CEOs Rate Obama's Performance--by Joseph Weber, Christopher Palmeri, and the BusinessWeek staff

Monday, August 3, 2009

To some top executives, President Barack Obama is "rapidly socializing the United States." Others see his initiatives on everything from healthcare reform to the saving of GM as crucial for sparing the U.S. from even deeper economic trouble. We quizzed numerous leaders of small, medium, and large companies on how they think the President has done in his first six months in office. Some give him a failing grade; others, top marks. Read on to see what these business leaders think of the CEO-in-chief.

Angela F. Braly
CEO, WellPoint, the nation's biggest health insurer
Employers are struggling to provide health benefits while remaining competitive in the global economy and many Americans worry an illness will devastate their financial security. Both are already bearing the brunt of an existing cost shift to private insurers from Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, many in Congress are proposing to shift the burden even further by expanding government-run health care. As Medicare shows us, a government-run health plan would not address the underlying issues of cost and quality. Case in point: Medicare is predicted to be bankrupt by 2017.

The President is doing the right thing by bringing in leaders from hospitals, physicians, nurses, employers, advocacy groups, and private insurers, among others. Only by working together will we be able to develop a sustainable solution for America's health care system.

Michael S. Dell
Founder and CEO, Dell
There are some aspects of what is in the economic recovery act around broadband, healthcare, and IT spending that we think are good things. We're concerned, like many, that one word that seems to be missing from a lot of discussions is "competitiveness." How do all of these things make America more competitive? It's a word that should be used more in Washington.

Mohamed El-Erian
CEO and co-chief investment officer of Pimco
The most interesting thing is the mess he inherited and the extent he has to pursue two different agendas—there's the agenda he came in with and the agenda to stabilize a rapidly imploding US economy. The big gamble is that he has tried to pursue both simultaneously. That's going to define his first term. So far the evidence is mixed. On one side he has been able to stabilize the financial center and institute major structural reforms. And he still maintains enormous popularity with the American people.

On the negative side, the jobs picture is worse than anticipated, and unemployment itself is becoming a big policy challenge. It's going from being a lagging indicator to being a leading indicator. The major issue people are going to second guess in the next six months is his decision to pursue both agendas. Was that the right one or should have he done it sequentially?

He inherited a real mess, not just a mess, but one that requires him to make difficult decisions. I voted for Obama, and I'm a supporter. I've been impressed by how bold he has been on the political front, and how quickly he came up the learning curve in terms of the trade-offs involved. You see it very explicitly: Three weeks ago, for example, he talked about yes, fiscal stimulus was important and it avoided bigger problems—yet there are also longer-term fiscal sustainability challenges. The notion that we get is that he understands what the issues are and he's making active choices as opposed to reactive choices.

Robert Greifeld
CEO, Nasdaq OMX
What I like is the fact that the President recognizes that we have a number of pressing issues and is endeavoring to attack or approach these issues with hopefully innovative solutions. The counterpoint to that is that you do grow concerned that they might try to do too much too soon or to overreach in a particular area and run the risk of rendering all efforts either neutered or ineffectual.

He's exceeded my expectations with respect to the managerial ability to craft and attempt to execute a wide-ranging agenda. I would have assumed that the natural realities of the office and what's required to move legislation would have narrowed the agenda.

Within the leadership of the business community, there is concern and I would say that the attitude is not so much wait-and-see, but wary. They're wary with respect to trade policy. They're wary with respect to tax policy and obviously are also concerned with the burden of health-care costs. There's a fair amount of trepidation in the business community and what the Administration policies might mean to their success in the future. In terms of the concern in the business community, I think, it is greater today than it was back in November.

On the stimulus package: I don't believe the stimulus has had a noticeable impact on the economy as of yet. I think it is somewhat misguided to be calling for additional stimulus. We need to get the stimulus that was approved into the economy, flowing through our different activities.

Jeffrey Katzenberg
CEO, Dreamworks Animation SKG
(Katzenberg was an early Obama supporter and is still very much in the President's corner.)
I don't think that any President in modern history has had to face a deeper or more difficult or more complicated set of issues from the first moment he set foot in the White House, and I think he has done an exceptional job of methodically working his way through that horrendous set of problems. He had to make a lot of decisions, and some of them will be wrong, but many, many of them will turn out right.

On tax hikes: Unfortunately, that's not been a level playing field and there has been an unhealthy concentration of wealth in this country. Those days are over.

Jeffrey B. Kindler
CEO, Pfizer
Obama's health-care reform is making more progress than a lot of people would have predicted. We're on the verge of a bill coming out of the House that's clearly going to happen. Right now there's some challenges in the Senate because of the potentially significant differences between the two committees there. The biggest challenge is this issue around the public plan. The other is how do we pay for it? Those are big issues. How they're going to get resolved within the time frame people have in mind, I'm not an expert on that. On any given day you'll hear harmony or disharmony. But yeah, I do sense a considerable amount of progress.

I do think that we have to accept the reality that the vast majority of the people in this country get their insurance from employers and if we create a system that provides an incentive for employers to not provide their employees with insurance, then under certain scenarios huge numbers of people under public option would move out of the employer system into the public system. That would not be a good outcome because it would impose a tremendous financial burden on the taxpayers.

W. James McNerney Jr.
CEO, Boeing
A level playing field for American companies and workers in international markets is more important than ever. I see clear evidence that the Administration understands the issue and its importance to U.S. economic health.

Duncan L. Niederauer
CEO of NYSE Euronext, operator of the New York Stock Exchange
The sense of optimism that is continuously communicated by the Administration is not only important, but necessary. The expectations for him generally speaking were so incredibly high when he took office. He's done a reasonably good job of living up to those. I have seen a number of instances where President Obama really is doing what we all hoped he would by reaching out to the stakeholders, decisionmakers, potential influencers, and people who have expertise in various arenas. I know a number of people, including myself, who have been invited to the White House for various discussions. A lot of leaders wouldn't do that. The President's communications skills are very strong, as you would have expected. But he and the Administration have taken on so much, they're multitasking beyond expectations. I do like the reaching-out approach. It will serve him very well as we tackle all these rather meaty issues.

