Romney hits Obama, Santorum in Illinois

Mitt Romney made a pitch to struggling Illinois voters this weekend that he was the "economic heavyweight" who could turn around the economy if elected president in November.

The former Massachusetts governor also ramped up his criticism of President Barack Obama's handling of gas prices, using personal terms to tell an American Legion pancake breakfast in Moline that he knew how high fuel costs affected a family's bottom line.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"You've got moms that are driving their kids to school and practice after school and other appointments and wonder how they can afford putting gasoline in the car, at the same time putting food on the table night after night," Romney said. "The American people are struggling."

Romney accused Obama of learning about the economy "probably by debating it in subcommittees here in Illinois and subcommittees back in Washington, D.C." and again called for the ouster of three top Obama officials for failing to hold down gas prices.

In previous speeches in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney has said expanding domestic oil production could help lower prices in the long-term.

Repeatedly referring to himself as "an economic heavyweight," Romney said his rivals – including Obama as well as fellow Republican contender Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator – just couldn't stack up.

"Sen. Santorum has the same economic lightweight background that the president has," Romney said, painting himself as the best candidate to take on Obama. "We've got to get an economic heavyweight to replace the economic lightweight."

Romney criticized Santorum as the race for Illinois' delegates shifted into high gear. Voters in the Land of Lincoln head to the polls on Tuesday in the latest battle between the leading Republican contenders.

Over the next two days, Romney will criss-cross the state, with events in Rockford, Vernon Hills, Springfield, Chicago and Peoria.

Source http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/18/romney-hits-obama-santorum-in-illinois/

Obama supporters pick Patriots, GOPers go for Giants?

Super Bowl Sunday offers no respite from partisan bickering in this presidential election year.

A Silicon Valley startup found a strong overlap between how people feel about who will win today's big game and who they'd like to see win the presidential election in the fall.

Mountain View-based Saygent conducted a survey asking 205 people for their Super Bowl predictions and then did a bit of data crunching using its voice response and analysis platform. Saygent's algorithm looked at the way people talked about the teams and the game ("by analyzing the way people talk about the game we can infer who is actually knowledgeable and who is taking a stab in the dark," the company says).

Saygent then filtered out "people with very low trust or a strong bias" to come up with a prediction from its "trusted crowd" of 90. The result? the New England Patriots by three points.

That's almost identical to the official line, which had the Pats by 2.5 points at last check, and is--frankly--not that interesting.

But Saygent, in what it admits is not an exact science, also asked people in the same survey who they planned to vote for for president. When it took a look at those political preferences, it revealed quite a rift:

Source http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57371672-1/obama-supporters-pick-patriots-gopers-go-for-giants/

Obama trying to kill coal

Throwing away half a billion dollars on alternative energy projects such as the failed Solyndra solar power company in California doesn't seem to faze President Barack Obama's administration. But providing a like amount to conduct research on coal and other fossil fuels? Not acceptable to the White House.

Obama seems determined to squeeze the life out of the coal industry in a sort of Catch-22: Enforce draconian new air pollution rules, then cut funding for research to find ways to burn coal more cleanly.

During the 2011 fiscal year, Congress provided $586 million for fossil energy projects. Obama wants to slash that to $452.9 million - a 25 percent reduction. Meanwhile, the president wants billions of dollars for unrealistic solar, wind power and other alternatives that are not really options.

Americans still rely on coal for nearly half the electricity we consume. Even with vast new resources of natural gas becoming available, coal will have to remain a mainstay for many years to come.

Yet Obama and liberals in Congress, who want to reduce fossil fuel research even more than the White House plan, seem determined to make that impossible. Virtually every American would pay dearly and some state economies would collapse if they are successful.

If anything, more federal funds should be devoted to fossil fuel research. Congress should reject Obama's attempt to strangle the industry.

Source http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/560734/Obama-trying-to-kill-coal.html?nav=5614

Muscular Aussie dollar puts squeeze on NT tourism

Tourism Top End chief Sylvia Wolf says an Australian dollar kept strong by the minerals boom will continue to put a strain on the tourism industry.

