Reporting from Washington — Although still publicly beating the drums for President Obama's healthcare overhaul, behind the scenes representatives of some of the biggest players in the game are beginning to express concern that it won't do enough about the major problem: runaway medical costs.
And, some say, the ballyhooed deals the White House recently struck with hospitals and drug makers to keep them at the negotiating table could make the problem worse.
From the left, labor leaders are scheduled to have a closed-door meeting with Obama on Monday to push for more aggressive action to hold down costs.
"We are certainly for expansion of coverage. We think every American ought to have health insurance," said Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, one of the most influential unions. "But if that doesn't come with making sure there is real prevention, if we're not talking about really controlling healthcare costs, this is going to be a train wreck."
At the other end of the political spectrum, business groups are stepping up pressure on the administration and its congressional allies to attack the cost issue more directly by changing the way hospitals, doctors and other providers are paid.
"Going into health reform, there was a lot of talk from the president on down that controlling costs had to be on a par with expanding coverage," said Steve Wojcik, vice president for public policy at the National Business Group on Health. "The priority on controlling costs seems to have fallen by the wayside."
Polls consistently show that Americans' biggest healthcare worry is escalating medical bills and insurance premiums. Obama himself has repeatedly promised that his campaign to overhaul the system will bring relief.
But the debate in Washington thus far has been dominated by how to raise hundreds of billions of dollars -- by tax hikes, if necessary -- to ensure that almost everyone has medical insurance. That emphasis is stoking fears that a historic opportunity to reform the system may be missed.
The skyrocketing cost of healthcare is a large reason that so many major interest groups rallied behind the president's effort.
Between 1999 and 2008, the average family with employer-provided health insurance saw its annual premium jump from around $1,500 to more than $3,300, according to data gathered by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
"Our No. 1 issue is to try to cap the rising cost of healthcare," said Joe Hunt, head of the International Assn. of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers. "Every time we get a raise for our members, it goes into the health insurance."
For businesses, the rising costs have also been devastating, with the employer contribution to an average family premium more than doubling in the same period -- from nearly $4,250 a year to more than $9,300.
Acutely sensitive to public anxiety, Obama rarely begins a discussion about healthcare without insisting that healthcare spending must be controlled, a message he repeated last week even while out of the country.
On Capitol Hill, too, senior Democrats have pledged to tackle the problem, which has sent the nation's annual healthcare tab beyond $2.5 trillion and threatens to bankrupt Medicare in eight years.
Mammoth legislation being debated in the House and Senate includes new incentives to better coordinate care among hospitals and doctors, to cut costly hospital readmissions, and to evaluate what kinds of medical care yield the best results. There is also new money for prevention, which many experts say can save money in the long term.
But many of the proposals in the two healthcare bills released by Democrats are limited to pilot programs and research initiatives. (A third bill by the Senate Finance Committee is still being developed.)
House leaders envision a new "Center for Quality Improvement" and a "Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research" to analyze medical data. Similarly, the Senate health committee has outlined plans in its bill for a new "National Strategy to Improve Health Care Quality."
These new institutions would have no authority to force changes, however.
Both bills would create a new government insurance program that senior Democrats say could pressure providers to lower costs.
What is missing, critics contend, are bolder initiatives in the existing government Medicare and Medicaid programs that would reward doctors and hospitals that become more efficient -- and cut federal payments to those that do not.
"There are enormous opportunities to save money," said Ken Thorpe, an Emory University healthcare economist who has been advising Democratic lawmakers on the legislation. "What has been proposed is much too tepid."
Even the recent agreement between hospitals and the administration to cut federal payments to hospitals by $155 billion over the next decade does little to change the way providers are paid, said Mark McClellan, who headed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Bush administration.
Nearly all these projected savings are to come from across the board cuts in federal reimbursements, which critics fear could prompt hospitals to simply charge private insurers more.