On tax policy: A place where I do not think they struck the right chord was on the tax proposal involving overseas earnings of multinational corporations headquartered in the U.S. The overwhelming view from that constituent group is that if that proposal were to go through, it would at best require a lot of U.S.-headquartered companies to eliminate jobs to reduce costs to make up for the increased tax burden. More challengingly for the United States, it would encourage a lot of these companies to contemplate being incorporated elsewhere and potentially moving jobs out of this country and moving headquarters and operations abroad. I hope the Administration listens to the feedback and reconsiders their position.

On regulation: We all know we need some regulatory reform here and to bring the opaque markets out of the shadows and into the light. But there's a real danger, in our view, that there ends up being excessive regulation that stifles creation of new business and new jobs.

Charles R. Schwab
Founder and Chairman, Charles Schwab, the San Francisco-based discount brokerage
We've got to restore business confidence. We've restored the individual's confidence. The banking system seems to be doing okay. What we haven't done is restore the confidence of the people who create the jobs. There are six million businesses with more than one employee. What would it take to get each one to hire one more? If I had a magic wand, I'd create some kind of incentive. The biggest uncertainty is: Where are taxes going to go? The quicker you bring certainty, the quicker you restore confidence.

Donald J. Trump
CEO, the Trump Organization
I would hire him. He's handled the tremendous mess he walked into very well. He still has a daunting task ahead of him but he appears to be equal to the challenge. He has kept his eye on both national and international issues and his visits to foreign countries have shown him to be warmly received, which is certainly a change from the last Administration. I believe he should pay more attention to OPEC and what's going on there, but overall I believe he's done a very good job.

My Perspective: Color of Change Needs to Change

I have applauded the organization ColorofChange.org over the years especially as they fought for the Jena 6 but the reality is that the Jena 6 were wrong in their actions but they still should not have been charged with attempted murder. I have continued to receive the ColorofChange.org emails and many of them are in line with my own views. However I received an email on July 28 talking about firing Lou Dobbs for covering a story about the birthers and yesterday I received an email talking about Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist. What has happened to ColorofChange.org because it seems as if they are always jumping to the side of the left when it is suppose to be an organization that exists to strengthen Black America's political voice? Their goal is to empower our members—Black Americans and our allies—to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.

ColorofChange.org was heart-broken and outraged by the catastrophe that followed Hurricane Katrina. And they were devastated to realize that no African-American organization or coalition had the capacity to respond on the necessary scale. Hurricane Katrina made it clear that our lack of a political voice has life-and-death consequences. With no one to speak for them, hundreds of thousands of people—largely Black, poor, and elderly—were left behind to die. But it wasn't just Black folks. Poor, sick, and elderly people of every color were abandoned too. ColorofChange.org is not alone, and claims when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence.

ColorOfChange.org is comprised of Black folks from every economic class, as well as those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard. Its members are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protected—regardless of race or class. How do ColorofChange.org does this is by using the Internet. The internet enables ColorofChange.org members to speak in unison, with an amplified political voice. ColorofChange.org will keep them informed about the most pressing issues for Black people in America and give them ways to act. ColorofChange.org will lobby elected representatives using email, the telephone, and face-to-face meetings. ColorofChange.org brings attention to the needs and concerns of Black folks by holding coordinated events in different parts of the country, running TV and print advertisements, and demanding that the news media cover our issues. ColorofChange.org also works with other groups—online efforts and other organizations that are doing related work—to magnify its impact. ColorofChange.org believes that when we come together and speak with one voice, we cannot be ignored.

I agree with all of that ColorofChange.org says but it doesn’t do that because in its emails this week, it takes one side of the debate instead of working to deal with this issues of race and discrimination properly, ColorofChange.org instead picks sides very fast. ColorofChange.org paints a picture of a one-sided story like it did in the Jena 6 story in order to give a portrait that makes people of color outraged when in fact the whole story someone needs to really investigate. The truth of the matter is that ColorofChange.org claims that when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence and says it will do all it can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protected—regardless of race or class. However where was ColorofChange.org when MSNBC host Keith Olberman had an actress on his show screaming that all the people at the tax day tea parties were racists. Where was ColorofChange.org to defend all those tea party protests from the hate, vicious and demeaning comments that many television hosts on MSNBC such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews gave them.

ColorofChange.org send in its email about Lou Dobbs that Lou Dobbs is using his platform on CNN to revive paranoid conspiracy theories about whether President Obama was born in the U.S.1 While the question was put to rest long ago, Dobbs is pretending that this extremist nonsense is a legitimate national conversation. Intentionally or not, he is stoking the fires of racial fear and paranoia in the same way that the McCain/Palin campaign did when they cast Obama as "not one of us."2 Even after being called on this, Dobbs refuses to stop. CNN, which is held in high regard by many Americans and describes itself as the "the most trusted name in news," is allowing one of its hosts to give legitimacy to debunked, racist conspiracy theories. It asks people to join in by calling on CNN to dump Dobbs, and ask your friends and family to do the same.

ColorofChange.org goes on to say that for more than a year, folks on the far right have been claiming that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen; that he was born in Kenya, and as a result can't be president3. This theory has been repeatedly debunked. Not only has the state of Hawaii provided a birth certificate to media organizations several times, there were also birth announcements in two separate Hawaii papers when Obama was born in 1961--for most reasonable people, that would remove any doubt. However even ColorofChange.org has its information wrong because the state of Hawaii has not provided a birth certificate for many media outlets but instead has issued statements saying Obama was born in Hawaii and even Lou Dobbs says Obama is a U.S. citizen but has said he just needs to show his actual birth certificate to squash this nonsense from the birthers once and for all since Obama claims to be transparent.

However ColorofChange.org is doing exactly what other organizations have did in attacking Lou Dobbs when other television hosts reported on the story two weeks ago such as Chris Matthews of MSNBC and in ColorofChange.org own email it has a quote from the head of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, who had this to say about the claim: "It's racist. It's racist. Just call it for what it is."5 So is Phil Griffin calling Chris Matthews a racist and other hosts on MSNBC news who talked about the birthers such as Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow regardless if they had the same claim as Lou Dobbs in which they had people come on to talk about it but unlike Dobbs they didn’t have a birther on but only those who laughed and mocked the birthers. I guess because Dobbs gave birthers a voice or sit at the table is what organizations like ColorofChange.org and others don’t like.