Ms Wolf says even with a good wet season and near-perfect wry season weather the tourism market has suffered from the muscular dollar.

She says the industry is worried about the impact of the carbon tax next year but the dollar has hurt regional tourism the hardest.

"Darwin doesn't suffer that much," she said.

"We have other business, big corporate markets, we have the cruise ships, we've got the conventions.

"The ones that really hurt are the ones down the track.

"The Katherines, the Tennant Creeks and Alice, of course, have not done well this year.

"It has been a tough year."

Meanwhile, Darwin tourism operators say visitors attending the 70th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin in February should help boost the sector which has faced a slight downturn.

World War II Tours guide Gary Gallagher says he hopes the commemorations on February 19 will draw survivors of the bombing, history buffs, and American tourists because of the US military presence in the Top End in the 1940s.

He says it could be a huge help for operators in what is typically an extremely quiet time.

Source http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-03/20111003-top-end-tourism-slow/3207296?section=business

Obama Open to Debt-Cap Deal

The White House encouraged congressional leaders to reach a major deficit-reduction deal by offering them a little more time, as they scrambled to find a way to prevent a government default in less than two weeks.

President Barack Obama would accept a short-term increase in the federal government's $14.29 trillion borrowing limit if congressional leaders reach agreement on a "significant" deficit-reduction plan before Aug. 2 but need more time to pass legislation, a White House spokesman said Wednesday.

The move reflects Mr. Obama's desire to keep alive hopes that Democrats and Republicans can achieve a far-reaching agreement. Mr. Obama has made clear his desire for the largest deal possible, perhaps along the lines of a new proposal to shrink the deficit by $3.7 trillion over 10 years that was unveiled this week by a bipartisan group of senators known as the "Gang of Six."

Mr. Obama's willingness to entertain a short-term extension also suggests rising doubt in the White House that Democrats and Republicans can agree on and pass such a sweeping deficit-reduction plan by the Aug. 2 deadline.

"If both sides agree to something concretely significant, we will support the measures needed to finalize the details," White House press secretary Jay Carney said, later clarifying that he meant a "very" short-term extension, such as a few days.

"We believe a short-term extension, absent an agreement to a larger deal, is unacceptable," Mr. Carney said.

Mr. Carney's comments come as numerous budget proposals are being debated in Washington, all of which have critics. Treasury Department officials say that Congress must boost the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling before Aug. 2, or the government will run out of cash to pay its bills. Many lawmakers say they will not vote to increase the debt cap without a significant deficit-reduction plan.

It was unclear Wednesday exactly what type of agreement would be needed to get Mr. Obama's blessing on a temporary extension. If lawmakers can't reach a deal in the range of $4 trillion, Mr. Obama has said he prefers one closer to $2.5 trillion. He summoned Democratic congressional leaders and the top two House Republicans to the White House Wednesday for separate meetings, but they broke up without any signs of major progress. The White House and leaders declined to discuss the sessions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) have both said there may not be enough time for lawmakers to agree on and pass a major deal by Aug. 2. At the same time, the president has said he and congressional leaders must prepare a backup plan to ensure the government does not default on its obligations.

One measure being pursued by Mr. Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) would give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion in three installments, unless two-thirds of Congress votes to block it. House Republicans came out strongly against the McConnell-Reid idea, saying it gives too much power to the president and does too little to cut spending. Some senators have also said they won't support it.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), who is joined by other conservative senators, made it clear he would try to block or delay consideration of Plan B in the Senate. "What Republicans need to acknowledge is that as long as we talk about these alternative plans, we are playing into the president's hands," said Mr. DeMint. "My job with the Republican conference is to get them to stop talking about distractions."

