But alliteration carries little weight in the budget process (to the disappointment of speechwriters everywhere). For the second budget in a row, President Obama has proposed to reduce the tax deductions on donations by the wealthy, making it about 10 percent more costly for them to give to charity — and gaining the federal government about $300 billion in revenue over 10 years.

The public justification for this tax increase is fairness. The budget reads: “Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous.” In the last budget season, Obama argued this tax increase would “equalize” a disparity and “raise some revenue from people who benefited enormously over the past several years.”

via Michael Gerson – President Obama betrays his community-organizer roots – washingtonpost.com.

Unamused commentators are rightfully scornful of the response provided to Bloomberg by the Fed.

“Our position has always been that if AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” said Jack Gutt, a spokesman for the New York Fed, in an e-mailed statement. Gutt said it was appropriate for the New York Fed, as party to deals outlined in the filings, “to provide comments on a number of issues, including disclosures, with the understanding that the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel.”

via How the World Works – Salon.com.

It took a full three days for Obama to finally make an appearance on Monday to address the nation on Homeland Security. The barrage of criticisms from Republicans was so great that the White House and its press representatives The Washington Post and New York Times floated a story entitled “Big First Year Leaves Obama Tired,” as if to excuse POTUS for his lackluster response to the developing crisis. Even after Monday’s forced appearance, the criticism grew from the right and the left, so Obama made another appearance on Tuesday wearing the new Polo shirt Michelle gave him for Christmas. Now the Polo corporation was probably giddy over the noticeable plug for their product, and I may be old fashion, but I like my President to be a little more “Presidential” during a time of crisis. And make no mistake, this is a crisis.

As a hopefully logical individual, I cannot blame POTUS for what happened aboard Flight 253, but I can find fault with his appointees. The weekend performances of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano left no doubt, after a year on the job, they are ill-equipped to handle their responsibilities. In the wake of no public appearance from Obama or Biden, Gibbs and Napolitano hit the airwaves for a ‘gaffe-filled’ 72 hours, that is now a matter of public record.

Gibbs is an arrogant and egotistical man, whose endless verbal missteps should have either earned him a reappointment or a dismissal at this point in time. On his best days, he is either an apologist or an obstructionist for the administration, but more often than not, a fountain of misinformation. His main gig seems to be releasing stories glorifying the “unprecedented” accomplishments of the Obama administration. He and Obama have used the word “unprecedented” so much, that the usage of that very word became the subject of a Politico story reprinted by news outlets worldwide. What was truly unprecedented this time was how causally the President took this threat on American life.

As for Napolitano, she is unqualified for the job. Political appointment as payback for support is nothing new in Washington. Napolitano, as Governor of Arizona was one of the first major Democrats to support Barack Obama. She was also a key member of his transition team. Napolitano came under fire after she said Sunday that “the system worked,” noting that the crew of Flight 253 “took appropriate action” to address the terrorist plot as it unfolded. But her remarks were met with instant criticism, prompting the Homeland Security chief to clarify herself during a round of media appearances Monday morning. The secretary then conceded on Monday that the system did not work.  After her Monday appearance on The Today Show, calls for resignation started to surface.

Earlier this year the Homeland Secretary faced calls of resignation when her office released a paper entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” This report famously stated that, disgruntled military veterans were vulnerable to recruitment efforts by extremist groups as risk factors for rightwing extremism. Reaction from the military was swift and Napolitano made multiple apologies for any offense veterans groups had taken at the reference to veterans in the assessment, and promised to meet with those groups to discuss the issue.

In March 2009, Napolitano told the German news site “Spiegel Online” that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: “I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”  In my opinion, Napolitano’s attempt to minimize terrorism only gives comfort to our enemies.

In April 2009 Napolitano, trying to defend her plans to thicken US-Canadian border security, claimed incorrectly that September 11 attack perpetrators entered the United States from Canada. Her comments provoked an angry response from the Canadian ambassador, media, and public.