But didn’t Dobbs do exactly what President Obama told us to do which is regardless of our differences let’s listen to them and give them a sit at the table in order to work out our differences in a way that we have never done before. But the truth of the matter is that ColorofChange.org and the Southern Poverty Law Center are not really going after Dobbs simply because of having the birthers on his show or talking about this but they are going after him because of his past stances on illegal immigration. As stated in the ColorofChange.org email, it says that Lou Dobbs has a history of attacking immigrants by spouting hateful rhetoric and lies but that is false because they left out the word illegal immigrants. ColorofChange.org goes on to say that Dobbs once claimed that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans" through "deadly imports" of diseases like leprosy and malaria.6 This kind of rhetoric feeds anti-immigrant hate, the kind of hate that leads to horrors like the beating death of Luis Ramirez in Pennsylvania and the shooting death of nine-year old Brisenia Flores in Arizona earlier this year. Dobbs' rhetoric has led organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to call on CNN to reign in Dobbs in the past.7 Now, Dobbs is going after President Obama by giving voice to the same kind of xenophobic rhetoric, stoking the deep-seated fears of angry right-wing extremists who, as CNN analyst Roland Martin has said, can't accept the fact that their president is Black8.

Dobbs may not like Obama, but it's a real problem for him to use his powerful position as a moderator of discussion about the news to validate a dangerous falsehood that's rooted in racism. Several watchdog groups have demanded action on the part of CNN. The head of the SPLC wrote CNN last week asking that they fire Dobbs based on his recent actions9. Media Matters and others have launched efforts to hold CNN accountable as well.10 CNN has the opportunity to live up to its description of itself as the most trusted cable news network. Or it can ignore the problem of Lou Dobbs and communicate something very different: that delivering real news and analysis is not its top priority, and that legitimizing extremist propaganda is an acceptable part of doing business. ColorofChange.org asks its supporters to join them in calling on Jon Klein, the president of CNN, to take Dobbs off the air. However where is this same outrage toward other television hosts who covered this same story. Also let’s be clear ColorofChange.org and other organizations like Media Matters take up for the tea party protestors like you are taking up for Obama. Why didn’t any of you take up for Sarah Palin and the attacks on her last year and this year or the attacks on Hillary Clinton last year.

Then just yesterday, ColorofChange.org continued to embrace the left-wing side of politics by saying more and more, right-wing talk show hosts are bringing race-based fear mongering into the mainstream, but FOX's Glenn Beck just took it to another level. On Tuesday, Beck said: This president has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people... this guy is, I believe, a racist.13 It's part of a larger argument Beck has been making:14 that President Obama is using the White House to serve the needs of Black communities at White people's expense. This kind of talk stirs up fear, hate, and it can lead to violence.14,15 Now I don’t agree with Beck’s comments but why isn’t ColorofChange.org using its voice to defend the woman who called 911 in the Gates arrest who was called a racist by the media and the blogs. Or better yet why didn’t ColorofChange.org say anything about the comments Professor Gates made to Officer Crowley in terms of calling him a racist in which Gates has not said he didn’t say.

ColorofChange.org goes on to say that together we can stop Glenn Beck.16 Starting today we're calling Beck's advertisers, asking them if they want to be associated with this kind of racist hate and fear-mongering. When they see tens of thousands of people signing on behind that question, we believe they'll move their advertising dollars elsewhere, damaging the viability of his show and possibly putting him out of business. All it requires is you, standing up and being counted. Glenn Beck is appealing to the worst in America. Of course, some people refuse to accept the fact that our president is Black or the idea that he could truly serve all Americans. We know that. The only way these views will fade away is if they're not reinforced by mainstream society. Instead, folks like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs,18 and Rush Limbaugh19 are exploiting racism and race-based fear to bump their ratings, stirring up racial discord in the process.

ColorofChange.org goes on to say that the dangers of these tactics are real. It says they saw the same dynamic during the presidential race: by the end, the McCain/Palin campaign was unable to control the violent energy whipped up by their race-baiting. The result was an unprecedented number of threats on Obama's life, a rise in the number of hate groups, and an increase in the number of threats and crimes against immigrants and Black people.18,19,20 FOX has had a long history of race-baiting and racism on its shows, and we've run campaigns calling them out.21,22 But Glenn Beck appears to be taking the network to an even lower standard. He's trying to divide and distract America when we should be coming together and talking about issues that really matter--like health care and the economy.

Now I agree with ColorofChange.org that Glenn Beck was wrong for calling President Obama a racist because he is not but those who called Officer Crowley and the woman who made the phone call are wrong to for calling them racists especially the news media that put those notions out there. I do agree with ColorofChange.org that this distracts or divides us from coming together and talking about issues such as healthcare and the economy but by sending out emails such as this, ColorofChange.org is continuing the division when Beck said this on Tuesday and they are sending out an email 4 days later. ColorofChange.org needs to wake up and realize that it shouldn’t go along with the extreme left wing on issues such as this when they are the very ones who probably called the black officer in Cambridge who came to Sgt. Crowley’s defense an Uncle Tom. Is this how we change the debate and hail racial woes by continuing to go down the same road that has divided us for years. Yes Glenn Beck’s comments were wrong but ColorofChange.org where are you in defending the black officer. Where are you are denouncing those who are playing the race card in situations that probably aren’t racists at all.

ColorofChange.org is a good organization and can continue to be but it is slowly becoming another left wing group that only defends those who the left says defends. Let’s be clear, ColorofChange.org helped bring Jena 6 to the public’s eye but all the facts were not given by this organization and even when the case was resolved nearly 2 years later, it was resolved quietly with 5 of the Jena 6 admitting they were wrong in beating up the white boy and they don’t know why they beat him up. That was not reported by ColorofChange.org in the email blast they sent out. The truth of the matter is that ColorofChange.org needs to respect people’s second amendment right even when it is not in line with there’s. I don’t agree with Glenn Beck’s comments on calling Obama a racist but I don’t agree with anyone who labels people names when they are unwarranted. However ColorofChange.org doesn’t understand that because it hasn’t taken up for the black officer from Cambridge, it didn’t say Gates was wrong for calling Sgt. Crowley a racist and it hasn’t said anything about the racists comments directed toward the 911 caller that called the police cause she thought someone was breaking in Gates house.