Still, Senate leaders of both parties view the McConnell-Reid approach as the only plan, for now at least, that has a chance of passing Congress in some form and raising the debt limit. The plan could include $1 trillion or more in spending cuts and could become the vehicle for a broader plan. Mr. Obama has described the McConnell-Reid plan as a last resort.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D.N.D.), a member of the Gang of Six, said he had discussed with Mr. Reid options for advancing the group's proposal through Plan B, which calls for setting up a special committee to recommend a deficit-reduction plan. Mr. Conrad suggested Plan B could include a provision guaranteeing a vote on the Gang of Six proposal if the special committee deadlocks.

Source http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576458180747131242.html

Obama Hints Boeing, Union Should Settle Their Differences

After weeks of silence on the NLRB-Boeing fight, President Barack Obama strongly hinted that Boeing Co. and its union in Washington state should settle their differences for the sake of jobs and corporate investment.

Boeing plans to build the 787 Dreamliner, shown above in Washington state in March, at a non-union plant.

When asked about it at his Wednesday press conference, Mr. Obama first repeated much of what his aides have been saying for weeks. “Essentially, the NLRB made a — a finding that Boeing had not followed the law” when deciding where to locate its second 787 Dreamliner production line, Mr. Obama said. “It’s an independent agency. It’s going before a judge. So I don’t want to get into the details of the case. I don’t know all the facts,” he added.

But he didn’t stop there.

Offering an insight into his view on corporate relocations and the related management-labor disputes, he said: “As a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate – they have to follow the law, but that’s part of our system. And if they’re choosing to relocate here in the United States, that’s a good thing. What I think defies common sense would be a notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can’t come to a sensible agreement.”

And he wrapped up his answer with a pitch for keeping jobs in the U.S. “My hope is that even as this thing is working its way through, everybody steps back for a second and says: Look, if jobs are being created here in the United States, let’s make sure that we’re encouraging that. And we can’t afford to have labor and management fighting all the time, at a time when we’re competing against Germany and China and other countries that want to sell goods all around the world. And obviously, the air — airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage. I want to make sure that we keep it.”

Regarding Mr. Obama’s hint that he’d prefer to see a settlement between Boeing and the union, a White House official said, “Just as the White House had no role in the NLRB’s independent enforcement action, the president was not weighing in on this specific case.”

Quick recap: The NLRB filed a complaint in April alleging Boeing illegally shifted unionized aircraft production work from Washington state to a new, nonunion plant in South Carolina, siding with union members who said Boeing was punishing them for past strikes. NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon wants Boeing to move the work back to Washington state. Boeing says the charges are groundless. And an NLRB administrative law judge began hearing the case June 14.

In his remarks Wednesday, Mr. Obama avoided picking sides, irritating some who think he should denounce the NLRB.

A spokesman for the conservative Workforce Fairness Institute said Mr. Obama “pled ignorance about the job-killing policies being pursued by his regulatory agencies, while claiming to be concerned with turning the economy around and creating jobs.”

Glenn Spencer, an executive director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said, “The president couldn’t be more right that creating jobs ought to be the focus. Unfortunately, it is his nominee [Lafe Solomon] that has created the distraction by filing the unwarranted complaint against Boeing.’’

Spokesmen at Boeing and the International Association of Machinists said they are open to settling the case, but each blamed the other for offering settlement proposals that weren’t serious.

A Boeing spokesman said the company had nothing to add to its previous comments. The union’s settlement proposal to the company in May “went well beyond what we would consider reasonable as it sought various production guarantees, including a commitment by the company to place our next new program and its related supply chain work in Puget Sound” area of Washington, the spokesman said.

A spokeswoman for the International Association of Machinists union said, “The Machinists have been open and have encouraged that [a settlement] all along as well, but Boeing broke the law and needs to be bringing forth settlements. To date, they have been unwilling to bring any serious proposals forward or willing to enter into serious dialogue on it.”

Source http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/29/obama-hints-boeing-union-should-settle-their-differences/

CBC prepares to defend its finances

When Jim Flaherty's ministry released the federal budget in Ottawa last week, the Finance Minister was resolute in his belief that about $4-billion in savings from program spending should be easily found.