"We need to make it increasingly uncomfortable to deliver care that is inefficient," said McClellan, who is helping to lead a bipartisan effort by former Senate majority leaders, among others, to push for healthcare reform.
Part of the reason such measures are not being proposed is political. Pressing doctors to accept guidelines on the most beneficial and cost-effective way to treat patients, for instance, instead of leaving such decisions to individual doctors, could alienate the American Medical Assn.
And the president and his congressional allies are trying to maintain the support of a broad array of groups.
But unless Democrats can do more to show their commitment to reducing costs, the political consensus that has sustained the Obama administration's effort may begin to crack.
"Cost is where the middle ground is," said Mark Blum, who helped lead liberal healthcare campaigns in Vermont and West Virginia and now directs America's Agenda, a partnership between labor unions and businesses.
"There is a sense that we need to refocus," Blum said.
noam.levey@latimes.com
Source
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Will Ghosts of Bush Administration Derail Obama's Agenda?
As if he didn't already have enough on his plate, President Obama will now likely have to deal with something he hoped to avoid: revisiting Bush-era scandals.
Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to push forward with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation practices on suspected terrorists, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos confirmed today. This comes despite the White House's desire to see the issue disappear.
"We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards," Obama told Stephanopoulos on "This Week" in January.
But Obama's attorney general appears to be moving forward on his own. Holder is reported to be considering whether to appoint a prosecutor to investigate the interrogation practices that some have called torture.
Washington is split between those who say the nation needs to move on and others who say that our leaders must be held accountable for their actions.
Complicating matters is a report today that the Central Intelligence Agency, for eight years, withheld information from Congress on a secret counterterrorism program on the direct orders of then Vice President Dick Cheney.
Having the Bush era back in the spotlight could form even more partisan bickering in Washington and possibly derail the president's ambitious agenda in health care and energy reform as well as plans to stimulate the economy.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, Obama's Republican opponent in the election, said on "Meet the Press" this morning that such an investigation would not be in the country's best interests.
"For us to continue this and harm our image throughout the world. … I agree with the president of the United States. It's time to move forward," McCain said.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, also a Republican, added on "Fox News Sunday": "I hope that the attorney general listens to the president who says we need to look forward, not backward."
Attorney General Eric Holder is likely to push ahead with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation practices on suspected terrorists, despite the White House's desire to move forward.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)But California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, said she understands the hard choice Holder has before him.
"I don't know whether he will choose to investigate, but that's certainly his independent option," Feinstein said on "Fox News Sunday."
Newsweek, which first reported on the investigation's likelihood, said Holder understood the political implications of such a probe and the hassle it would create for the Obama administration. Holder was troubled by what he learned about the CIA's treatment of terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001.
"I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," Holder told Newsweek. "But this can't be a part of my decision."
The attorney general has said that those who acted within the government's legal guidance will not be prosecuted. But he has left open the possibility of pursuing those who went beyond that guidance.
Department of Justice Spokesman Matt Miller told ABC News that now senior Bush administration officials are under consideration for investigation at this time.
"As the attorney general has stated on numerous occasions, the Justice Department will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," Miller said. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry. As the attorney general has made clear, it would be unfair to prosecute any official who operated in good faith based on legal guidance from the justice department."
Any investigation into interrogation practices might also be matched with an investigation of Cheney's actions.
The New York Times reported today that Cheney ordered the CIA not to tell Congress about the counterterrorism program. Obama's CIA director Leon E. Panetta learned of the program on June 23 and immediately ended it. He then briefed House and Senate intelligence committees the next day in private sessions, The Times reported.
On ABC's "This Week," Majority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., argued the Senate Intelligence Committee should "absolutely" investigate the matter.
"To have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate it could be illegal," Durbin said.
"The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these programs and keep Congress in the dark," he added. "There is a requirement for disclosure, it has to be done in an appropriate way so it doesn't jeopardize our national security."