ColorofChange.org needs to change its view in dealing with issues when its platform states it is for everyone. If ColorofChange.org is for everyone and is for being a voice for all African Americans than why isn’t it defending all blacks when people are spewing hate toward all people of color. ColorofChange.org is right, we have the power to stop hatred, racism, discrimination and bigotry but that begins with us having a new dialogue and approach toward these issues. We can’t continue to do the status quo and we can’t take sides too quickly or deal with one set of comments while ignoring others. We can’t just deal with national issues and avoid the local issues in regards to racism, hatred, discrimination and bigotry. We have to be a voice for everyone and we can’t just attack people for giving a voice to those organizations or people we don’t like. We can’t just attack people for simply using their first amendment right and saying they think the President is a racist. No one in the national media or organizations like media matters said anything about Kanye West saying President Bush doesn’t like black people. Let’s be clear, we can’t continue down this path and that’s why ColorofChange.org needs to be different in its approach to changing to politics.

President Obama and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have shown the way that we can’t deal with our enemies with a close fist but we must deal with them with an open hand. We have to open not just our hands but our hearts, mind and soul to those who disagree with us and listen to them in an effort to understand their views and hope that they do the same in order to understand our views. It is from this dialogue that we can learn from each other and be a better people in the long run. This is a view that I practice every day. I welcome sitting down and talking to those who disagree with me and I understand their view better through verbal dialogue better than written dialogue sometimes. Still ColorofChange.org needs to live up to its motto which is it will do all it can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protected—regardless of race or class. Well in order for this to happen, we can’t continue to take sides in battles without fully understanding all the facts. We can bring attention to issues without siding with one side over the other. This is crucial to changing our nation’s racial debate.

I hope ColorofChange.org listens to me and gets back on message of working to resolve those political issues that don’t get dealt with on behalf of people of color. ColorofChange.org needs to talk about issues such as the fact that many committees on Capitol Hill have few black or people of color staffers. That is something we need to work on because that is not the right representation of our nation that is needed and there are many qualified people who can work on Capitol Hill but aren’t given the opportunity to do so. So my hope is for ColorofChange.org to change its ways and to alien itself in a centrist and moderate approach in order to address issues regarding people of color that’s the only way color of change can truly occur because there are already too many extreme left organizations who takes sides on issues and look how much attention they get—little to known. ColorofChange.org needs to change and needs to be a voice for real change not just the status quo rhetoric.

References:
1. Lou Dobbs Show, CNN, 7-23-09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvYcFgXCJrE

2. "Mob scene or campaign rally?" ColorOfChange.org, 10-14-08 http://www.colorofchange.org/united/message.html

3. "(Still) Challenging Obama's birth certificate," Politics Daily, 11-24-08 http://tinyurl.com/m2xhue

4. "CNN chief addresses Obama birth controversy," LA Times, 7-25-09 http://tinyurl.com/mk4rfd

5. "On Television and Radio, Talk of Obama's Citizenship," The New York Times, 7-24-09 http://tinyurl.com/mb467j

6. "CNN's Immigration Problem," Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 4-24-06 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2867

7. "Broken Record," Intelligence Report, Winter 2005 http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589

8. "CNN's Martin: Birthers' "I want my country back" comment means "How is this black guy all of the sudden running the country?" Media Matters, 7-22-09 http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907220041

9. "Major Civil Rights Group Demands CNN Remove Lou Dobbs From The Air," Huffington Post, 7-24-09 http://tinyurl.com/lafpuw

10. "CNN's Dobbs Problem," Media Matters http://dobbsconspiracy.com/

11. "CNN president Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead,'" LA Times blog, 7-24-09 http://tinyurl.com/ncrj5f

12. "CNN President brushes off criticism of Lou Dobbs' continued floating of 'birther' theories," Who Runs Gov blog, 7-24-09 http://tinyurl.com/l3x7dp

13. "Beck: Obama has 'exposed himself as a guy' with 'a deep seated hatred for white people'" Media Matters, 7-28-09 http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280008

14. "Glenn Beck: Obama agenda driven by 'reparations' and desire to 'settle old racial scores'," Media Matters, 7-23-09 http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040

15. "Palin linked to death threats against Obama," Economic Times, 11-9-2008 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3691429.cms

16. "Obama win prompts wave of hate crimes," Times Online, 11-17-2008 http://tinyurl.com/5rhf29

17. "MSNBC's Deutsch encourages viewers to demand advertisers on Beck's show spend money elsewhere," Media Matters, 7-29-09 http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907290037

18. "On Television and Radio, Talk of Obama's Citizenship," The New York Times, 7-24-09 http://tinyurl.com/mb467j

19. "Rush and reparations," The Nation, 5-12-2009 http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/435392/rush_and_reparations

20. "Homeland Security report warns of rising right-wing extremism, Huffington Post, 4-14-2009 http://tinyurl.com/cpgx6q

21. ColorOfChange.org email on Fox's attacks on the Obamas http://www.colorofchange.org/foxobama/message.html

22. "An overview: Fox News and its problem with African-Americans," ColorOfChange.org http://colorofchange.org/fox/summary.html

Nigerian military ignored warnings of violence--By KATHARINE HOURELD, Associated Press Writer

Nigerian authorities ignored dozens of warnings about a violent Islamist sect until it attacked police stations and government buildings last week in a bloodbath that killed more than 700 people, Muslim clerics and an army official said.

More than 50 Muslim leaders repeatedly called Nigeria's police, local authorities and state security to urge them to take action against Boko Haram sect militants but their pleas were ignored, Imam Ibrahim Ahmed Abdullahi said.

He spoke Saturday to The Associated Press along with several other Muslim scholars in the battle-ravaged city of Maiduguri.

"A lot of imams tried to draw the attention of the government," Abdullahi said, drawing nods from other scholars sitting with him in a Maiduguri slum. "We used to call the government and security agents to say that these people must be stopped from what they are doing because it must bring a lot of trouble."

On July 26, militants from the sect attacked a police station in Bauchi state, triggering a wave of militant violence that spread to three other northern states. Nigerian authorities retaliated five days later by storming the group's sprawling Maiduguri headquarters, killing at least 100 people in the attack, half of them inside the sect's mosque.

