Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Political scrapbook by Student 8

No description
by

Student Eight

on 9 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Political scrapbook by Student 8

ELECTION 2012 General Election Information TERMS Political Party: A group of people who share the same beliefs about the role of government Party Platform: Basic belief of a party, foundations of their work. Liberal: Usually referring to Democrats, also called "left", originally meaning on who advocates change. Conservative: Usually referring to Republicans, also called "right", originally meaning one who avoids change. National Convention: Meeting of party delegates for the purpose of officially selecting their party's candidate. Debate: A discussion of a public question before an assembly, involving opposing views. Rhetoric: technique used in speeches and public statements to win favor with listeners; using diversion repetition and other strategies to ingrain crowd pleasing policies into listeners minds. Electoral Vote: Votes cast to elect the president based on the popular votes of people in each state. Number of votes per state equals number of Congressmen from that state.There are a total of 538 electoral votes- the candidate with 270 or more votes wins the presidential election. Missouri has 10 votes. Blue State: Predominantly Democratic votes. Red State: Predominantly Republican votes. Swing State: aka battleground or purple state- no party has overwhelming support Partisan: Strong bias towards one party's viewpoint. 5 Major Issues Economy and federal dept
Iraq War
Gas Prices
Healthcare for uninsured
Global Warming Nat Democratic convention Week of September 3rd in Charlotte, NC Rep National Convention week of August 26 in Tampa Bay,Florida Executive Laws
President and VP
Native born US citizen
14 years prior residency
35 years old (at least)
2 term limited Democratic Party Ticket Republican Party Ticket Student 8 ggggggg -Creating Jobs
-Balancing Budget
-Fundamental Tax Principals
-Rebuilding home ownership
-Freedom in the workplace *An economy built to last
*Cutting waste
*Create Jobs
*Protecting rights and freedoms Democratic Party Platform OBAMA ON 5 ISSUES
Supports Abortion
Wants to cut dept in half
Proposed Tax break
approved wavers freeing states from the most requirements
Ordered temporary oratorium Obama's Platform Romney Platform Obama on 5 Main Issues
Supports abortion
Wants to cut dept in half
Proposes tax break
Approved wavers freeing states from the most requirements
Ordered temporary moratorium
Opposes a near term military strike on iran Romney Platform Romney on 5 Main Issues Opposes abortion, unless in cases of of rape, incest, or if the mothers life is in danger
Protests against a labor bill known as The Employee Free Choice Act.
In favor of capital punishment
Offers a full fledged detailed economic plan
Wants to get energy into this country
________________________________________
Romney’s official stance on abortion
By Josh Hicks, Updated: Monday, October 22, 5:02 AM
“Trying to mislead us? That’s wrong. But banning all abortions? Only if you vote for him.”
— Narration from Barack Obama campaign ad, referring to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney engaged in an ad war last week with President Obama, with both sides trying to define the GOP challenger’s stance on abortion. The exchange was no surprise considering that recent polls show Romney closing the gap among women. A USA Today/Gallup poll last week had the Republican virtually tied with his opponent among female likely voters.
Romney’s ad features a woman concluding that, contrary to what the Obama campaign has said, the GOP candidate doesn’t oppose contraceptives or abortion in cases of rape and incest. The president’s team shot back with an ad that shows Romney saying during a 2007 Republican primary debate that he would be “delighted” to sign a bill banning all abortions.
Romney’s abortion positions involved some well-documented twists and turns over the years, but we wondered how accurately the Obama ad depicts his current stance. Let’s take a look at the GOP candidate’s record and examine the full context of his 2007 debate comments.
The Facts
Former Fact Checker columnist Michael Dobbs created a detailed list back in 2007 that details Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on the abortion issue. There is no doubt that the Republican’s stance has evolved.
In terms of Romney supporting a ban on all abortions, we covered this issue in a previous column, noting that the candidate currently supports exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and that “the former governor has shown near perfect consistency on this issue, with one notable exception [the 2007 debate comment].”
Romney’s campaign acknowledged for our previous column that the Republican candidate has unquestionably changed his position on abortion since running for U.S. Senate in 1994 — the year he said during a Planned Parenthood fundraiser that he supported abortion rights, and that he had felt that way since 1970.
Romney basically stuck to that position while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, promising to uphold the status quo on abortion rights. He lived up to that promise but also declared an antiabortion stance midway through his term. Critics have suggested he was eyeing a presidential run at the time.
Romney has said time and again during his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns that he is “unapologetically pro-life” but does not oppose abortions in instances of rape and incest or when the procedure is necessary to protect the life of a mother. This is the same position he proclaims to this day and which his campaign reiterated in its ad last week.
Many conservatives, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and an antiabortion group questioned Romney’s conviction on this issue during the Republican primaries. During one 2007 debate, an audience member submitted a question asking the former governor: “If hypothetically Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?”
Note that this hypothetical scenario involves an unlikely set of circumstances: Either the U.S. Supreme Court has to overturn its previous decision in Roe v. Wade or a majority of the House and Senate would need to reach an agreement on amending the Constitution, followed by both chambers of Congress approving a law to ban all abortions.
Romney sidestepped the “yes or no” part of the debate question by saying, “We should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states.” But debate moderator Anderson Cooper pressed the GOP candidate to answer more directly, asking: “Would you sign the bill?”
Here’s Romney’s full response:
“I’d be delighted to sign that bill. But that’s not where we are. That’s not where America is today — where America is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country — terrific.”
The Obama ad suggested that this isolated answer represents Romney’s one true and current view on abortion. But there are several reasons why this doesn’t make sense.
First, the ad ignores Romney’s official position, which is that abortion should be legal in instances of rape, incest and when it’s necessary to protect a woman’s life.
Second, Romney noted that the nation is not ready to repeal Roe v. Wade. As such, he was talking about an alternate reality. His response suggests he longs for a day when the American conscience shifts toward his “unapologetically pro-life” stance, but not that he will make an effort to upend the status quo.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama’s campaign pulled out the same cropped video clip it used for an older ad claiming that “Romney backed a law that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.” The problem, both in that case and in this one, is that the GOP candidate has said time and again while running for president that abortions should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and when the procedure is necessary to protect a woman’s life.
Furthermore, the circumstances required to outlaw all abortions during a Romney administration have almost no chance of occurring. It would require first for the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade and then a majority in both chambers in Congress (including a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate) to pass a law that a president could sign. An even bigger stretch would be a legislation authorizing a constitutional amendment, which first requires two-thirds majority in each chamber, and then would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Romney has all but invited critics to mischaracterize his abortion stance with nuanced and even shifting abortion positions in past elections. But that doesn’t negate the Republican’s official stance for 2012. The president’s campaign earns Three Pinocchios for its second offense with this clipped footage.
Three Pinocchios


© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Medicare’s future looms large before election _ and after; who might claim a Medicare mandate?
By Associated Press, Published: October 20
WASHINGTON — A little more than two weeks before Election Day, Republicans and Democrats alike say Medicare is working to their political advantage in campaigns for the White House and Congress.
They can’t both be right, and no matter which side is, this is one campaign clash with consequences extending well beyond Nov. 6.
Mitt Romney “would replace guaranteed benefits with a voucher system,” says a commercial that President Barack Obama’s campaign aired in several states this fall. “Seniors could pay $6,000 more a year. A plan AARP says would undermine Medicare,” it adds, making claims that Democrats in congressional campaigns echo in ads of their own from New York to California.
Not surprisingly, Republican presidential nominee Romney describes the issue differently as he describes what he and running mate Paul Ryan want to do.
“You pay into Medicare for years. Every paycheck. Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare. Why? To pay for Obamacare,” one of Romney’s ads says. “The Romney/Ryan plan protects Medicare benefits for today’s seniors and strengthens the plan for the next generation,” it says, a pitch that party strategists say is helping Republicans up and down the ballot blunt a perennial Democratic campaign attack.
Given the millions of dollars both sides are spending, the winner of the presidential election may well be able to claim a Medicare mandate. Add the near certainty that deficit reduction will be prominent on the 2013 agenda. Then factor in the official estimate that the Medicare fund that pays for inpatient care will run out of money in a little more than a decade.
The result is a near-certainty that significant change is coming for a program that provides health care to 49 million beneficiaries, the large majority of them age 65 and older.
Like so much else in a gridlocked capital in the throes of a tight election, much depends on where the argument begins.
A polling advantage on Medicare for Obama and fellow Democrats isn’t surprising because surveys for decades have shown the public favors them on the issue. But a narrowing GOP deficit would be, and that’s what Republicans say is happening, citing surveys in previous years that showed a Democratic advantage on Medicare of 20 points.
The polls vary. A Washington Post-ABC survey this month showed Obama with a 54-41 advantage over Romney on Medicare among likely voters, while a Pew survey made it 46-43 for Obama.
“The Romney/Ryan Medicare message has neutralized the issue,” GOP pollster David Winston wrote in a memo for the American Action Network in August, shortly after Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, was placed on the Republican ticket.
He and others say the passage of Obama’s health care plan has given Republicans a new argument to make — that passage of the legislation involved cutting $716 billion from Medicare over a decade. It’s a point that independent voters dislike about the president more than anything else, according to Charlie Black, a Republican strategist and informal adviser to Romney.
But Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said, “Nobody would put up all these ads if we didn’t believe it was working.”
Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says he has a two-word answer to the GOP claims: Ron Barber. An Arizona Democrat, Barber won a special election in June to replace Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who had been wounded in an assassination attempt. Both parties test-marketed ads on Medicare and Obama’s health law in anticipation of the fall campaign.
The dispute over the ads themselves is no less intense.
Democrats reject the claim they cut Medicare to help finance the health law.
They say that law was financed partially by reducing the projected growth of Medicare, not cutting it. Ironically, it is the same argument that Republicans often fall back on when they are accused of seeking cuts to education or other programs.
Democrats also say that none of the $716 billion came from cuts in guaranteed benefits, but primarily from reductions in projected payments to private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program, as well as reimbursements to hospitals and other providers.
They also note that the health law eliminated the doughnut hole, a gap in coverage that required seniors with especially high prescription drug costs to pay large sums out of pocket.
But Republicans accuse Obama and the Democrats of making false accusations of their own.
They stress that neither Romney nor Ryan has proposed any changes for current beneficiaries or those within 10 years of enrolling in Medicare. They also cite independent fact checks concluding that Democratic claims of a $6,400 increase in out-of-pocket costs for seniors under the GOP approach are bogus, based on an outdated version of Ryan’s plan.
Republicans also say that unlike Ryan’s plan, Romney’s does not include a mandatory cap on growth of the overall program to guarantee budget savings. Romney has yet to release details of his own proposal, or even a comprehensive description of ways in which it differs from his running mate’s blueprint.
There’s no doubt about the millions going into the campaign debate on the issue.
Obama’s campaign seized on Medicare shortly after Romney named Ryan as his running mate. It spent nearly $16 million on ads in eight battleground states for several weeks beginning in mid-August, according to records compiled by ad checkers. Romney spent about $7.7 million over roughly the same time period.
There the issue sat, until Romney’s strong showing in the first debate on Oct. 3 and Obama’s poor one.
Suddenly, the president’s campaign was back on the air attacking Romney over Medicare again, trying to blunt the Republican’s gains in the polls.
Last week, Romney, too, mentioned Medicare in an ad that begins by cataloging the high unemployment and large deficits during Obama’s term. “He just hasn’t been able to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them,” the commercial says.
A similar clash is playing out more than two dozen Senate and House races, largely along the same rhetorical lines.
In California, Democratic challenger Raul Ruiz and the party’s campaign committee have both paid for ads targeting Rep. Mary Bono Mack’s record on Medicare. One accused her of “voting to end Medicare, leaving seniors at the mercy of insurance companies, paying $6,400 more.”
The sixth-term congressman aired an ad of her own, and the National Republican Campaign Committee defended her as well.
“The truth: Mary voted to protect Social Security and Medicare. She always will,” the congresswoman’s ad said, before going on to accuse House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of being behind the ads. It claimed the ads were part of a campaign to put liberals back in charge of the House. “We get more taxes, higher spending, fewer jobs.”
___
Online:
Obama campaign Medicare ad:
Romney campaign Medicare ad:
DCCC ad:
Raul Ruiz ad: http://www.drraulruiz.com/videos
Rep. Mary Bono Mack ad:
NRCC ad: https://www.nrcc.org/video/prescription-ca-36/
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Marriott is mainstay for Romney campaign
By Jason Horowitz, Published: October 14
On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney incessantly talks about his “five points” to get the country moving again, but the only points anyone traveling with the GOP nominee is interested in are Marriott points.
The candidate has made the hotel chain the semi-official innkeeper of his presidential campaign. From Iowa to Ohio to New York City, Romney has wheeled his carry-on bag into Marriott lobbies and passed the omnipresent portrait of J. Willard Marriott and his son, John Willard “Bill” Marriott Jr. — a Romney contemporary, fellow Mormon scion and, along with his brother, a donor of more than $1 million to the Republican’s effort.
The Romneys and Marriotts go way back. J. Willard was a dear friend of Mitt’s father, George, with whom he sold tamales in Washington during the Depression Era. Forty years later, J. Willard Marriott asked his namesake Willard Mitt Romney, a young consultant with Bain & Co., to help with his Roy Rogers fast-food chain. But Bain prevented those at the firm from working for any client who employed their chief competitor, McKinsey & Co., which Marriott did. Or from working in a peripheral part of the business, which Roy Rogers was.
Romney had to call up “Uncle Will” — as he called him — to decline the work, according to Mike Farmer, who accompanied Romney on the sales trip.
But Romney, who once sat on the Marriott board, has stayed loyal to the Marriott empire. And now so has the phalanx of campaign operatives, television producers, camera operators and reporters, checking in behind the candidate with corporate cards in hand. (On Sunday, the Obama campaign press corp was also camped out at a Courtyard Marriott in Williamsburg.)
“It’s our home away from home,” said Rick Gorka, a spokesman for the Romney campaign. “We’ve converted a lot of press.”
To build brand loyalty and try to beat the competition, Marriott rewards guests with lodging’s version of frequent flyer miles for each stay. A steady accumulation of Marriott points bestows first silver, then gold and finally platinum status, each precious metal coming with its own precious perks.
“I’m platinum,” Gorka said proudly as he swirled a large glass of bourbon on the back of the press plane. Having spent at least 150 nights in Marriott hotels since January and racked up a half-million points, he spoke reverentially about the “Taste of Platinum” program. He became almost misty discussing the time the West Palm Beach Marriott upgraded him to a two-bedroom condo with balcony, hot tub, washer and dryer. He said he daydreamed about a prolonged, free stay in a perhaps tropical destination with his girlfriend, who eagerly monitored his point total back home. “Points,” he said, “are gold for us.”
On his way back toward the front of the plane, Gorka hovered over the aqua-blue screen of a reporter’s laptop. She was gazing at the crystalline waters surrounding Marriott’s Scrub Island Resort, Spa & Marina in the Virgin Islands. “It’s a new Marriott, autograph collection” she explained to Gorka. “It’s on a private island, 52 rooms on the marina. It looks amazing.”
“Let me know if you go,” Gorka said.
The day had started, as so many of them do, with Romney staffers and Romney press corps members climbing out of their Marriott mattresses and picking at eggs in a private breakfast room off the lobby, this time of the Columbus Airport Marriott. One of the camera crew interrupted the breakfast of one of the embedded television reporters to ask, “Are you triple platinum now?”
“Oh, yeah,” she responded matter of factly. “I, like, lived in the Marriott New Hampshire. I have 200 free nights.”
It came time to board the bus, and a circle of cameramen discussed the finer points of Marriott points, saying things like “mega bonus.”
“Have you enrolled in the platinum challenge?” one asked this reporter, who had a lowly silver status. He described an alchemy by which every two-night stay results in a free night in another Marriott. As long as it isn’t too high end, interjected a colleague, “Only category three or four, not five.”
The press then loaded onto the bus, following Romney as he campaigned around the state. Then they boarded the plane, flew with him to Boston and boarded another bus to bring them to their hotels. As the coach rolled toward the entrance of the Courtyard Marriott in Waltham, one of the embedded network producers shouted to no one in particular: “Why don’t we stay at the Westin out here? Why does the Marriott own our souls?”
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Romney seeking to narrow Obama advantage with women voters in campaign’s final weeks
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 22, 3:15 AM
VIENNA, Va. — President Barack Obama has been wearing a pink wristband in recognition of breast cancer awareness month and his challenger, Mitt Romney, donned a pink ribbon on his shirt during a factory stop in Ohio.
The symbolic gestures are part of a determined competition in the campaign’s closing weeks for suburban and working women who could help determine the winner in a series of toss-up states.
Women have emerged as the pivotal voting bloc in the aftermath of the second presidential debate, where Obama and Romney sparred over contraceptives and pay inequality and Romney spoke about reviewing “binders full of women” as governor when he sought to diversify his Massachusetts administration.
Some national polls suggest Obama’s longstanding edge with female voters is narrowing, prompting both sides to make an all-out blitz for women.
At the heart of the debate, which is playing out in the suburbs of northern Virginia and in several swing states, is this question: What will most motivate women in the 2012 election?
Romney’s pitch is heavily focused on economic issues — his campaign contends that the vast majority of women will respond to pocketbook issues like paying for gasoline or groceries, the need for more take-home pay and how the federal debt might affect their children.
Obama has emphasized a mix of economic and social issues, warning that Romney’s vow to repeal the Obamacare health law would hurt women and the Republican would fail to protect abortion rights.
Shirley Jackson, an 82-year-old Republican from Vienna, Va., said she continues to support Romney but is worried about how women perceive him. Jackson said she recently facilitated a discussion about the election at her local Red Hat Society meeting and was struck by how many women in the group said they were turned off by Romney’s opposition to abortion rights.
“He has lost a tremendous amount of support among women because of this decision,” Jackson said.
Democrats say Romney’s views on women’s health should be a deal-breaker. Melissa Skelton, 41, a stay-at-home mom from Vienna, said women’s health has overshadowed other issues for multitudes of women — and would help the president.
“I’d rather live with a president who struggles with the economy but cares about people,” she said.
Romney’s campaign is mindful that it does not need to win a majority of women because it maintains a healthy lead among men. But campaign officials say they could severely weaken the president’s re-election chances by slicing into the 13-point margin Obama had with women voters in 2008 and picking off support in swing states where women form a majority of the electorate.
Obama’s team, meanwhile, is trying to take advantage of the president’s personal favorability among women and undermine those voters’ trust in Romney.
Ads have highlighted Romney’s opposition to federal funding for Planned Parenthood and his shifting views on abortion rights, which he supported in Massachusetts but has opposed during his two presidential bids. The Obama ads end with this tagline: “Women need to know the real Mitt Romney.” Abortion-themed ads have been on the rise in recent weeks across the political spectrum, more than tripling in the number of occurrences since mid-September, according to Kantar Media Intelligence.
The campaigns are competing for women in several key suburban markets — including northern Virginia, the Denver suburbs, central Florida and Cleveland’s suburbs — while simultaneously appealing to unmarried women and those with blue-collar backgrounds who have been more vulnerable to the slow economic recovery. Obama won about 70 percent of unmarried women and carried about 60 percent of suburban women in 2008, setting a high bar for the president’s campaign.
The intense effort to reach female voters has grown as national polls have shown cracks in Obama’s support among women. Four years ago, Obama and Republican rival John McCain essentially split men in 2008 but polls have shown Romney with a double-digit lead among males this time.
“The big gender gap I’m looking at right now is Obama’s male gender gap because those men seem pretty cemented in,” said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who served as an adviser to Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. “Whereas there’s a fair amount of women who remain fluid, either completely undecided or soft in their support for either Obama or Romney.”
Romney has sought to distance himself from statements he made on abortion and contraceptives during the Republican primaries while driving home that his economic plan would create jobs for women and their families. Romney’s wife, Ann, has been a key surrogate for her husband, vouching for him before female audiences.
In TV ads, Romney offers a moderate image. In one ad, a woman says that Romney “thinks abortion should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life” but says she’s “more concerned about the debt our children will be left with.” Another spot features women who served under Romney. “He totally gets working women,” says Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Romney’s former environmental affairs secretary.
Obama reminds voters that the first law he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which prevents restrictions on workers filing lawsuits over pay inequity. Romney has not taken a position on the bill but said he wouldn’t repeal it.
At rallies, the president routinely talks about the women in his life: how his grandmother watched men she trained get promoted over her, how education lifted his wife, Michelle, from a modest upbringing and why it wouldn’t be fair if his two daughters earned less than their male counterparts when they eventually join the workforce.
___
Follow Ken Thomas at http://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Obamacare’s rhetoric vs. its reality
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: October 21
Just recently, the Internal Revenue Service issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The difference matters, because the act requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance for those workers. At the same time, no company has to buy insurance for part-time employees, defined as those working less than 30 hours a week.
Here’s a sample:
This notice expands the safe harbor method described in a previous notice to provide employers the option to use a look-back measurement period of up to 12 months to determine whether new variable hour employees or seasonal employees are full-time employees, without being subject to a payment under section 4980H for this period with respect to those employees.
Obamacare has faded as a campaign issue, perhaps because it doesn’t suit either the president or Mitt Romney. It’s not popular, a minus for Barack Obama. Its resemblance to Romney’s Massachusetts program is a minus for him. But Obamacare’s relentless march to full-fledged introduction in 2014 demonstrates that, for all its good intentions, it will make the health-care system more confusing (see above), costly and contentious. It won’t control health spending — the system’s main problem — and will weaken job creation.
Consider the treatment of full-time and part-time workers as an object lesson.