The New York Times reported today that Cheney ordered the CIA not to tell Congress about the counterterrorism program. Obama's CIA director Leon E. Panetta learned of the program on June 23 and immediately ended it. He then briefed House and Senate intelligence committees the next day in private sessions, The Times reported.
On ABC's "This Week," Majority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., argued the Senate Intelligence Committee should "absolutely" investigate the matter.
"To have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate it could be illegal," Durbin said.
"The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these programs and keep Congress in the dark," he added. "There is a requirement for disclosure, it has to be done in an appropriate way so it doesn't jeopardize our national security."
However, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., argued against any investigation just yet.
"I don't think we should be jumping to any conclusions," Kyl said. "The Republican leader on the intelligence committee in the House described this certainly not as some kind of massive program but something that was on again off again … never got off the ground."
Kyl said he understands the concept that national security concerns may preclude the executive branch from sharing some information with Congress.
"The president and the vice president are the two people who have responsibility ultimately for the national security of the country," he said.
Cornyn, a Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday": "To trot out the vice president and say he's the one that's at fault … this is unfortunately sounds like a new theme where they still want to blame the Bush-Cheney administration."
But Democrat Fienstein said on the same show that this should never happen again.
"They could have watched the program, they could have asked for regular reports on the program, they could have made judgments about the program as it went along," she said. "That was not the case because we were kept in the dark."
Source
Obama visits former slave post
Reporting from Accra, Ghana — The castle stands on the shores of the western coast of Africa, a forbidding compound with dark dungeons where captives lived in sweltering heat with only tiny vents to let in fresh air before they were shipped off to slavery in the New World.
Near the Cape Coast castle stands a small chapel where slave traders attended services steps away from the misery.
As President Obama visited the fortress and slave outpost Saturday, he said the juxtaposition reminded him of the former concentration camp he toured in Germany last month.
"It is reminiscent of the trip I took to Buchenwald," he said, "because it reminds us of the capacity of human beings to commit great evil."
"Sometimes we can tolerate great evil," he said, "even as we think we're doing good."
He called it the first step on the journey that is the African American experience.
"As painful as it is," he said, "it helps to teach all of us that we have to do what we can to fight against the kinds of evils that sadly still exist in our world, not just on this continent but in every corner of the globe."
In contrast with a more tempered reception in Russia, people gathered everywhere Obama went in Ghana, and thousands strained to catch a glimpse of the first family at the Cape Coast castle.
As the motorcade made its way along the streets of the capital, Accra, people lined the roads and stood on balconies, some waving American or Ghanaian flags, some wearing Obama T-shirts or kente cloth with images of Obama woven into them.
One woman held a sign, "Only Black American Managing America."
Probe of Alleged Torture Weighed
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is leaning toward appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether CIA personnel tortured terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001, setting the stage for a conflict with administration officials who would prefer the issues remain in the past, according to three sources familiar with his thinking.
Naming a prosecutor to probe alleged abuses during the darkest period in the Bush era would run counter to President Obama's oft-repeated desire to be "looking forward and not backwards." Top political aides have expressed concern that such an investigation might spawn partisan debates that could overtake Obama's ambitious legislative agenda.
The White House successfully resisted efforts by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth and reconciliation" panel. But fresh disclosures have continued to emerge about detainee mistreatment, including a secret CIA watchdog report, recently reviewed by Holder, highlighting several episodes that could be likened to torture.
Holder's decision could come within weeks, around the same time the Justice Department releases an ethics report about Bush lawyers who drafted memos supporting harsh interrogation practices, the sources said. The legal documents spell out in sometimes painstaking detail how interrogators were allowed to subject detainees to simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, wall slamming and confinement in small, dark spaces.
Any criminal inquiry could face challenges, including potent legal defenses by CIA employees who could argue that attorneys in the Bush Justice Department authorized a wide range of harsh conduct. But the sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the "four corners" of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.