I can live with an “ass” for a Press Secretary, but Napolitano fronts the most public and perhaps the most important agency in the government today. It was clear from day one, and continues to bear true by her performance over the past 11 months, she does not have the experience to lead Homeland Security. She does not project the resolve or determination of former directors Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff to develop and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen the United States against terrorist threats or attacks. It is about time the “very tired” Mr. Obama leave the links in Hawaii and return to Washington to hand Napolitano her walking papers. It is time for the President to start taking National Security more seriously.

Census Bureau figures released Wednesday update last year’s prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The 2050 estimate is one of four projections released that is based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. Demographers said that scenario offers the best look for now at the future demographic makeup based on current conditions, rather than other models which assume higher rates of immigration.

The United States has 308 million people today; two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites.

The total population should climb to 399 million by 2050, under the new projection, with whites making up 49.9 percent of the population. Blacks will make up 12.2 percent, virtually unchanged from today. Hispanics, currently 15 percent of the population, will rise to 28 percent in 2050.

Asians are expected to increase from 4.4 percent of the population to 6 percent.

The point when minority children become the majority is expected to have a similar delay of roughly eight years, moving from 2023 to 2031.

FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY, CLICK THIS LINK: White Americans’ majority to end by mid-century – Yahoo! News.

All day long, bill collectors call. She hunts for a second job, sometimes skips meals, and stays with other family members at a grandfather’s crowded apartment, trying to get out of debt and turn her life around.

She largely holds herself at fault. “Years ago, I lived for now. It was so stupid,” the 28-year-old says. “It’s depressing, but I can’t live that life anymore.” Now, she says, “I basically want to live for the future.”

The recession has forced a financial reckoning for Americans across the income spectrum. The pressure is especially acute for the low-income Americans who relied on borrowing for daily expenses or to gain the trappings of middle-class life. Shifting credit practices over several decades had enabled them to live beyond their means by borrowing nearly as readily as the more affluent.

But the financial crisis and recession have reversed what some economists dubbed the “democratization of credit,” forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.

“We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,” says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, “it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,” he says.

The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.

For families with incomes between about $20,500 and $37,000, the ratio of debt to assets rose to 18.5% in 2007 from 14.4% in 1998 — more sharply than the increase among the overall population — according to the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances. In addition, the chances of default and delinquency on home mortgages are higher among lower-income households, according to data from Equifax and Moody’s Economy.com.

FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE WSJ.COM”   The ‘Democratization of Credit’ Is Over — Now It’s Payback Time – WSJ.com.

The federal government last October loaned Bank of America and eight other “healthy” financial institutions a total of $125 billion – the initial payout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP – in an attempt to avoid a series of major bank collapses that would push the sputtering economy into a free fall or depression.

The rationale for giving money to stable banks and not failing ones, regulators said, was that such institutions would be better able to lend money and thus unfreeze tight credit markets – a major factor in last year’s Wall Street losses.

But an audit released Monday by TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky says senior government officials and Wall Street regulators, including Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, had “affirmative concerns” that several of the nine institutions were financially shaky.

FOR THE COMPLETE STORY, CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Study: Bernanke, Paulson misled public on bailouts – Washington Times.

The organization suggested the situation could worsen if the rate of premature births increases.

Each year, 12.9 million infants — or nearly 10 percent of the annual worldwide birth total — are born before 37 weeks of development in the womb, the organization said. More than 85 percent of the premature births occur in developing countries in Africa and Asia.

“Premature births are an enormous global problem that is exacting a huge toll emotionally, physically and financially on families, medical systems and economies,” March of Dimes President Jennifer Howse said in a statement. “In the United States alone, the annual cost of caring for preterm babies and their associated health problems tops $26 billion.”

The March of Dimes report, which used data collected by the World Health Organization, breaks down premature birth rates by continent.