Exempting part-time workers is a concession to practicality. If companies had to provide insurance for all part-time and seasonal workers — often unskilled and poorly paid — the high costs (a worker-only insurance policy can run more than $5,000) would eliminate many jobs or inspire mass evasion. On the other hand, exempting too many “part-time” and “seasonal” workers would make achieving near-universal insurance coverage much harder.
So there’s a balancing act: preserving jobs vs. providing insurance. The problem isn’t small. In September, 34 million workers, about a quarter of total workers, were part-time, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the bureau defines part time as less than 35 hours a week; Obamacare’s 30 hours a week was presumably adopted to expand insurance coverage. There are now 10 million workers averaging between 30 and 34 hours a week. To the bureau, they are part-time; under Obamacare, they’re full-time.
Employers have a huge incentive to hold workers under the 30-hour weekly threshold. The requirement to provide insurance above that acts as a steep employment tax. Companies will try to minimize the tax. The most vulnerable workers are the poorest and least skilled who can be most easily replaced and for whom insurance costs loom largest. Indeed, the adjustment has already started.
As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants — owners of about 2,000 outlets, including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains — is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is “can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience.” The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million.
As a reaction to Obamacare, this makes business sense, but in other ways, it doesn’t. Waiters and waitresses going below 30 hours a week will lose income. They make about $15 an hour with tips, says Jeffers. A server who drops five hours would lose $75 a week. Although some servers under the limit might increase their hours and incomes, jobs will become less attractive because earnings will be effectively capped. Turnover, already 50 percent annually, might rise, as would Darden’s training costs. On average, servers receive 35 hours of training, says Jeffers.
Many companies, especially in the fast-food, retailing and hotel industries, will explore similar changes. Some workers will resent the limits on their wages. Others will think that companies have illegally denied them insurance, even though the IRS guidelines permit much flexibility in calculating who exceeds the 30-hour limit. That’s why the IRS notice is so long and complex. Still, some firms will cheat; enforcement will be hard.
The argument about Obamacare is often framed as a moral issue. It’s the caring and compassionate against the cruel and heartless. That’s the rhetoric; the reality is different. Many of us who oppose Obamacare don’t do so because we enjoy seeing people suffer. We believe that, in an ideal world, everyone would have insurance. But we also think that Obamacare has huge drawbacks that outweigh its plausible benefits.
It creates powerful pressures against companies hiring full-time workers — precisely the wrong approach after the worst economic slump since the Depression. There will be more bewildering regulations, more regulatory uncertainties, more unintended side effects and more disappointments. A costly and opaque system will become more so.
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Obama fires up crowd in Virginia with ‘Romnesia’ speech
By Jerry Markon, Published: October 19
President Obama introduced a new word into the American political lexicon Friday, accusing his GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, of “Romnesia” for changing positions and trying to pivot to the political center.
Before nearly 10,000 supporters at a Virginia rally, Obama smiled, joked and wagged his finger as he mocked Romney’s earlier declaration that he was a “severely conservative” governor of Massachusetts.
“Now that we’re 18 days out from the election, ‘Mr. Severely Conservative’ wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year,’’ Obama said in a speech devoted almost entirely to attacking Romney, and during which he gave little indication of what he would do in a second term if reelected.
Building in intensity, Obama continued: “He’s forgetting what his own positions are, and he’s betting that you will, too. I mean, he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to — we’ve got to — we’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think — I think it’s called ‘Romnesia.’ ”
The crowd roared.
The Romney campaign was not amused. “America doesn’t need a comedy routine; it needs a serious plan to fix the economy,’’ Romney senior adviser Danny Diaz wrote on Twitter.
Added Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokeswoman: “Women haven’t forgotten how we’ve suffered over the last four years in the Obama economy with higher taxes, higher unemployment, and record levels of poverty. President Obama has failed to put forward a second-term agenda — and when you don’t have a plan to run on, you stoop to scare tactics.’’
The renewed skirmishing came as the other candidates converged on the key swing state of Florida ahead of Monday’s final presidential debate in Boca Raton, which is shaping up as critical in a race that polls show is tight nationally and in battleground states.
Vice President Biden and Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), spent their Friday rallying supporters in the Sunshine State, whose 29 electoral votes make it the biggest swing state prize. At one point, Ryan’s campaign jet rolled across the tarmac in Tampa past Biden’s Air Force Two.
Ann Romney and Michelle Obama, both important surrogates as the campaigns battle for an edge among women voters, have events scheduled for South Florida in the coming days. Female voters are a critical bloc that could determine who is elected on Nov. 6, and recent polls have shown Romney cutting into Obama’s lead among them.
With the economy still the key issue in the race, Obama got some potentially good news on Friday: New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the unemployment rate dropped in 41 states last month, including many of the top swing states. Those included Florida, Colorado and Iowa. Yet Florida’s rate, at 8.7 percent, remains higher than the national average, and unemployment is still high across the country.
Romney prepared for the debate Friday morning in New York before flying to Florida. where he appeared with Ryan at a rally in Daytona Beach in the evening.
They spoke to a crowd of thousands of supporters who were warmed up to the singing of country music star John Rich of the group Big and Rich.
Romney said that Obama’s reelection effort has become the “incredibly shrinking campaign.”
“Have you been watching the Obama campaign lately. It’s absolutely remarkable,” Romney said. “They have no agenda.”
But speaking to the tightness of this race, even as Ryan and Romney spoke, a crowd of Obama supporters gathered and shouted “Obama. Four More Years,” drowning out parts of Romney’s 20-minute speech.
Romney’s debate partner, Sen. Rob Portman, as well as top advisers Stuart Stevens, Beth Myers and Dan Senor joined him on the flight to Florida.
It was Romney’s commanding performance in the first presidential debate two weeks ago — along with Obama’s widely panned showing — that reconfigured a race in which the president had been ahead.
Romney on Friday released a new television ad titled “Bringing People Together.” It emphasized his bipartisan credentials, though some Democrats in Massachusetts say Romney worked only sporadically with them during his governorship. But the Romney campaign also apparently senses vulnerability on the subject for Obama, whose political brand in his 2008 campaign was built around his ability to transcend partisan divides.
Yet it was a highly partisan president who spoke on Friday in an open field at George Mason University in the critical battleground state of Virginia. Obama drew chants of “Four more years!” as he bounded onto a podium draped with two blue signs reading “Women’s Health Security.’’
Obama portrayed Romney as a “throwback to the 1950s” who would restrict women’s rights, favor the wealthy and squeeze the middle class.
During his riff on what he called “Romnesia,’’ Obama said: “I’m not a medical doctor, but I — but I do want to go over some of the symptoms with you because I want to make sure nobody else catches it.’’
The crowd hooted.
Obama then listed a series of what he called position changes by Romney, focusing on women’s issues. “You know, if you say you’re for equal pay for equal work, but you keep refusing to say whether or not you’d sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work, you might have ‘Romnesia,’ ’’ Obama said. “If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let your employer deny you contraceptive care, you might have a case of ‘Romnesia.’ ”
The president drew his loudest applause by bringing up the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Chuckling, he said: “If you come down with a case of ‘Romnesia’ and you can’t seem to remember the policies that are still on your Web site, or the promises that you’ve made over the six years you’ve been running for president, here’s the good news: Obamacare covers preexisting conditions.’’
“We can fix you up. We’ve got a cure. We can make you well, Virginia. This is a curable disease.’’
Nia-Malika Henderson, Felicia Sonmez and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Did Obama promise a ‘war on affordable energy’?
By Josh Hicks, Published: October 19 | Updated: Monday, October 22, 10:00 AM
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, it’ll bankrupt them.”
-- Excerpts of Barack Obama interview featured in an American Energy Alliance ad
This ad uses cropped comments from a January 2008 interview between then-Sen. Barack Obama and the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board.
The president’s critics have cited these same comments as proof that the current administration is bent on destroying the fossil-fuel industry and the jobs that go along with it. The American Energy Alliance, a fossil-fuel advocacy group that produced the ad, said on its Web site that “President Obama is waging a war on affordable energy.”
Generally speaking, taped comments are factually accurate, barring any editing to manipulate language or splice together unrelated remarks. But we’re always suspicious when an ad strings together snippets of a discussion. After all, cutting at just the right place can leave a thought incomplete, giving viewers the wrong impression.
Let’s examine Obama’s 2008 interview and his coal-industry policies to determine whether this video provides adequate context. Is the president preventing energy prices from dropping? Has he failed to protect jobs in the coal industry?
The Facts
The comments in this ad appear in reverse chronological order. The remarks about coal-fired plants came first, as the candidate was responding to a question about how he squares his previous support for the coal industry -- including a bill he introduced in 2007 to promote coal-to-liquid fuels -- with his call to fight global climate change.
In his response, Obama insisted that he’d already squared his position, noting he’d voted against the Clear Skies Act of 2005, a failed piece of Republican legislation that would have implemented a cap-and-trade program while loosening air-pollution controls from the Clean Air Act.
But the former senator clarified his overall position by saying that the notion of doing away with coal “is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal, and China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. What we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon, and how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.”
Obama later suggested he did not support taking coal “off the table as an ideological matter,” adding that “if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That, I think, is the right approach.”
This doesn’t sound like a candidate hoping to bankrupt coal. Here is his full response:
<iframe width=”480” height=”360” src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/DpTIhyMa-Nw” frameborder=”0” allowfullscreen></iframe>
So Obama told the Chronicle that he was open to pursuing technology that uses coal in a clean way. That leaves us with the question of what his administration has done in that regard.
In 2009, the Obama administration dedicated $1 billion in economic-stimulus funding toward re-starting a long-stalled program called FutureGen, which aimed to create the first zero-emissions coal plant in the U.S. The George W. Bush administration had put the brakes on that program in early 2008, citing cost overruns.
The Obama administration also committed $1 billion in 2009 toward moving forward with the Clean Coal Power Initiative, a public-private partnership started during the Bush years aimed at developing coal-fired power plants that use carbon capture and storage -- catching the carbon from exhaust and pumping it underground. It also dumped about $3 million into research on clean-coal technology at the university level.
Projects supported by the Clean Coal Power Initiative have fared rather poorly, with three of six having been canceled, according to PolitiFact. But it’s worth noting that the chief executive of one plant said a lack of greenhouse-gas regulation made it impossible to recover the cost of deploying the necessary technology and thereby attract investors.
The coal-mining industry has shown a net increase of about 600 jobs since Obama took office, based on data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The industry reported 94,700 jobs (including contractors) in 2011, which was highest level since 1993. But the sector has lost 9,000 jobs since last year, which doesn’t look good in terms of the direction things are heading.
Part of the problem for the coal industry is that many power plants are switching to natural gas. Coal’s share of electricity generation dropped from 45 percent to 36 percent during the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The U.S. Census Bureau does not track employment for coal-fired power plants in particular, so we haven’t been able to account for the coal industry beyond mining.
As for “cap-and-trade,” Obama promised during the 2008 election that he would set a “hard cap” on carbon emissions with a goal of reducing the levels by 80 percent by 2050. His first budget called for such a program, but the corresponding legislation stalled in Congress and finally died when Republicans gained control of the House in 2011.
Just to clarify, “cap-and-trade” places limits on carbon emissions and allows companies to purchase additional emissions permits from each other. The idea is that heavier polluters could pay lesser polluters, thus creating a financial incentive for lower emissions.
The president hasn’t implemented or even won the necessary congressional support to enact such a program, so it’s hard to test whether his 2008 campaign promise spells doom for the fossil-fuel industry.
However, the Obama administration has adopted tighter regulations on mountain-top mining and emissions of mercury and air toxics for new power plants. Those combined rules are expected make coal extraction and coal-energy production more expensive.
In addition, the Obama administration has proposed stricter limits on soot and greenhouse-gas emissions, which will likely deter many utilities from constructing new coal-fired plants..
In terms of Obama’s reference to skyrocketing electricity prices, he was warning that his proposals could face strong opposition because of the upfront costs. But he also pointed out a few ways to mitigate those increases, such as through energy conservation.
<iframe width=”480” height=”270” src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/ydqg7ThZB04” frameborder=”0” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here’s what the former senator said:
“If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long-term -- because of a combination of more efficient energy uses and changing lightbulbs and more-efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy -- that the economy will benefit. If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson -- you can be the master of Washington -- you’re not going to get that done.”
Indeed, Obama backed cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 that included a provision to mitigate the risk of rising rates. The bill, which died in the Senate due to bipartisan opposition, would have dedicated funds from the carbon-allowance auctions toward protecting consumers from rate hikes.
We should point out that no such cost-shielding provisions apply with the administration’s tighter standards for mountain-top mining, greenhouse-gas emissions and mercury emissions. Those executive policies don’t include the carbon-allowance auctions included in the 2009 cap-and-trade legislation — the auctions would have generated money to help shield consumers.
Even without cap-and-trade, residential electricity rates have risen since Obama took office. But they certainly haven’t skyrocketed. In fact, the rates have grown at a slower pace during the president’s first three years in office (+3 percent) than they did during the same period for his predecessor’s final term (+8 percent).
The falling price of natural gas, which is less than a quarter of what it was four years ago, has had something to do with this slower growth. However, it is questionable whether that trend is due to the current administration’s policies.
For one thing, the Department of the Interior works with five-year lease plans for extraction, and the last one from Bush administration ended just this year. Furthermore, drilling permits on federal land have dropped 37 percent under Obama -- although part of that decline is due to the moratorium that followed the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Pinocchio Test
The American Energy Alliance used cropped footage of Obama’s 2008 interview to suggest the president is bent on raising electricity rates and bankrupting coal-powered energy plants. But the extended version of his remarks show that he supported clean-coal technology and thought it was possible to mitigate the higher electricity rates that would result from cap-and-trade.
Obama’s policies align with those sentiments to some extent. His administration committed money to clean-coal technology, and he backed a cap-and-trade bill that would have provided federal funds to offset potential rate hikes on consumers.
Still, the administration has shown a willingness to unilaterally impose stricter regulations even when it can’t protect consumers from possible impacts — legislation would be needed to create cost-shielding mechanisms.
To review, the missing context in this ad was: 1) Obama said he supports clean coal and 2) he said consumers don’t necessarily have to feel the effects of tighter regulations.
The president has lived up to No. 1, but he has been less mindful of No. 2 when lawmakers — including members of his own party — don’t agree to enact his preferred cap-and-trade program.
We allowed some leeway on this ad because Obama has not always followed through with the sentiments he expressed in his 2008 Chronicle interview. But the American Energy Alliance still omitted imporant parts of what he said at the time about regulation. The group earns One Pinocchio.
One Pinocchio