About 700 people were killed in days of violence last week in Maiduguri alone, according to Col. Ben Ahanotu, the military official in charge of a local anti-crime operation. A relief official said thousands fled the city.

The death toll in other northern areas from the violence was not known.

The imams were not the only ones to raise the alarm. Ahanotu said he recommended several times action be taken against the group but received no orders to do so.

"I complained a lot of times," he said. "I was just waiting for orders."

The allegations of authorities dismissing the warnings raise serious questions about the West African nation's capacity to monitor and defend itself against terrorist groups.

International concern is growing over the ability of al-Qaida affiliates to cross the porous desert borders of north African countries such as Niger, which shares a border with Nigeria.

Abdullahi said he had known Boko Haram's charismatic leader Mohamed Yusuf for 14 years before the 39-year-old Yusuf was killed Thursday while in police custody. Several human rights groups have urged an investigation into the killing, the details of which remain murky.

Abdullahi and Yusuf were friends but had a falling out four years ago, the imam said, when Yusuf drifted toward extremism, began publicly rejecting Western education and urged followers to commit violence.

Yusuf's sect, Boko Haram — which means "Western education is sacrilege" — rejects government education and seeks the imposition of strict Islamic Shariah law in Nigeria, a multi-religious country that is a major oil producer and Africa's most populous nation.

Yusuf, a Western-educated member of the country's elite, encouraged his followers to rid themselves of all material wealth while he was chauffeured around in a Mercedes.

Most sect members are young, unemployed and angry that the introduction of moderate Shariah law in 12 northern states 10 years ago has not halted the corruption that keeps most Nigerians in desperate poverty.

But Abdullahi said calls to violence were not the answer.

"I tried to show him and many of our Islamic scholars tried to show him that this is totally wrong," Abdullahi said, adding that he had asked friends to tape Yusuf's sermons to keep tabs on his violent rhetoric.

"They wanted to draw the attention of the world," he said. "Only Allah knows how many lives have been lost."

Abdullahi said he made his final call to security agencies two days before the sect attacked police stations with guns, bows and arrows and homemade bombs.

It was not clear why authorities didn't act sooner. Boko Haram was not discreet and Yusuf had been arrested several times before, most recently in 2008 after his followers attacked a police station.

Nine days ago, two sect members were making a homemade bomb when it went off prematurely, killing one and fatally wounding another.

Borno state's governor, Ali Modu Sheriff, said he wasn't sure he could bring enough evidence to court against the sect.

"It's not that people did not hear or that our government did not know that these followers of Mohamed Yusuf did exist. They did exist, but we don't know what they stand for," he said.

Ahanotu, the military official, blamed Nigeria's notoriously inefficient bureaucracy, while Abdullahi said the fact that many sons from prominent families had joined the sect may have helped slow the government response.

Recent government attention has focused on the country's cash lifeline: the oil-rich Niger Delta, plagued by a series of militant attacks. Little heed has been paid to the tens of millions living in the impoverished, mainly Muslim north.

"These attacks show the danger of that neglect," said Tom Cargill, an Africa analyst at London-based think-tank Chatham House.

___
Associated Press Writer Njadvara Musa contributed to this report.

Geithner: Lower deficit key to sustaining recovery--By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the U.S. must cut the annual federal budget deficit, now more than $1 trillion, for the economy to have a sustained recovery and he's not ruling out new taxes.

He said the country needs to understand the Obama administration will do what's necessary. He did not detail how the government plans to shrink the deficit, though he said overhauling the health care system and lowering costs are essential.

"When we have recovery established, led by the private sector, then we have to bring these deficits down very dramatically," he told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday. "And that's going to require some very hard choices. And we're going to have to do that in a way that does not add unfairly to the burdens that the average American already faces."

Geithner also said private economists generally expect to see growth later this year and unemployment to ease in the second half of next year.

Any sustained recovery must rely on business investment and hiring, he said. Geithner said the administration will stick with its economic efforts until there a strong private sector-led recovery is in place.

Geithner said the White House wants a health care bill that has broad support on Capitol Hill. But he said the decision of whether "to help shape this and be part of it" is up to lawmakers.

"Or do they want this country . . . to go another several decades without doing what every other serious country has done. Which is to give their citizens access to basic quality of care," Geithner said.

On revamping the financial sector, Geithner rejected Republican claims that the government is assuming too much control over Wall Street.

The House passed a bill Friday prohibiting pay and bonus packages that encourage bankers and traders to take risks so big they could bring down the entire economy. Republican opponents of the legislation said the restrictions should apply only to banks that accept government aid. They criticized Democrats for creating government bureaucracies to make decisions better left to the private sector.

"I think that really everybody understands that we cannot have our financial system go back to the practices that brought this economy to the brink of collapse," Geithner said.

Geithner also said that extending unemployment benefits again is something the administration and Congress are going to "look very carefully at as the end of this year approaches."

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate--By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system.

Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.

The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.
Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

Obama hails `historic step' on health care changes--By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are looking ahead to a health care showdown on the House floor in September following a key committee's passage of sweeping overhaul legislation.

"This historic step," Obama said, "moves us closer to health insurance reform than we have ever been before."

In a sign of the fight ahead, Republicans on Saturday quickly blasted the Democrats' proposals as a "dangerous and costly experiment" that will run up the federal deficit and overwhelm state budgets.

The 31-28 vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Friday was weeks later than either the White House or Democratic leaders had hoped. Nonetheless, it was a triumph for them.

Appealing for passage, Obama said in a statement Saturday that in the coming weeks "we must build upon the historic consensus that has been forged and do the hard work necessary to seize this unprecedented opportunity for the future of our economy and the health of our families."

The vote came after weeks of negotiations finally satisfied concerns raised by fiscally conservative Democrats — only to produce a compromise that riled liberals.

The liberal opposition was quieted with a last-minute series of changes agreed to early Friday that included limiting how much insurers can raise premiums, and giving the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.

"We passed a bill out that shows that we can bring together conservative, moderate and progressive Democrats," Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said after the vote. "We're going to need that coalition on the House floor, and I feel confident that we'll pass a health care reform bill in the House when we come back in September."

Five Democrats and all committee Republicans opposed the bill.