The highest premature birth rate is in Africa, where 11.9 percent of births each year are preterm, with more than 4 million premature deliveries annually. In populous Asia, although the preterm birth rate is lower at 9.1 percent, the number of premature births is higher, at nearly 7 million a year.

While North America — consisting of the United States and Canada in this report — counts fewer than 500,000 premature births a year, its preterm birth rate is close to that of Africa, at 10.6 percent of all births, according to the report. The rate is the world’s second highest.

In the United States, the rate of preterm births has increased 36 percent in the past 25 years, with births between the 34th and 36th week of gestation accounting for the majority of the increase, the organization found. Much of the hike in preterm births is linked to more pregnancies after the age of 35 and the use of fertility treatments that can lead to multiple births.

“Wherever trend data are available, rates of preterm birth are increasing,” the report said.

Infants who survive premature birth face lifelong health risks, including the possible development of cerebral palsy, blindness, hearing loss, learning disabilities and other chronic conditions, according to the March of Dimes.

“Preterm birth is a global problem that needs greater attention by policymakers, researchers, health care providers, the media, donor organizations and other stakeholders,” the report said.

“The marked disparities in preterm birth along racial/ethnic lines in many high-income countries and the concentration of preterm births in Africa and Asia also clearly indicate that addressing preterm birth is essential for reducing the pronounced inequities in neonatal health and for the world to achieve,” it added.

FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY, CLICK THIS LINK FOR CNN.COM: Report: More than 1M preemies die in first month annually – CNN.com.

With more Americans watching Fox, you’d think POTUS on his media blitzkrieg would welcome the opportunity to present his case to the Fox audience, but no.  This Sunday Obama gave an ‘exclusive’ to every morning show (CNN’s State Of The Union, Face The Nation, This Week,) including Al Punto at Univision.  Interestingly, Univision did not request an interview, although I applaud POTUS for reaching out to the Hispanic community. The only media outlet that has repeatedly requested an interview with POTUS and has not received one post-inauguration is Fox News.

Asked for a reason, White House, as usual had a coherent, reasonable answer:  “We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. “Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”  Now am I wrong, doesn’t this sound like political payback?

Since taking office POTUS has given a staggering 127 interviews in comparison to the 41 given by Bush and 46 by Clinton in the same 9 month period.  I wonder, if POTUS was more coherent in his policy positions initially would he have to give so many interviews to explain himself?   Leaving that thought aside, this is the President who declared his administration was about transparency.  He suggests he is all about bi-partisanship and that his door is always open.  More recently, he has told Americans to ‘call out’ his detractors.  Of course, Americans will have to ‘call out’ his critics because POTUS seems to unwilling to do it himself.  I’m not suggesting POTUS spend an intimate hour with Glenn Beck or hoist a brewski with Hannity, although Fox News Sunday should be on the agenda.  Chris Wallace, a thoughtful, respectful and articulate journalist and the former moderator of Meet The Press, hosts FNS..  Candidate Obama previously appeared on the show and the interview was cordial, so what is the problem?

The answer is simple; The White House cannot control the dialogue at Fox.  They cannot request the questions in advance, and he will not be thrown ‘softballs’ like he will on the other programs.  It is that simple.  Once again, the President’s actions fail to match his rhetoric.  Where is the transparency?  Where is that famous ‘open door policy’? If he truly believes he is the President of all people, and not just those who agree with him agenda then ‘man up’ and head over to Fox.  However, maybe a truthful exchange with his critics is too much to expect from this President.  It’s much easier to be the only man on the podium with the microphone controlling the dialogue.  Of course, it is equally effective to have the President’s sycophants at various news outlets and blogs, just dismiss all Fox viewers as ‘white racists’ and ‘idiots’.  So much for an honest and open exchange of ideas with POTUS.

On a more positive note, Bertha Lewis the CEO of ACORN, faced the group’s biggest critic Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace this week.  Unlike the President, right or wrong, Ms. Lewis had the guts to face down her critics.