(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow Fact Checker columnist Glenn Kessler or contributor Josh Hicks on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Obama courts female voters, accuses GOP rival Romney of suffering from a case of ‘Romnesia’
By Associated Press, Published: October 19
FAIRFAX, Va. — President Barack Obama offered a mocking medical diagnosis Friday for what he considers rival Mitt Romney’s bout with shifting positions: “Romnesia.”
Making a direct gender-pitch in hotly contested Virginia, Obama told a crowd of women and college students that when it comes to issues important to women’s health and jobs, Romney has conveniently overlooked his past stands.
“He’s forgetting what his own positions are — and he’s betting that you will too,” Obama told an audience of 9,000 at George Mason University. “I mean he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think it’s called Romnesia.”
Obama, a broad grin on his face, borrowed heavily from the style of comedian Jeff Foxworthy, known for his “you might be a redneck” standup routines. The comedy offered the president a warm-up of sorts before Monday’s final presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla.
“If you say you’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, but you stand up at a primary debate and said that you’d be ‘delighted’ to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, man, you’ve definitely got Romnesia,” he said.
Riffing as if he were still delivering one-liners at Thursday night’s Catholic charity dinner in New York, Obama said he had good news for anyone who suffers from Romnesia. “Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions,” he bellowed. “We can fix you up. We’ve got a cure! We can make you well, Virginia. This is a curable disease,” Obama said, pounding the podium.
Republicans said the exchange was steeped in irony, noting that then-candidate Obama said during a Virginia event in 2008 that voters “don’t deserve a bunch of name-calling” or a “bunch of mud-slinging.”
“Women haven’t forgotten how we’ve suffered over the last four years in the Obama economy,” said Republican Barbara Comstock, a member of Virginia’s House of Delegates.
Obama renewed his criticism of Romney’s economic plan, quoting a line in a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman. “There’s no jobs plan. There’s just a snow job on the American people.”
Obama added, “If he offered you that deal when he was in corporate finance, you wouldn’t give him a dime.” So why, Obama asked, would voters cast their ballots for him.
Obama’s message was aimed at suburban women who form a formidable voting bloc in northern Virginia. The president raised once more Romney’s comment during the second debate that he received “binders full of women” when he sought to diversify his cabinet as Massachusetts governor. “You don’t want someone who needs to ask for binders of women. You don’t want that guy,” Obama said.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
Did Obama promise a ‘war on affordable energy’?
By Josh Hicks, Published: October 19 | Updated: Monday, October 22, 10:00 AM
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, it’ll bankrupt them.”
-- Excerpts of Barack Obama interview featured in an American Energy Alliance ad
This ad uses cropped comments from a January 2008 interview between then-Sen. Barack Obama and the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board.
The president’s critics have cited these same comments as proof that the current administration is bent on destroying the fossil-fuel industry and the jobs that go along with it. The American Energy Alliance, a fossil-fuel advocacy group that produced the ad, said on its Web site that “President Obama is waging a war on affordable energy.”
Generally speaking, taped comments are factually accurate, barring any editing to manipulate language or splice together unrelated remarks. But we’re always suspicious when an ad strings together snippets of a discussion. After all, cutting at just the right place can leave a thought incomplete, giving viewers the wrong impression.
Let’s examine Obama’s 2008 interview and his coal-industry policies to determine whether this video provides adequate context. Is the president preventing energy prices from dropping? Has he failed to protect jobs in the coal industry?
The Facts
The comments in this ad appear in reverse chronological order. The remarks about coal-fired plants came first, as the candidate was responding to a question about how he squares his previous support for the coal industry -- including a bill he introduced in 2007 to promote coal-to-liquid fuels -- with his call to fight global climate change.
In his response, Obama insisted that he’d already squared his position, noting he’d voted against the Clear Skies Act of 2005, a failed piece of Republican legislation that would have implemented a cap-and-trade program while loosening air-pollution controls from the Clean Air Act.
But the former senator clarified his overall position by saying that the notion of doing away with coal “is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal, and China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. What we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon, and how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.”
Obama later suggested he did not support taking coal “off the table as an ideological matter,” adding that “if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. That, I think, is the right approach.”
This doesn’t sound like a candidate hoping to bankrupt coal. Here is his full response:
<iframe width=”480” height=”360” src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/DpTIhyMa-Nw” frameborder=”0” allowfullscreen></iframe>
So Obama told the Chronicle that he was open to pursuing technology that uses coal in a clean way. That leaves us with the question of what his administration has done in that regard.
In 2009, the Obama administration dedicated $1 billion in economic-stimulus funding toward re-starting a long-stalled program called FutureGen, which aimed to create the first zero-emissions coal plant in the U.S. The George W. Bush administration had put the brakes on that program in early 2008, citing cost overruns.
The Obama administration also committed $1 billion in 2009 toward moving forward with the Clean Coal Power Initiative, a public-private partnership started during the Bush years aimed at developing coal-fired power plants that use carbon capture and storage -- catching the carbon from exhaust and pumping it underground. It also dumped about $3 million into research on clean-coal technology at the university level.
Projects supported by the Clean Coal Power Initiative have fared rather poorly, with three of six having been canceled, according to PolitiFact. But it’s worth noting that the chief executive of one plant said a lack of greenhouse-gas regulation made it impossible to recover the cost of deploying the necessary technology and thereby attract investors.
The coal-mining industry has shown a net increase of about 600 jobs since Obama took office, based on data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The industry reported 94,700 jobs (including contractors) in 2011, which was highest level since 1993. But the sector has lost 9,000 jobs since last year, which doesn’t look good in terms of the direction things are heading.
Part of the problem for the coal industry is that many power plants are switching to natural gas. Coal’s share of electricity generation dropped from 45 percent to 36 percent during the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The U.S. Census Bureau does not track employment for coal-fired power plants in particular, so we haven’t been able to account for the coal industry beyond mining.
As for “cap-and-trade,” Obama promised during the 2008 election that he would set a “hard cap” on carbon emissions with a goal of reducing the levels by 80 percent by 2050. His first budget called for such a program, but the corresponding legislation stalled in Congress and finally died when Republicans gained control of the House in 2011.
Just to clarify, “cap-and-trade” places limits on carbon emissions and allows companies to purchase additional emissions permits from each other. The idea is that heavier polluters could pay lesser polluters, thus creating a financial incentive for lower emissions.
The president hasn’t implemented or even won the necessary congressional support to enact such a program, so it’s hard to test whether his 2008 campaign promise spells doom for the fossil-fuel industry.
However, the Obama administration has adopted tighter regulations on mountain-top mining and emissions of mercury and air toxics for new power plants. Those combined rules are expected make coal extraction and coal-energy production more expensive.
In addition, the Obama administration has proposed stricter limits on soot and greenhouse-gas emissions, which will likely deter many utilities from constructing new coal-fired plants..
In terms of Obama’s reference to skyrocketing electricity prices, he was warning that his proposals could face strong opposition because of the upfront costs. But he also pointed out a few ways to mitigate those increases, such as through energy conservation.
<iframe width=”480” height=”270” src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/ydqg7ThZB04” frameborder=”0” allowfullscreen></iframe>
Here’s what the former senator said:
“If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long-term -- because of a combination of more efficient energy uses and changing lightbulbs and more-efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy -- that the economy will benefit. If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson -- you can be the master of Washington -- you’re not going to get that done.”
Indeed, Obama backed cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 that included a provision to mitigate the risk of rising rates. The bill, which died in the Senate due to bipartisan opposition, would have dedicated funds from the carbon-allowance auctions toward protecting consumers from rate hikes.
We should point out that no such cost-shielding provisions apply with the administration’s tighter standards for mountain-top mining, greenhouse-gas emissions and mercury emissions. Those executive policies don’t include the carbon-allowance auctions included in the 2009 cap-and-trade legislation — the auctions would have generated money to help shield consumers.
Even without cap-and-trade, residential electricity rates have risen since Obama took office. But they certainly haven’t skyrocketed. In fact, the rates have grown at a slower pace during the president’s first three years in office (+3 percent) than they did during the same period for his predecessor’s final term (+8 percent).
The falling price of natural gas, which is less than a quarter of what it was four years ago, has had something to do with this slower growth. However, it is questionable whether that trend is due to the current administration’s policies.
For one thing, the Department of the Interior works with five-year lease plans for extraction, and the last one from Bush administration ended just this year. Furthermore, drilling permits on federal land have dropped 37 percent under Obama -- although part of that decline is due to the moratorium that followed the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Pinocchio Test
The American Energy Alliance used cropped footage of Obama’s 2008 interview to suggest the president is bent on raising electricity rates and bankrupting coal-powered energy plants. But the extended version of his remarks show that he supported clean-coal technology and thought it was possible to mitigate the higher electricity rates that would result from cap-and-trade.
Obama’s policies align with those sentiments to some extent. His administration committed money to clean-coal technology, and he backed a cap-and-trade bill that would have provided federal funds to offset potential rate hikes on consumers.
Still, the administration has shown a willingness to unilaterally impose stricter regulations even when it can’t protect consumers from possible impacts — legislation would be needed to create cost-shielding mechanisms.
To review, the missing context in this ad was: 1) Obama said he supports clean coal and 2) he said consumers don’t necessarily have to feel the effects of tighter regulations.
The president has lived up to No. 1, but he has been less mindful of No. 2 when lawmakers — including members of his own party — don’t agree to enact his preferred cap-and-trade program.
We allowed some leeway on this ad because Obama has not always followed through with the sentiments he expressed in his 2008 Chronicle interview. But the American Energy Alliance still omitted imporant parts of what he said at the time about regulation. The group earns One Pinocchio.
One Pinocchio