Among the unauthorized techniques allegedly used, as described in the report and Red Cross accounts, were shackling, punching and beating of suspects, as well as the waterboarding of at least two detainees using more liquid and for longer periods than the Justice Department had approved. That conduct could violate ordinary criminal laws, as well as the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the United States signed more than a decade ago.
Former government officials, led by former vice president Richard B. Cheney, have publicly decried efforts to dig into the past. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in May, Cheney described the harsh interrogation program as "legal, essential, justified" and said, "The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results."
He added: "The danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead."
The young White House has struggled to find solid ground in its approach to national security, particularly in its relations with the CIA. The president has sought to reach out to agency employees who fear they could be unfairly faulted in an effort to allocate blame for past counterterrorism strategy.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the Justice Department has long known the details of the agency's past interrogation practices. Previous referrals to the Justice Department from the CIA's former inspector general did not result in criminal charges.
"What the president, the attorney general and [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta have said consistently is that no one who followed Department of Justice guidance should be punished," he said.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing process, said Holder has been open to naming a prosecutor to investigate the allegations since he took office in February. The sources said the inspector general report has advanced his thinking in the direction of doing so.
Holder has secured support for the idea from at least some key players, one of the sources said. If he does name a prosecutor to conduct an investigation, he will probably select a career prosecutor from inside the Justice Department rather than a lawyer from outside, the sources said.
The White House successfully resisted efforts by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth and reconciliation" panel. But fresh disclosures have continued to emerge about detainee mistreatment, including a secret CIA watchdog report, recently reviewed by Holder, highlighting several episodes that could be likened to torture.
Holder's decision could come within weeks, around the same time the Justice Department releases an ethics report about Bush lawyers who drafted memos supporting harsh interrogation practices, the sources said. The legal documents spell out in sometimes painstaking detail how interrogators were allowed to subject detainees to simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, wall slamming and confinement in small, dark spaces.
Any criminal inquiry could face challenges, including potent legal defenses by CIA employees who could argue that attorneys in the Bush Justice Department authorized a wide range of harsh conduct. But the sources said an inquiry would apply only to activities by interrogators, working in bad faith, that fell outside the "four corners" of the legal memos. Some incidents that might go beyond interrogation techniques that were permitted involve detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are described in the secret 2004 CIA inspector general report, set for release Aug. 31.
Among the unauthorized techniques allegedly used, as described in the report and Red Cross accounts, were shackling, punching and beating of suspects, as well as the waterboarding of at least two detainees using more liquid and for longer periods than the Justice Department had approved. That conduct could violate ordinary criminal laws, as well as the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the United States signed more than a decade ago.
Former government officials, led by former vice president Richard B. Cheney, have publicly decried efforts to dig into the past. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in May, Cheney described the harsh interrogation program as "legal, essential, justified" and said, "The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results."
He added: "The danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead."
The young White House has struggled to find solid ground in its approach to national security, particularly in its relations with the CIA. The president has sought to reach out to agency employees who fear they could be unfairly faulted in an effort to allocate blame for past counterterrorism strategy.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the Justice Department has long known the details of the agency's past interrogation practices. Previous referrals to the Justice Department from the CIA's former inspector general did not result in criminal charges.
"What the president, the attorney general and [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta have said consistently is that no one who followed Department of Justice guidance should be punished," he said.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing process, said Holder has been open to naming a prosecutor to investigate the allegations since he took office in February. The sources said the inspector general report has advanced his thinking in the direction of doing so.
Holder has secured support for the idea from at least some key players, one of the sources said. If he does name a prosecutor to conduct an investigation, he will probably select a career prosecutor from inside the Justice Department rather than a lawyer from outside, the sources said.
Holder's inclination to appoint a prosecutor to investigate torture allegations was first reported yesterday on the Web site of Newsweek magazine.
His predecessor, Michael B. Mukasey, followed a similar path by reaching out to veteran federal prosecutors from Connecticut to investigate some of the most sensitive allegations in the Bush years.