The measure is designed to extend health insurance to millions who now lack it, at the same time it strives to slow the growth in medical costs nationwide — Obama's twin goals.

While the pace of action was slower than party leaders had hoped, it was speedier by far than the timetable in the Senate.

There, Democrats said a deadline of Sept. 15 had been imposed on marathon talks aimed at producing a bipartisan compromise in the Senate Finance Committee.

In the GOP's weekly radio and Internet address, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota contended that the Democrats' current proposals do not improve health care because it would force millions of Americans in employer-based coverage into a government-run system.

He also said the proposals would burden states because they expand Medicaid coverage without a clear source of funding. In South Dakota, for example, the new requirements could require $45 million a year in new state spending that will "have to come from somewhere, and that means either higher taxes or cuts to other priorities."

"That's what we're facing not just in South Dakota, but nationwide," he said.

Thune said Republicans would seek reforms that allow small businesses to band together to buy affordable health insurance for their employees; protect doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits; encourage wellness and prevention programs proved to cut costs; and give people who buy their own insurance the same tax breaks as those who get insurance through their employers.

Without a bipartisan bill, Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would presumably have to produce a measure tailored to Democratic specifications, a step he has said repeatedly he would rather avoid. It wasn't clear how much the deadline for the committee to start voting was Baucus' idea, and how much it reflected growing impatience at the White House and on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The Energy and Commerce Committee was the third of three House panels to act on the legislation affecting one-sixth of the nation's economy. A vote in the full House is expected in September, after lawmakers return from a monthlong vacation. Combining the measures produced by the three House committees could be tricky since compromises agreed to in the Energy and Commerce Committee produced a bill less reflective of liberal priorities than the legislation passed by the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.

The biggest example is probably the shape of a new government insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. House Democrats originally tied payment rates for providers in the plan to Medicare rates, but fiscally conservative Blue Dogs in the Energy and Commerce Committee pushed instead for rates to be negotiated with providers, as happens with private companies.

Many liberals fear that would result in higher costs to patients, and the Ways and Means and Education and Labor produced bills with public plans modeled on Medicare.

The Democrats who opposed the final Energy and Commerce bill were Reps. John Barrow of Georgia; Rick Boucher of Virginia; Jim Matheson of Utah; Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Bart Stupak of Michigan.

Under the bill, insurance companies would be required to sell coverage to all seeking it, without exclusions for pre-existing medical conditions. The federal government would provide subsidies for lower-income families to help them afford policies that would otherwise be out of their reach.

The bill would set up so-called exchanges, in effect national marketplaces where consumers both with and without subsidies could evaluate different policies and choose the one they wanted.

The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.

___
Associated Press writers David Espo and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
GOP address: http://www.youtube.com/user/gopweeklyaddress

Obama: 'Spirit of innovation' key to the future--By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer

President Barack Obama, citing fresh evidence the recession is winding down, says the country's future economic prosperity depends on building a new, stronger foundation and recapturing the "spirit of innovation."

"Innovation has been essential to our prosperity in the past, and it will be essential to our prosperity in the future," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

The president cited Friday's Commerce Department report showing that in the last few months the economy overall has done "measurably better than expected." He credited his $787 billion economic stimulus program for much of that progress.

"This and the other difficult but important steps that we have taken over the last six months have helped put the brakes on this recession," Obama said. He mentioned his administration's efforts to limit home foreclosures and unlock frozen credit markets to encourage lending to people and businesses, along with the mixture of tax cuts and spending included in the stimulus program.

Obama reminded the nation that full recovery will not happen overnight, but rather will take many more months.

"Even as we rescue this economy, we must work to rebuild it stronger than before," he said. "We've got to build a new foundation strong enough to withstand future economic storms and support lasting prosperity."

That means having the best-educated, highest-skilled workers in the world, a health care system that fosters innovation by holding the line on costs, building a clean energy economy and investing in research and development, Obama said.

"It is only by building a new foundation that we will once again harness that incredible generative capacity of the American people," the president said. "All it takes are the policies to tap that potential — to ignite that spark of creativity and ingenuity — which has always been at the heart of who we are and how we succeed."

Obama said he will discuss the foundation he wants when he makes a second visit to Elkhart, Ind., on Wednesday. Layoffs in the recreational vehicle industry account for much of the job loss in northern Indiana, which is struggling with an unemployment rate near 17 percent.

"For communities like Elkhart to thrive, we need to recapture that spirit of innovation that has always moved America forward," he said.

Senior administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, are likely to discuss those issues during meetings Saturday to assess administration progress at the six-month mark and plot a course ahead.

Obama was headed to Camp David for the weekend, and was not expected to participate in the sessions.

___
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov

Slice of central US safe from recession shrinking--By BEN NEARY and MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writers

Carl Rupp and his neighbors follow the old rancher's creed: "Keep your money in your pocket."

Rupp has farmed his whole life. He lives in Goshen County, a rural spot along the Nebraska line where cattle outnumber humans 16 to 1 and you can still see the ruts cut by wagons that hauled pioneers along the Oregon Trail. "We're very conservative," said Rupp, 62. "We don't go out too far on a limb."

That prudent financial bent, matched with the high prices paid for crops and energy in the past few years, has largely protected Goshen County and a core group of several hundred other counties in 10 states from the recession's chokehold. The Associated Press Economic Stress Index shows they make up a "safe zone" that covers a long swath of middle America, from the Great Plains south to Texas.

But the safe zone is shrinking. Energy production and prices are sliding, especially for coal and natural gas. Crop prices are dropping, too, as there's less demand in Asia for American wheat, corn and soybeans. There were 800 counties in the safe zone a year ago, a number that dropped to about 300 counties in May and slid further to 200 counties in June.

"To say that you're doing pretty well is just to say that it's the best-looking puppy in a pretty ugly litter," said Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who recently imposed a 10 percent budget cut across his state's government in response to falling tax revenue from the energy sector.

The contiguous counties in the safe zone start in Montana and North Dakota, and cascade into Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma, and end in northern Texas and eastern New Mexico. Those in the safe zone had an AP Economic Stress score under 5 in June, making them the economically healthiest in the United States.

The AP calculates a score from 1 to 100 based on each county's unemployment, foreclosure and bankruptcy rates. The higher the score, the higher the economic stress.