(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow Fact Checker columnist Glenn Kessler or contributor Josh Hicks on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
© The Washington Post Company
________________________________________
In battle for Hispanic voters, Obama’s immigration stance gives him a big edge
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 22, 10:34 AM
LAS VEGAS — Elizabeth Alvisar is exactly the sort of voter Mitt Romney needs.
A victim of the brutal economy in this swing state, the 30-year-old tax preparer has been out of work for months. She’s a foe of abortion and gay marriage, and was naturally drawn to the Republican ticket.
But Alvisar has switched her support to President Barack Obama because of his support for legislation known as the DREAM Act. While Democrats failed to get the bill through Congress, Obama in June announced a change in policy to implement its key provision — allowing young people brought into the country without authorization as children to avoid deportation if they graduate high school or join the military.
“I have a lot of friends who’ve taken advantage of that opportunity,” Alvisar said.
In the heavily Hispanic neighborhood where Alvisar lives, unemployment is high and home values are down. But Obama’s immigration stance, and especially his executive order, has locked in support from a fast-growing demographic group that has been trending sharply Democratic in the wake of increasingly hard-line Republican positions on immigration.
Obama’s campaign is counting on Hispanics providing the margin of victory not just in Nevada, but also in other swing states such as Colorado, Iowa, Virginia and North Carolina
“They know that he’s on the right side of the immigration issue and wants to work with Congress for comprehensive immigration reform,” deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said. “They know he wakes up every day and thinks about how to secure the middle class and make it easier for young people to enter the middle class.”
The importance of Hispanics as a voting bloc and immigration as an election-year issue was brought home during last week’s presidential debate. Obama reminded viewers that Romney, who went hard to the right on the issue during the GOP primaries, had argued for “self-deportation” to solve the illegal immigration problem and took advice on the issue from the law professor who helped write Arizona’s controversial immigration statute. The Republican challenger noted that Obama had promised to pass an immigration overhaul and had failed.
The Romney campaign says Hispanics, enduring a 9.9 percent jobless rate, which is more than 2 points higher than the national average, are a natural draw for the GOP ticket. “Hispanics are hurting almost more than any other demographic group under the Obama economy,” Romney’s Spanish-speaking son Craig, a frequent surrogate in the Hispanic community, said in a brief interview. “They’re really struggling and they understand that this president has failed them and we need someone who understands how to create jobs.”
The Romney campaign opened an office here in September and last week hosted New Mexico’s popular Hispanic governor, Susana Martinez, in an effort to cut into Obama’s edge in East Las Vegas, home to 42 percent of Nevada’s Hispanic population.
But even some Romney supporters are pessimistic that Republicans can make inroads with a population that, many polls show, favors Obama by a 2-to-1 margin.
“It’s going to take several years because we haven’t engaged this community at all,” said Joel Garcia, a conservative who formed a coalition to recruit Hispanics here. “You’ve got a lot of Hispanics who are conservative in how they live their lives and their values, but there’s this hook in their mouth pulling them left called immigration.”
Much like any other group, Hispanics often list the economy, jobs and education as top issues in polls. But the acrimonious immigration debate of the past decade has given that issue extra weight for them. “What started as a war on illegal immigration is now being perceived as a war on Latinos,” said Matt Barreto, who polls Hispanics for the company Latino Decisions.
Nevada is a prime example of that dynamic. In 2010, Hispanics helped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid win re-election against a tea party candidate who promoted her staunch anti-illegal immigration stance. Republican Brian Sandoval, a Hispanic who was elected governor at the same time, only won 33 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Until Obama’s executive order, Hispanic activists were frustrated that Obama had not pursued plans to legalize more illegal immigrants. Instead, his administration was deporting them in record numbers.
“Before President Obama made his decision to go forward with deferred action, it was pretty dismal,” said Vicenta Montoya, an immigration attorney and Democratic activist. “I was going to vote for Obama but it wasn’t going to be with grand enthusiasm.”
Now Obama’s order has fired up Montoya and others in East Las Vegas, a swath of shopping centers, tire shops and weathered ranch houses sprawling east from the Strip. It’s the neighborhood of the often-unionized people who make Sin City function — housekeepers, card dealers and taxi drivers.
For some, Obama’s order pulled them into politics. Earlier this month, Hector Rivera’s father asked him what he was going to do with his future. Rivera, a high school senior who was brought into the United States without authorization when he was 5, went to the East Las Vegas Obama campaign office and volunteered.
The teenager already has applied for documents allowing him to work under Obama’s program. “It’s an opportunity for me and future generations,” said Rivera, 17, imagining how his own unborn children could benefit someday. “Even though they’ll be born here, I want to get a better job to give them a better opportunity so they can live a better life.”
Others, like Sergio Solis, have suffered economically but see the president as on their side. Solis had to close a restaurant in Southern California and move here to work as a salesman for an energy company. But, after approvingly mentioning the DREAM Act, Solis said it will take time to correct the country’s course following the eight years of the George W. Bush administration.
“This building here, I can dynamite it and destroy it in five minutes,” Solis said, gesturing to a supermarket where he was handing out brochures. “But I can’t build it back up in five minutes.”
The Romney campaign’s East Las Vegas office shares a strip mall with a bail bond company and a tortilleria. It opened after volunteers in the neighborhood urged the campaign to set up shop closer to their homes, so they didn’t have to drive to the suburbs to phone-bank or collect yard signs.
Susana Loli, 56, is thrilled. The hotel housekeeper didn’t vote for Obama in 2008. But as the economy collapsed before his inauguration, she hoped he could keep the country healthy. Now her side business fixing garage doors has shriveled, and she had to sell family property in Peru to stave off foreclosure on her Nevada house.
“With Mitt Romney, we’ll have a better future for my children and grandchildren,” Loli said. “The Latinos who are going to vote for Obama haven’t studied the problem. When you talk to them and explain the situation, then they understand.”
Ana Maria Gonzalez, 50, was disappointed that some Hispanics support Obama because of his executive order. She backs Romney because of her faith in his business acumen and moral values, but also because she thinks he’s more likely to deliver a humane overhaul of the country’s immigration system.
“In four years, President Obama did nothing,” Gonzalez said, adding, that she was certain Romney would come up with a way to let DREAM Act youth and other deserving illegal immigrants stay in the country.
___
Follow Nicholas Riccardi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/nickriccardi
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© The Washington Post Company United States Senator TODD AKIN CLAIRE MCCASKILL Republican Democrat Senators are assigned to serve on committees, in which they review bills, or proposed laws. There are 20 committees, 68 subcommittees and four joint committees. Each committee focuses on a different topic, including budget, health, education, foreign relations, transportation and homeland security. Once a bill is passed in committee, all senators are responsible for voting on it. The Senate also has the power to impeach the president. http://www.ehow.com/facts_5155425_job-description-senator.html LIBERTARIAN JONATHAN DINE Governor REPUBLICAN- Dave Spence
DEMOCRAT- Jay Nixon(Incombant)
LIBERTARIAN- Jim Higgins http://www.whyzz.com/what-does-a-governor-do Each governor has a lot of responsibility. He or she picks other state leaders, chooses how to spend money for the state, helps the state follow new laws and programs, and searches for ways to make the state better. It’s important for governors to understand problems that the people in their state are facing so that they can choose programs and actions that can help fix those problems. _______________________________________________________________________ Lt. Governor Republican- Peter Kinder Democrat- Susan Montee Constitution- Cynthia Davis Libertarian- Matthew Copple The lieutenant governor is actually quite important in the state government. He goes to all the Senate meetings and if they are tied on a certain matter, his vote counts as the last one.