It was, Mr. Flaherty told reporters packed into a steamy room in Centre Block, kind of odd that something as massive as the federal government -"the largest enterprise in Canada," he called it -had not undergone a thorough spending review in several years. Private-sector companies have all done it, he said. Now Ottawa will do its part. The savings "shall be found," he said, in a tone that sounded a lot like a decree.

No one from the CBC gulped or gasped audibly. But they might have. If Reaper Jim is sharpening his scythe, could the public broadcaster possibly avoid a swipe?

It is in this environment that the CBC on Wednesday released a study on the economic impacts of the CBC (and its French-language counterpart, Radio-Canada). In what will not come as a shock to anyone, the study the CBC commissioned found that the CBC has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy.

Deloitte & Touche, the study's authors, estimate that the CBC contributed $3.7-billion in "gross value added" to the Canadian economy in 2010, based on expenses of $1.7-billion, of which $1.1-billion was direct government funding. The good news goes even further: the study estimates that the CBC contributes an additional "net value added" of $1.3-billion, a figure at which it arrives by estimating the economic benefits of spending the CBC's $1.1-billion on alternative government measures. Ten per cent on health, 30% on social services, 0.2% on gazebos in Muskoka, that kind of thing.

The general conclusions are fairly obvious -not only does every dollar invested in the CBC generate significant positive dollars worth of economic activity, but spending it elsewhere would have less of an impact.

As Hubert T. Lacroix, the president and CEO of the CBC, said in a conference call with reporters yesterday, he's often asked about that $1.1-billion figure wherever he goes.

These takeaways, though, come with a couple of boulders of salt. First is the very nature of a study like this. The economic impacts are essentially an elaborate piece of guesswork that measures both the direct impact of investment and the indirect impact "across CBC's supply chain and more widely as money continues to flow through the economy." So, the authors take a dollar spent in one area, add something called a Type II output multiplier, and end up with a larger number. A dollar spent on television programming in British Columbia, for example, has a multiplier of 2.3. (The authors use Statistics Canada multipliers; they aren't plucked from the air.)

The projected impacts are just that, in other words: projections. It's not unexpected that they would be rather rosy, especially when it is the CBC that paid for the study. (Mr. Lacroix said the cost of the study is confidential.) When Quebec City commissioned a study last year into the economic impact of a government-funded arena, the report (also from Deloitte) found that such a stadium would be profitable even in the absence of an NHL franchise. It also assumed, rather optimistically, that the "surrounding region" of Quebec City, from which it would draw attendees to Disney on Ice and the like, includes Charlottetown and Moncton.

The rather large assumption in the CBC study is the two scenarios it assesses: one with the current funding model, and one in which the CBC is solely financed by commerical revenues. This anti-CBC, the study suggests, "makes commercially motivated decisions regarding its content, target audience, regional presence," and other factors. In that world, it would abandon businesses that are not commericially viable, and it would compete with private broadcasters in areas where it does not currently do so. If it, say, dumped the CBC-produced Republic of Doyle, filmed in St. John's, and replaced it with NCIS: Los Angeles, it's easy to see how the latter scenario wouldn't be as good for the Canadian economy.

But the "counterfactual" CBC that the study presents is simply a straw man. The CBC may not be beloved within the Harper government, and a chunk of the Conservative base will rail against it at the first opportunity, but only those few Canadians who believe the "state broadcaster" is run by Maoists truly want to see its subsidy eliminated. What the CBC might have to confront is not a world without public funding, but with less of it. Is it possible that a Tory spending review will determine an easy way to trim $100-million is to drop the CBC's direct funding to $1-billion? Does Don Cherry look like he's wearing drapes?

The public broadcaster conducts a perpetually tricky dance. When it announces a new show aimed at a broad audience and commercial advertisers, critics sniff that it's drifting from its public-service mandate. Give us interpretive dance, not hockey players! But if it directs too much programming into the nether regions of public interest, it will make less money and require more from Ottawa.

But $1.1-billion is a lot of money to protect. The CBC will have to erect some battlements. This study reads like a first shovel in the ground.

sstinson@nationalpost.com twitter.com/scott_stinson

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/prepares+defend+finances/4953990/story.html