated that the trip cost $467,585. It based its analysis on documents obtained from the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Air Force.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said it took his group “two years and a lawsuit to get these documents out of the Obama administration.”
“It is hypocritical for President Obama to fire GSA officials for wasteful conference spending, while his family went on a luxury vacation in the Costa del Sol Spain that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars,” Fitton said.
Among the various travel costs, the group estimated — using the Defense Department’s 2010 published hourly rates — that it cost the government $199,323 to fly to Spain and back to the United States.
The New York Times reported that those on the trip included the first lady, one of her daughters and “two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members.”
Fitton’s group has previously disclosed the cost of sending the first family on overseas trips. Its analysis indicated that it cost $424,142 to fly the first family to South Africa and Botswana in 2011.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the report during a press briefing Thursday.
That’s $891,727 for 2 trips. No wonder Carney had no comment.
It cost taxpayers nearly a half-million dollars for first lady Michelle Obama to travel to Spain in 2010, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch.
The right-leaning watchdog group estimated that the trip cost $467,585. It based its analysis on documents obtained from the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Air Force.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said it took his group “two years and a lawsuit to get these documents out of the Obama administration.”
“It is hypocritical for President Obama to fire GSA officials for wasteful conference spending, while his family went on a luxury vacation in the Costa del Sol Spain that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars,” Fitton said.
Among the various travel costs, the group estimated — using the Defense Department’s 2010 published hourly rates — that it cost the government $199,323 to fly to Spain and back to the United States.
The New York Times reported that those on the trip included the first lady, one of her daughters and “two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members.”
Fitton’s group has previously disclosed the cost of sending the first family on overseas trips. Its analysis indicated that it cost $424,142 to fly the first family to South Africa and Botswana in 2011.
White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to comment on the report during a press briefing Thursday.
That’s $891,727 for 2 trips. No wonder Carney had no comment.
[ Is there anyone in the Obama administration who is not a fucking crook? ]
-
House GOP leaders to pursue plan to hold Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department in contempt for 'stonewalling' them over Fast and Furious information, as Holder claims they are cooperating with investigators.
[ What a pile of hypocritical shit this President is. ]
FLASHBACK: Obama Campaign Accused Clinton Of Using Bin Laden To ‘Score Political Points’ In 2008
(Image Credit: AP Photos)
ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:
The Obama campaign opened up a new line of attack on Mitt Romney Friday, suggesting that as commander-in-chief Romney might not have made the same decision to order an attack by U.S. forces to kill terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden that President Obama did.
In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “Why path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.
But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.
On the eve of the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television commercial featuring an image of bin Laden and invoking President Harry S. Truman’s quote: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”
The ad never mentioned Obama by name, but it was part of the Clinton campaign’s effort to brand the Illinois Senator as inexperienced, especially in the foreign policy arena.
“Who do you think has what it takes?” the ad’s narrator says as an image of Clinton flashes on the screen. (The ad showed a brief clip of bin Laden as well as images of Pearl Harbor, the 1920′s stock market crash, Fidel Castro, the fall of the Berlin Wall). “You need to be ready for anything, especially now.”
The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.
Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.
As backup, the Obama campaign also circulated a 2004 quote from former President Bill Clinton, saying:
“Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.”
FLASHBACK: Obama Campaign Accused Clinton Of Using Bin Laden To ‘Score Political Points’ In 2008
ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:
The Obama campaign opened up a new line of attack on Mitt Romney Friday, suggesting that as commander-in-chief Romney might not have made the same decision to order an attack by U.S. forces to kill terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden that President Obama did.
In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “Why path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.
But four years ago this April, the Obama campaign criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using Osama bin Laden in a political ad.
On the eve of the 2008 Pennsylvania primary, Clinton’s campaign released a television commercial featuring an image of bin Laden and invoking President Harry S. Truman’s quote: “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.”
The ad never mentioned Obama by name, but it was part of the Clinton campaign’s effort to brand the Illinois Senator as inexperienced, especially in the foreign policy arena.
“Who do you think has what it takes?” the ad’s narrator says as an image of Clinton flashes on the screen. (The ad showed a brief clip of bin Laden as well as images of Pearl Harbor, the 1920′s stock market crash, Fidel Castro, the fall of the Berlin Wall). “You need to be ready for anything, especially now.”
The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.
Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.
As backup, the Obama campaign also circulated a 2004 quote from former President Bill Clinton, saying:
“Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.”
McCain Goes Nuclear: “Shame On Barack Obama”
Republicans amp up attacks on Obama for campaigning on Bin Laden's slaying. “Shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act of self-congratulation,” says McCain.
McCain and Mitt Romney last week in Arizona. (AP / Jae C. Hong)
Posted Apr 27, 2012 5:17pm EDT
Here's the Arizona Senator's full statement:
Republicans amp up attacks on Obama for campaigning on Bin Laden's slaying. “Shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act of self-congratulation,” says McCain.
McCain and Mitt Romney last week in Arizona. (AP / Jae C. Hong)
Posted Apr 27, 2012 5:17pm EDT
Here's the Arizona Senator's full statement:
"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad. This is the same President who once criticized Hillary Clinton for invoking bin Laden 'to score political points.'"This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn't 'spike the ball' after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected.
"No one disputes that the President deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy.
"The Obama campaign asks whether Mitt Romney would have made that decision. Of course they want to focus on this one tactical decision because the other decisions this President has made have harmed our national security.
"He turned his back on the people of Iran when they rose up to end their tyrannical, terrorist-supporting, Holocaust-denying government, giving them no assistance as they were crushed in the streets.
"He has repeatedly thrown our ally Israel under the bus and jeopardized our shared security interests.
"He tried to bring Khaled Sheikh Muhammed, the mastermind of 9/11, and other Al-Qaeda terrorists into the middle of New York City to stand trial in a civilian court.
"He disregarded the advice of his military commanders and pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, and Al-Qaeda is making a comeback there as a result.
"He disregarded the advice of his military commanders again by telling our enemies that we are leaving Afghanistan and then putting our mission and our troops at risk by short-changing our commanders on the ground.
"He watches passively while the Assad regime in Syria, Iran's closest ally, kills thousands of its own people in an unfair fight, and his response to this mass atrocity is to create an 'Atrocities Prevention Board.'
"With a record like that on national security, it is no wonder why President Obama is shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act of self-congratulation."
"No one disputes that the President deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy.
"The Obama campaign asks whether Mitt Romney would have made that decision. Of course they want to focus on this one tactical decision because the other decisions this President has made have harmed our national security.
"He turned his back on the people of Iran when they rose up to end their tyrannical, terrorist-supporting, Holocaust-denying government, giving them no assistance as they were crushed in the streets.
"He has repeatedly thrown our ally Israel under the bus and jeopardized our shared security interests.
"He tried to bring Khaled Sheikh Muhammed, the mastermind of 9/11, and other Al-Qaeda terrorists into the middle of New York City to stand trial in a civilian court.
"He disregarded the advice of his military commanders and pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, and Al-Qaeda is making a comeback there as a result.
"He disregarded the advice of his military commanders again by telling our enemies that we are leaving Afghanistan and then putting our mission and our troops at risk by short-changing our commanders on the ground.
"He watches passively while the Assad regime in Syria, Iran's closest ally, kills thousands of its own people in an unfair fight, and his response to this mass atrocity is to create an 'Atrocities Prevention Board.'
"With a record like that on national security, it is no wonder why President Obama is shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act of self-congratulation."