It depends on the the region in question.

In the United States, for example, the Lieutenant Governor in each state primarily serves as stand-in if the Governor is ever unable to perform his duties. Certain states have more powers assigned to the Lieutenant Governor such as speaker of the house of representatives http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_lieutenant_governor_do Treasurer Republican- Cole McNary As Treasurer, you are responsible for looking after all the financial matters
of the club. You need to monitor what comes into the club (income) as well
as record what is going out (expenditure). This is to ensure that at the end
of the financial year a set of accounts can be drawn up to view at the AGM
and to pass to the Charities Commission, as a requirement of being a
registered charity is to give them a set of accounts once a year http://www.worcsyfc.org.uk/club_roles/WFYFC%20Treasurers%20Notes.pdf Democrat- Clint Zweifel Secretary of State Republican- Shane Schoeller Democrat- Jason Kindler The Secretary of State oversees and advises the President on U.S. foreign policy; serving the role equivalent of Foreign Ministry. In addition, the S.O.S. oversees all diplomatic relations with other countries; with the exception of some military endeavors. The S.O.S is responsible for protocol functions for the White House. Protocol can best be described as a set of international courtesy rules. http://www.wereyouwondering.com/what-does-the-secretary-of-state-do/ In the United States, the Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice and the chief lawyer for the country. They are responsible for all law enforcement and legal matters. The A.G. is a member of the president’s cabinet, appointed by the president and serves at the president’s pleasure. They, along with the Postmaster General are the only cabinet members not to have the title of Secretary http://www.wereyouwondering.com/what-does-the-attorney-general-do/ Attorney General Republican- Ed Martin Democrat- Chris Koster (incombant) (Incombant) (Incombant) Republican governor candidate Dave Spence is using a failed sweetener manufacturing plant to criticize Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's handling of economic development.
Spence campaigned in Moberly, which was to be home to Mamtek U.S., a proposed $39 million industrial development. The deal fell through and the former head of the company is facing fraud and stealing charges. Up to $17 million in state incentives were authorized for the project but never paid.
Spence said Wednesday the Mamtek problems could have been avoided with "a lick of common sense." He called it an example of seeking publicity and not doing sufficient research and due diligence.
Nixon campaign spokeswoman Channing Ansley says no state tax money was lost in the failed project because Missouri had strong protections in place. Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Spence called for improved efforts on economic development while campaigning Wednesday near an abandoned artificial sweetener plant that Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon had said could employ more than 600 people.