Those prosecutors continue to examine the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the destruction of CIA videotapes that depicted waterboarding of terrorism suspects. The latter investigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia under the guidance of Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham. A source said Durham may be under consideration for an expanded mandate, given that he already has reviewed hundreds of sensitive CIA cables and other documents related to treatment of detainees.
Other challenges an inquiry into alleged torture might face could include the difficulty of gathering evidence of improper conduct in war zones and questions about the reliability of witnesses who may have been held by the U.S. government for years, legal analysts said yesterday. The actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.
As the attorney general has stated on numerous occasions, the Department of Justice will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," spokesman Matthew Miller said. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry. As the attorney general has made clear, it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department."
Benjamin LaBolt, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the prospect of a prosecutor investigating alleged torture.
Source
His predecessor, Michael B. Mukasey, followed a similar path by reaching out to veteran federal prosecutors from Connecticut to investigate some of the most sensitive allegations in the Bush years.
Those prosecutors continue to examine the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the destruction of CIA videotapes that depicted waterboarding of terrorism suspects. The latter investigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia under the guidance of Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham. A source said Durham may be under consideration for an expanded mandate, given that he already has reviewed hundreds of sensitive CIA cables and other documents related to treatment of detainees.
Other challenges an inquiry into alleged torture might face could include the difficulty of gathering evidence of improper conduct in war zones and questions about the reliability of witnesses who may have been held by the U.S. government for years, legal analysts said yesterday. The actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.
As the attorney general has stated on numerous occasions, the Department of Justice will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," spokesman Matthew Miller said. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry. As the attorney general has made clear, it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department."
Benjamin LaBolt, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the prospect of a prosecutor investigating alleged torture.
Source
The end of Obamania
Barack Obama has fallen back to Earth.
When he ran for president, Obama said his election would be "the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow." And when he made his first big foreign trip in April, he was hailed by adoring crowds -- and almost-as-adoring politicians -- in Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic.
But last week, in Russia and Italy, Obamania was little more than a pleasant memory. Yes, his international polling numbers are still high, but the president encountered hardly any adulation in the streets of Moscow or anywhere else. Instead, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin reportedly gave him a tongue-lashing over a two-hour breakfast, and the tent-bound refugees from Italy's April earthquake mostly wanted to know whether he could rebuild their homes. ("Yes, we camp," their banner said, pointedly.)
And the oceans are still rising too. At the Group of 8 summit, the developing countries said no to a timetable to stop global warming, the reason for the waters' rise.
That's not to say the trip was a bust; it wasn't. But it was far from a triumph, and that's a new experience for Obama's foreign policy team.
The hard reality of international affairs is that, just as the United States has interests, so do other countries. And when those interests conflict, all the charm and charisma in the world can't resolve the differences.
At the G-8 summit, the United States, Britain and France had hoped for a tough statement on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The closest they got to a warning was this: "We sincerely hope that Iran will seize this opportunity to give diplomacy a chance."
The summit's other accomplishments were mostly worthy half-measures. The developing countries wouldn't sign on, but the eight big economies agreed to try to for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, 41 years from now. After a personal appeal from Obama, member nations promised $20 billion to help poor countries grow more food, but much of the money turned out to be old pledges under a new name.
Obama went to Moscow to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations, which under George W. Bush had veered from unrealistic enthusiasm to bitter recriminations. He succeeded in changing the tone, but the concrete results were modest. The two nuclear powers agreed on a framework for reducing their atomic arsenals, but since both sides went into the talks wanting to cut, the nuclear issue was the easy part.
More difficult were the issues each country sees as its top priority: for the United States, the problem of Iran; for Russia, the desire of its onetime possessions Ukraine and Georgia to escape from Moscow's orbit.
Obama avoided the rookie mistake that John F. Kennedy committed at his first summit meeting in 1961, when the new president left the Russians thinking he was young, untested and uncertain. Obama said clearly that Russia must respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia. But he certainly didn't leave with the issue resolved.