The safe zone is largely rural — all but a dozen of the counties have populations of less than 25,000 people, many of whom make a living in agriculture. As the rest of the nation was riding the mortgage bubble, many farmers and ranchers in the safe zone who suffered through the agriculture crisis of the 1980s took on comparatively little debt. And when the recession hit, it didn't dampen demand for the row crops grown on the Great Plains.

Consumption of food and feed grains has increased 3 to 4 percent annually in recent years, while a federal mandate that gasoline contain certain levels of ethanol has also kept demand for corn and soybeans high.

"The last few years, ag has been pretty good," said Rupp, who sells alfalfa to dairies and feedlots. "In the long run, if there is such a thing, it's more stable than being in a county with energy as a primary industry. We miss out on the booms and busts, but overall we're in pretty good shape."
But while not in a bust cycle, ag prices are still down enough from last summer's highs to worry Doug Goehring, North Dakota's agriculture commissioner.

"If you really want to hurt the economy, beat the heck out of agriculture," Goehring said. "It is a primary sector in our economy. It is generating new wealth. You can't just rely on services to drive your economy."

Elsewhere in the safe zone, the business is energy, and the recession is starting to take a toll on a business that was booming. While oil prices have increased this summer, it's the price of natural gas and coal that matters most here. Natural gas that traded for nearly $13 per 1,000 cubic feet last summer is now available for less than $4. The spot price for coal is running around $9 a ton, down from about $13 last year.

The number of rigs in Wyoming drilling for coal bed methane dropped to zero in May, down from 19 the previous year, while the number of conventional rigs drilling for natural gas and oil is off by more than half. No coal mines have closed, but annual production could drop as much as 10 percent as the recession stalls the need for electricity nationwide.

"The prices of coal are down. Production is going to be down," said Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association. "So we're going to see a pretty significant reduction probably this year, and it's really just based on the amount of electricity that the country is using."

When booming, energy extraction kept unemployment low. In Oklahoma, for example, unemployment began creeping upward not long after as energy prices began sliding in September. It stood at 6.3 percent in June, up from 3.8 percent in June 2008. Wyoming's unemployment rate was 5.9 percent in June — far below the national average of 9.5 percent, but the highest in the state since June 1999.

Because of a 45-percent dip in demand for its drilling services and installing pipeline, Three Way Inc. of Buffalo, Wyo. has laid off 145 workers, about 60 percent of its work force from last summer. It was among a dozen companies in northeastern Wyoming's coal-rich Powder River Basin that recently auctioned off hundreds of trucks, trailers and other equipment, said company controller Alex Mantle.

"Definitely people see some doom and gloom and are certainly disappointed," Mantle said.

Because of their small size, the AP index lacks foreclosure data for about half of the 200 counties that made up the safe zone in June; those with a population under 25,000 were assigned a foreclosure rate of zero. But there is widespread anecdotal evidence that real estate is an anchor in a place where many families proudly trace their land titles to homesteading ancestors who settled the frontier in the 1800s.

Aided by low interest rates, the value of farm and ranch land has grown by double digits this decade. Unlike California or Florida, there was no largely speculative housing bubble here.

Mike Daly started First State Bank of Wheatland in 1981, first setting up shop in a mobile home in a southeastern Wyoming town surrounded by lush farmland. His bank, which now has several branches, never got into the subprime mortgage market, and he said his customers prefer the traditional fixed-rate, 30-year home loans.

"The vast majority of our borrowers have had a pretty good run. And by that, I'm going to say eight to nine years of really (ag) good prices," Daly said. "They've increased their equity positions, they've paid down debt, and they're in a position, for the most part, to weather the storm."

___
Associated Press writers Dale Wetzel in Bismarck, N.D., and Murray Evans in Oklahoma City contributed to this report.

In rural America, skepticism of health care reform--By KRISTEN WYATT, Associated Press Writer

Don't tell Dorothy J. Tenorio that Washington is nearing a deal to improve her health care.

A former grocery clerk, Tenorio's been scraping by on disability benefits for more than a decade. The 60-year-old, and many of her neighbors, are skeptical health care overhauls pending in Congress will change much in Colorado's rural San Juan Valley.

"I would tell Congress, they need to get out here to Huerfano County and see how bad it is, see what we're living with," said Tenorio, who suffered a neck injury in 1979 and hasn't worked since 1996.

In rural America, many like Tenorio are too poor to afford basic care. People who can afford doctors often can't find them. The lack of health care in small towns like Walsenburg is a problem Congress is just beginning to address.

Many folks in Huerfano County, population 7,900, depend on a low-cost outreach clinic for care. There's no eye doctor, no full-time dentist. The clinic relies on nurse practitioners, midwives and medical assistants to provide basic exams, but most sick patients are referred to a bigger town about 30 minutes away.

"I don't have any way to get up there to the doctor," said Tenorio, who doesn't drive. "Sometimes I can't even get out of bed because of the pain."

The 25 percent of Americans who live in rural areas are poorer, older, fatter and sicker than their city neighbors. They live farther from doctors and have a harder time getting to appointments, many depending on neighbors or church volunteers if public transportation doesn't exist.

Small towns often lack specialists and rely on family physicians. But even incentives such as covering student debt for new doctors haven't worked. Many small towns look to nurse practitioners for general care or seek foreign doctors using J-1 visa waivers.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based National Rural Health Association, only about 10 percent of U.S. physicians practice in rural areas. The problem: Medical students know they can make more money, and work shorter hours, in a specialty practice in a city.

At Spanish Peaks Regional Health Center in Huerfano County, administrators have long offered loan forgiveness to entice doctors fresh out of medical school, but have been unable to recruit a single doctor.

"They just don't have a desire to come out here, the young ones," said Bill Bolt, clinical manager at Spanish Peaks.

When small towns do find doctors, their patients are less likely to be able to afford treatment. About 23 percent of residents in U.S. communities smaller than 2,500 people have no health insurance, compared to 19 percent in urban areas, according to the NRHA.

Those covered by Medicare or Medicaid aren't always better off. Because federal reimbursement rates are routinely tied to volume, rural doctors are paid less for the same services and as a result sometimes won't treat those patients.