Spence said the failure of the Mamtek U.S. plant could have been avoided with a "lick of commonsense" and sufficient research and due diligence. He said a similar project would not get through under his watch and that Nixon owes an apology.

"Mamtek represents what happens when you try to go for photo ops and headlines and not do what business is intended to do," Spence said. "Anybody in the real world, anybody who's in the private sector would have picked up in two seconds that this was not a viable project."

Mamtek received $39 million in industrial development bonds from Moberly and authorization for up to $17 million of state incentives to build an artificial sweetener plant in the central Missouri city about 30 miles north of Columbia. Construction was halted on the partially completed facility after the company missed a bond payment in August 2011.

Bruce Cole, the chairman and CEO of Mamtek, has been charged with theft and securities fraud and is accused of using bond revenues to avoid foreclosure on his home in Beverly Hills, Calif. The federal Securities Exchange Commission also has filed a lawsuit against Cole seeking financial penalties. Last week, the remaining assets for the plant were sold at auction by UMB Bank, the trustee for bondholders.

Nixon's administration frequently has said no state incentives were paid to Mamtek, but Spence countered that the state incentives helped prompt Moberly to issue its bonds.

"The fact is that no state tax dollars were lost on that project because Missouri has strong protections in place for taxpayers," Nixon campaign spokeswoman Channing Ansley said.

Ansley highlighted a business deal of Spence's in New York that led to his company repaying $75,000 worth of incentives after failing to meet job targets.

Spence's company bought a Brooklyn-based plastics manufacturer and received a $125,000 grant from New York's main economic development agency. The grant called for keeping the facility's 55 full-time employees and adding 45 workers by January 2006. In March 2005, the New York agency said the job requirements were not met and that 60 percent of the grant should be returned. No payment immediately was made, and the New York agency filed a lawsuit in December 2005. The company wrote a check the next month.

Spence's campaign has said New York was not a business-friendly state. It has said criticism of the business deal was an effort to distract from a poor record of economic growth in Missouri.

In an interview after a Columbia campaign appearance highlighting his work to expand disability services, Nixon reiterated his spokeswoman's comments that the state didn't pay any tax incentives for the Mamtek project. The governor also criticized his opponent for voting in early 2011, as a board member of Reliant Bancshares, to forgo repaying a $40 million bailout from the federal government. Spence resigned from the bank board shortly after that vote and has said regulators actually suggested the bank not repay the money because of its continued financial struggles.

"We paid zero during that process," Nixon said of Mamtek. "Much different than what the taxpayers had to pay when he voted not to pay the taxpayers back when he was on a bank (board)."

Missouri's economy has been a focal point in the governor's race as voters head to the polls next week.

The two candidates have offered different interpretations of how Missouri is doing. Nixon has touted declines in the state's unemployment rate and this week told autoworkers that Missouri's auto plants have added 3,200 jobs during his four-year term in office. Spence said the state's job picture is not rosy and that many Missourians simply have stopped looking for work. In an era when almost every issue related to our health has been politicized, we sometimes fail to recognize opportunities to improve health in a bipartisan manner. This is the case for Missouri voters on Tuesday, when we have the opportunity to vote yes on Proposition B. Proposition B will increase the sales tax from the lowest in the U.S., 17 cents per pack, to 90 cents per pack. A yes vote on Proposition B can help save lives by the thousands, while reducing health care costs.