On Iran, which aides said was a dominant subject of the meetings, there was no sign that Obama got the Russians to budge. The U.S. wants Russia to support tougher economic sanctions to push Iran toward giving up its nuclear fuel production. Russia, which views next-door neighbor Iran as both a business opportunity and a local security problem, has no appetite for that kind of confrontation.
"Iran is Russia's important partner," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on the eve of Obama's visit. "We cooperate and do so very productively." More sanctions "will only deteriorate the situation," he said. And that was his last word on the subject.
At their news conference, Obama wanted to talk about Iran, but Medvedev wouldn't mention the place. The Russians agreed to a joint study on the threat of ballistic missiles from countries such as North Korea and Iran, but that's about all.
"People have made too much of the 'reset.' They've talked about it as if it had magical properties or strategic content," said Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations, a 25-year veteran of U.S.-Russia diplomacy. "But what happens when you reset a computer? You don't change the content. All you do, if you're lucky, is get the bugs out and start working again."
Obama and his aides may succeed in building a less angry, more businesslike relationship with the Russians, but will that change Moscow's views on Iran? Not likely. As Sestanovich puts it: "Russians don't think the problem is solvable."
Americans, of course, think every problem is solvable -- a persistent difference between the Old World and the New. But judging from last week's inconclusive diplomacy, the Russians may be right about this one.
The United States and its allies want Iran to negotiate, but Iran's Islamic leaders, facing challenges to their legitimacy at home, are digging in their heels. The next step, probably in September, is a concerted Western effort to step up economic sanctions against Tehran -- but that may mean a confrontation with Russia and China, which don't agree that sanctions are necessary.
All of which left Obama sounding, at the end of the week, as if he looked forward to getting back to solvable problems -- such as the economy and healthcare. "The one thing I will be looking forward to," he said, "is fewer summit meetings."
doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com
President Obama gets cheeky
The good news is that President Barack Obama is a real live red-blooded all-American man, and I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have that kind of guy running the most powerful nation in the world than some moribund frozen-pulse old fart (can you say the Bush boys?) leading the free world.
The bad news is that the commander-in-chief's sidelong and noticeably appreciative glance at the comely derriere of a Brazilian teenager, captured by photographers Thursday and currently burning up the Internet, is making more headlines than the work that he and the rest of the G8 leaders are trying to accomplish on the global economic front in L'Aquila, Italy, this week.
The photo shows curly-haired 16-year-old G8 delegate Mayora Tavares, in a flowing knee-length sleeveless burgundy dress, walking away from Obama, who is heading down some stairs when Tavares's, um, charms clearly catch his eye.
He's in good company, mind you.
To his left is French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose 13-years-younger bride is Italian model Carla Bruni, and who is no less discreet in his admiration of the girl from Rio who was attending the G8 as an activist for children's rights.
One gossip site suggested the men, in their open ogling, are "disgusting" while another said it's proof that "Obama is Brazilian."
The Drudge Report called it the "Second Stimulus Package."
Please.
Thank heavens Obama has a natural, instinctive eye for the ladies -- otherwise he'd be dead.
In fact, anthropologists will tell you that humans always have been, and always will be, attracted to beauty in the opposite sex, be it a peacock's plumage, a woman's curves or a man's burly biceps. It's what keeps the species interested, and going.
So if the U.S. president, who's married to a looker and is no slouch in the handsome department himself, has a thing for junk in the trunk, good on him.
Meantime, tennis star Serena Williams and celebutante Kim Kardashian, both famous for their bodacious butts, might want to watch where they sashay.
Because, clearly, No. 44's got game.
sfralic@vancouversun.com
The bad news is that the commander-in-chief's sidelong and noticeably appreciative glance at the comely derriere of a Brazilian teenager, captured by photographers Thursday and currently burning up the Internet, is making more headlines than the work that he and the rest of the G8 leaders are trying to accomplish on the global economic front in L'Aquila, Italy, this week.