Even if the government reports a surprise boost to second quarter GDP, few economists are predicting a massive recovery just yet.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — This question seemed unthinkable to ask just a few months ago, but here goes: Did the economy actually grow during the past three months?

A few brave economists actually think it did. But we’ll find out for certain on Friday when the government unveils its first take on gross domestic product (GDP) for the second quarter. Still, even the average forecast is for a drop of just 1.5%, significantly better than the previous two quarters.

GDP plunged 6% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 5.5% in this year’s first quarter.

“The pace of decline has slowed way down and we are seeing signs of stability. I expect a negative number in the second quarter but maybe zero growth or better for the third quarter,” said Chris Probyn, chief economist with State Street Global Advisors in Boston.

Probyn argues that the recent improvement in home sales, consumer spending and exports is evidence that the recession may soon be nearing an end.

Talk back: Do you believe that the economy is really stabilizing or do you think the numbers don’t tell the true story of the economy? Leave your comments at the bottom of this story.

Zach Pandl, an economist with Nomura Securities in New York, also thinks that the second quarter GDP report will reflect a stabilization in the economy and early stages of a recovery.

“The big story in terms of the second quarter is that contraction is getting close to zero. I wouldn’t rule out a positive number,” Pandl said. He said the primary reasons that the economy is getting closer to actually resuming growth are that businesses are finally showing a greater degree of confidence that the worst may be over.

Pandl expects a smaller decline in business investment during the quarter as well as a slower level of inventory reduction as companies begin to realize that economic conditions are slowly returning to normal after last fall’s credit crunch paralyzed the financial markets.

“Companies are going through an adjustment from the shocks hitting the economy late last year,” Pandl said.

Not everyone shares such a rosy view though.

“There has been an abatement of bad news rather than emergence of good news,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist with Mesirow Financial, a diversified financial services firm based in Chicago. “Stabilization in a deep hole is not something to pop champagne corks over.”

Swonk said she remains concerned about the effect that lingering job losses and high unemployment could have on consumers.

A weak labor market, coupled with banks continuing to tighten credit standards, could mean that even if the economy technically emerges from recession this year, a recovery could be dampened by anemic consumer spending.

Kurt Karl, chief U.S. economist with Swiss Re, agreed that consumers may still be a little cautious and that until consumers turn the corner, it’s tough to imagine how the economy can show overall growth.

Karl said that there isn’t likely to be as much of a boost to consumer spending from tax breaks in this year’s stimulus package as there was from tax rebates a year ago.

Last year, the economy grew at a nearly 3% annual rate in the second quarter, but that turned out to be a short-term sugar rush.

“Stimulus didn’t dribble out much as it did last year and some of that money was saved,” he said, adding that he believes personal spending dipped slightly in the second quarter and that GDP fell at a 1.8% rate.

Finally, both Pandl and Probyn noted that the second quarter report may need to be looked at a lot more closely than most. That’s because the Commerce Department will be including so-called benchmark revisions to much of the data used to calculate GDP, particularly to the savings rate and personal income.

This revision is the first since the end of 2003 and the changes could very well wind up showing that the economy was in worse shape a year ago than originally reported.

“The comprehensive revisions are going to be a bit of a wild card since it could change our view of recent history,” Probyn said. “The changes will affect every quarter, and I bet that the gains in the second quarter of last year will be revised away.”

While it may seem that changing the numbers from prior quarters is something that only matters to academics, that’s not the case.

If it turns out, for example, that the savings rate is higher than once thought, that could be further proof that consumers are really changing their behavior. And even though that’s good news for the long-term, it could make it tougher for the economy to grow at a robust pace over the next year or so.

Talkback: Do you believe that the economy is really stabilizing or do you think the numbers don’t tell the true story of the economy?

By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large

via GDP: Don’t believe the hype – Jul. 27, 2009.