Cigarettes are sophisticated nicotine delivery devices, designed to efficiently deliver nicotine into the blood via the lungs, where it is rapidly taken to the brain to produce dependence and then addiction. Producing addiction to nicotine in the victim so that he will continue to buy the product is the intent of the cigarette design. Once addicted, in spite of understanding that these nicotine delivery devices increase their risk of suffering and death, cigarette smokers usually continue to smoke unless presented with barriers to smoking, and help with smoking cessation. Ask anyone who has been addicted to cigarette smoking; it is very difficult to quit.

Cigarette companies, and those who sell cigarettes, know that teenagers are especially vulnerable to pressures to smoke. If teenagers become addicted to cigarettes, cigarette companies often have customers for life. Establishing barriers, such as higher cigarette sales taxes, reduce the rates of teen smoking. High cigarette taxes have been proven to provide initial incentives that push more adults to seek medical care to stop smoking and enroll in smoking cessation programs.

If Proposition B passes, the best data suggest that we will experience an almost 12 percent reduction in teen smoking and prevent more than 40,000 Missouri youths from starting to smoke. More than 30,000 adult smokers in Missouri will likely quit smoking, and more than 20,000 premature deaths from smoking-caused diseases will be prevented over a very few years. More than 8,000 smoking-exposed pregnancies will be prevented. Furthermore, those of us who do not smoke will have less exposure to passive smoking, further reducing the risk of smoking-related diseases.

Passing Proposition B will result in huge health care cost savings over five years — $4.95 million from fewer cases of lung cancer, $17.69 million from fewer pregnancies exposed to cigarette smoke, and $11.8 million from fewer heart attacks and strokes. Over the long term, Missouri will save about $1.37 billion from health care cost savings from reduced teen and adult smoking.

Our politicians have failed to lead on this issue. Most of our politicians, including Gov. Jay Nixon and his challenger, Dave Spence, have failed to support Proposition B. These politicians have wrongly allowed these discussions to be framed in the context of their vows to not increase taxes. Proposition B is a health issue, with the incentives designed to help smokers to pay zero cigarette sales tax by encouraging them to stop smoking.

Those who are organized to oppose Proposition B are owners of convenience stores, many of which are located on one of our borders with eight other states that have much higher cigarette sales taxes than Missouri. These convenience store owners make money, and lots of it, by luring customers from our local communities and from across state lines into their stores where they sell large quantities of cigarettes. These convenience store owners, who are responsible for the television ads and billboards attacking Proposition B, are acting to protect their profits from cigarette sales rather than working to prevent thousands of deaths among our citizens.

Ignore our politicians who are not leading, and who hide behind their promises to not raise taxes. Shun the arguments of convenience store owners, who are more interested in profits from nicotine addiction than the lives of Missouri citizens. Vote yes on Proposition B, and save lives while reducing health care costs. PERRY COUNTY ELECTION US Rep Republican- Joanne Emmerson Democrat- Jack Rushkin A United States Representative is supposed to be the common persons voice in the United States government. The House Of Representatives joins the Senate in forming the legislative arm of our government, that part which writes and passes laws. Because a Representative only serves a two year term, it was thought that they would be more in touch with the average person, as opposed to Senators, who serve a six year term, and are more likely to be older, more affluent, and removed from everyday life. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_role_of_a_US_Representative State Senator District 27 Republican- Wayne Wallingford http://www.google.com/search?q=jo+ann+emerson%5C&hl=en&safe=active&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=UbWSUKHkOuryyAGQw4C4Dw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=783 Serves in the Texas Senate – at the pleasure of the voting electorate of a particular district– for a four-year term
• Serves on the various Senate committees at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor
• Proposes legislation, and considers legislation proposed by his/her colleagues for passage
• Seeks to represent the will of the district’s constituency in all legislative matters
• Receives inquiries from constituents who may need assistance with a state agency
• Receives inquiries from constituents who wish to voice opinions on matters before the legislature, or who wish to advocate for the proposal of legislative changesAs a body, the State Senate holds the power of advice and consent on gubernatorial appointments to state boards and commissions
• The only requirements of the entire State Legislature are those of addressing the biennial appropriations (or budget) that must originate in the House, as well as the re-drawing of legislative districts (redistricting) after the decennial census. http://www.johncarona.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16 State Representative District 116
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Engler Shelley Keeney Republican District 145 1. Vote on laws.

2. Assist people with constituent services.

3. Try to improve the communities they represent.

4. Protect the taxpayers money by making sure tax dollars are spent on education, affordable housing, reasonable transportation, fire and police protection, etc. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_State_Representative_do Circuit Judge Republican- Ben Lewis In general, a circuit judge conducts trials, makes judgments, and must constantly research and stay abreast of changes in the law. Conducting trials requires a judge to hear disputes and decide who should win a case. To make decisions in a trial, a judge must know the rules for conducting a trial. He or she must also understand the laws that control a particular subject matter. A judge must also have the skills to put decisions in writing. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-circuit-judge-do.htm Perry County Sheriff Republican- Gary Schaff Democrat- Ted Christisen The Sheriff is the chief of law enforcement for a county

The Sheriff is the chief of law enforcement for a county http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_sheriff_do Perry County Assessor Republican-Charles Triller Locates and identifies all taxable property in the county.
· Establishes taxable value for all property subject to property taxation.
· Completes the assessment roll showing the assessed values of all properties.
· Applies all legal exemptions http://www.buttecounty.net/Assessor/What%20the%20Assessor%20Does.aspx Perry County Public Administrator Republican- Tammy Tarrillion The Public Administrator is a public official who performs the job of a guardian, conservator or personal representative when there is no one else who can be found or is capable of performing the job.



A Public Administrator has the same responsibility as any other administrator.



Most guardians, conservators and personal representatives that are appointed are family members or friends of the ward/protectee.



The Public Administrator is appointed in the following circumstances:

? When there is no family or friends of the ward/protectee.

? There is significant disharmony in the family.

? When an administrator is appointed and the court removes them for not performing their duties http://osagecountygov.com/osage-county-offices/public-administrator/ Perry County Surveyor Republican- Tim Bear The primary duty of a county surveyor is to establish and record accurate property boundaries for a variety of purposes. To be chosen to perform these duties, a surveyor is usually certified as a land surveyor and has fulfilled the necessary county surveyor requirements. In most of the United States, the job is an elected position, and a qualified candidate is elected for four years. Global counterparts have duties and responsibilities that are similar, but because the geopolitical structure of countries outside the United States is typically different, the exact counterpart of the elected surveyor is unlikely to be found. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are chartering organizations for surveyors such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), which certifies and regulates member surveyors http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-county-surveyor-do.htm Perry County Coroner Democrat- Herbert Miller Coroners, or the people who ultimately determine one's cause of death, are among them, though it is common to confuse the role of a coroner with that of a medical examiner. This guide helps set the record straight. http://www.whatdoesado.com/coroner.htm Obama is controlling what people should say Obama is telling reporters what to say Obama and Mitt are fighting for president Romney wants to remove Sesame Street Obama doesn't help the middle class and they are saying that they don't want Obama again Saying that Republicans are lying Both are trying to get the final voters No matter what Mitt does Obama is going to win Some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. Do you have any regrets about that? ELECTION RESULTS PRESIDENT/ VP GOVERNOR Lt. GOVERNOR TREASURER SECRETARY OF STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL US REP STATE SENATOR DISTRICT 27 STATE REP DISTRICT 116 DISTRICT145 CIRCUIT JUDGE SHERIFF ASSESSOR PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR SURVEYOR CORONER Barack Obama Joe Biden Claire McCaskill Jay Nixon SENATOR Peter Kinder Clint Zweifel Robin Carnahan Chris Koster Keven Engler US REP Joanne Emmerson Shelley Keeney Ben Lewis Wayne Wallingford Gary Schaff Charles Triller Tammy Tarrillion Tim Bear Herbert Miller Obama Victory Speech Mitt Concession Speech Most Often Words MITT OBAMA President America Principals Country Believe America What I think about Barack Obama I think he will help the older people but he wont help my future.
I think he gives to much money to people who could get jobs but just dont.
He helps the rich and poor but not so much the middle class. What I think about Mitt Romney I think he would help my future better than Obama.
He does more for the middle class but not so much the rich and poor.
He would help get more jobs.
Full transcript