The photo shows curly-haired 16-year-old G8 delegate Mayora Tavares, in a flowing knee-length sleeveless burgundy dress, walking away from Obama, who is heading down some stairs when Tavares's, um, charms clearly catch his eye.
He's in good company, mind you.
To his left is French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose 13-years-younger bride is Italian model Carla Bruni, and who is no less discreet in his admiration of the girl from Rio who was attending the G8 as an activist for children's rights.
One gossip site suggested the men, in their open ogling, are "disgusting" while another said it's proof that "Obama is Brazilian."
The Drudge Report called it the "Second Stimulus Package."
Please.
Thank heavens Obama has a natural, instinctive eye for the ladies -- otherwise he'd be dead.
In fact, anthropologists will tell you that humans always have been, and always will be, attracted to beauty in the opposite sex, be it a peacock's plumage, a woman's curves or a man's burly biceps. It's what keeps the species interested, and going.
So if the U.S. president, who's married to a looker and is no slouch in the handsome department himself, has a thing for junk in the trunk, good on him.
Meantime, tennis star Serena Williams and celebutante Kim Kardashian, both famous for their bodacious butts, might want to watch where they sashay.
Because, clearly, No. 44's got game.
sfralic@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Climate-change challenge shifts to the U.S. Senate
Which bothers you more: rising sea levels, shrinking ice caps and global weather twirling out of control - or do you worry about the health of the coal industry, a potential bump in gas prices and jobless rates a year before mid-term elections? If you chose the second set of concerns, you're a prime example of why climate change legislation is in deep trouble. A flawed but worthy plan to cut greenhouse gases barely cleared the House and now faces high hurdles in the Senate, whose members are a far tougher sell.
After eight years of denial and inaction by the prior White House, President Obama has made climate change legislation a top priority by setting the nation on a course to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - the chief global-warming culprit.
The House plan, which squeaked through two weeks ago by a 219-212 vote, is a milestone. It puts the country on course to cut greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent at midcentury. It would go beyond the tightening of tailpipe emissions; the package would take in all industries from power plants to farming.
In effect, the rules amount to a new energy plan for the country, a spur to an infant green-tech economy and a bet that a complex cap-and-trade mechanism will nudge the nation away from fossil fuels with minimal pain. After decades of talk, the country may finally take serious steps to clean its skies and cut back on importing 70 percent of its energy.
Obama hailed the package, but it's nowhere near a done deal. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty. For all of its lofty intentions, the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.
Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U.S. rules, a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming policy.
The urge for deal-making may topple the package when the lead Senate committee headed by California Democrat Barbara Boxer goes to work this month. Adding to the complexity is that several other Senate committees - and their powerful heads - will be drawn in. A full-Senate vote could come this fall prior to an international environmental summit in December. The United States might as well stay home if the Senate fails.
With this schedule there should be time to examine all of the moving parts carefully. At 1,200 pages, the House bill demands serious study and simplification.
An ideal outcome would have the Senate rid the package of its worst features: the tariff on imports, favored treatment for carbon-dioxide-spewing power plants and special rules for farming interests. Clarity on the cap-and-trade system would be helpful, too. How will it work and be run?
A sweeping bill designed to show results over decades doesn't impress leaders worried about the next election or unemployment report. Obama and his Senate supporters must do a better job of selling the benefits of the bill in relation to its costs. Proponents are waving a government report that climate controls will cost a family $175 per year, a number that opponents claim understates the pocketbook hit.
Though it may not resonate in the Senate, there's a worldwide impact to consider. As the planet's biggest polluter, this nation must lead the way in stemming the climate change problem. Until now, that job has been shrugged off.
It's time to take the undeniable problem of global warming seriously and push ahead with a plan to solve it. The House plan is a starting point for the Senate to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)