"If I'm a young physician, I want most of my patients to have insurance, maybe some of them on Medicare. I'm not even touching the Medicaid," said Dr. David Zehring of La Veta, Colo., a plastic surgeon who practiced in Seattle and retired to Huerfano County.

The proposals in Congress do address some rural disparities.

A Senate bill would roughly double funding — an extra $1.1 billion by 2015 — for the National Health Service Corps, which pays student debt for health providers in underserved areas. Bills pending in both the House and Senate would address disparities in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates.

But some advocates say those measures aren't enough to crack the urban-rural divide. And besides, Congress has yet to smooth disagreements about an overhaul that aims to cover more than 46 million uninsured Americans.

First, rural health advocates say, reforms must get doctors into rural areas, then worry about insurance coverage.

"We keep hearing about universal coverage. From a rural perspective, that solves nothing," said Lou Ann Wilroy, executive director of the Colorado Rural Health Center in suburban Denver. "You can have an insurance card in your wallet, and that doesn't mean you're going to have care."

One solution is to start before doctors are licensed.

Dr. Allen Perkins, president of the Alabama Rural Health Association, says Congress must address medical education. Medical schools are typically in cities, Perkins says, where they have access to advanced lab equipment and specialists. Their students train in big-city hospitals, where young doctors return to practice.

The result is a shortage of doctors who understand small-town medicine, even if they're willing to take a pay cut to work there.

"If we want to change the lack of doctors in rural America, we've got to look at the pipeline of doctors coming in," said Perkins, who is professor of family medicine at the University of South Alabama College of Medicine in Mobile, Ala.

The NRHA is pushing for any overhaul to include incentives for medical schools to recruit rural students and encourage them to return to small towns. "We really need to have a pipeline program to have people come home and treat the people they grew up with," said Maggie Elehewany, NRHA's vice president of government affairs.

In the interim, rural health providers say, Congress should dramatically increase funding for low-cost clinics that provide basic health screenings.

Sylvia Martinez, a 68-year-old breast cancer survivor living in Walsenburg, said she doubts Congress will improve rural access in her lifetime. But she says she'll consider any movement a victory.

"I'm sick of hearing them say, 'Oh, it's not going to work.' We have to start somewhere!" Martinez exclaimed, pounding the table at a senior lunch at the Walsenburg community center.

"So what if it's not perfect? We need to do to do something. Out here, we need to do something bad."

___
On the Net:
National Rural Health Association: http://www.ruralhealthweb.org
Spanish Peaks Regional Health Center: http://www.sprhc.org
Dr. Allen Perkins' reform blog: http://usafamilymedicine.wordpress.com

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) Delivers Weekly Republican Address On Health Care 8-1-09

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune discusses health care reform in the Weekly Republican Address.

Sen. Thune urges "the right kind of reform," which protects doctors and hospitals from frivolous lawsuits and equalizes the tax code for individuals and employers.

Sen Thune warns that the Democrats' plans are "the mother of all unfunded mandates," as one Democrat governor put it, and expresses his concern about how it will affect the budgets of states like South Dakota.

This Economic Storm Will Pass

The President discusses the state of the economy amidst positive signs from the GDP. Making clear that this is little comfort to those struggling, he notes that we appear to have averted an even worse disaster and offers hope for the time ahead. August 1, 2009.

My Perspective: August 4th—Detorit’s Judgment Day

On Tuesday, August 4, 2009, Detroiter’s will head to the polls to decide the city’s political, economic, social, cultural and future fate. The media has highlighted this day as a day for Detroit to change the status quo of its city government. Detroiter’s did it once already this year by electing a newcomer to politics as its city mayor in May with the election of Dave Bing. However this time Detroiters will not be guaranteeing Bing 4 years as mayor but they will be electing a new city council and school board representatives as well as a charter commission. This is truly a moment that will decide the city’s fate far beyond the next 4 years because the August 4th primary will be a glimpse as to how much Detroit is ready for change in politics.

The August 4th primary is judgment day for Detroit because depending on which 18 city council and charter commission candidates’ advance to the General Election on November 3, 2009, it should give a sign as to what Detroiters really want in terms of change. The local newspapers have made their endorsements and while many of them have criticized Detroit’s city council all year, they too have included many current members on council in their endorsements. So that goes to show that the newspapers are not about changing the entire council. Even organizations who give endorsements such as the Black Slate, the NAACP, the 13th & 14th Democratic Congressional Districts as well as a host of other organizations have endorsed incumbent council members as well as people who have not campaigned the traditional way of at least having lawn signs.

Detroit’s Judgment Day is not November 3 but it is August 4th because it is on August 4th that will decide to advances to the General and if the crop that advances to the General is stocked with incumbents and depending on how many of the incumbents finish, it could signal a sign that Detroit isn’t ready for change. Also another factor that will emerge come August 4th is that Detroit still bases its vote on name recognition and not substance and quality which is something to fear more so than incumbency. That is why the quality of candidates who advance in the primary is just as important as how many incumbents advance. Detroit we need change in not just new members on council but new people on in politics. We can’t continue to the cycle of putting the same names in office just in new positions. That’s why city council isn’t the only election that is important because who sits on the charter commission is just as important.

Also who we elect to school board is important because as we see now, DPS’s current school board has just bowed down to the State of Michigan’s EFM Robert Bobb who should be fired since he can’t balance the district’s budget which he was brought in for. To my understanding, the day Bobb said he couldn’t balance the budget is the day that the state should have appointed a new EFM especially someone who could. Nonetheless, many of the same school board members currently bowing down to Bobb and who have been silently for months in regards to Bobb’s actions are simply getting the endorsements while those who have worked with the community prior to Bobb and with Bobb are not being given an endorsement. Detroit, August 4th is our Judgment Day because we have to elect people to council who are qualified and who have plans, ideas and innovation for the city of Detroit that will improve our city’s government. August 4th is Judgment Day because we have to elect people to the school board who are willing to stand up to Bobb when he is not doing what is best for our children and who are willing to communicate with us the people about the issues that plague our district that aren’t being addressed properly.

August 4th is Detroit’s Judgment Day because we have to elect people to the charter commission who are willing to address the grievances and vulnerability that exist in current charter in terms of removing mayor’s and council members who are accused of breaking the law or have broke the law as well as those who have used their political office for their own personal gain. August 4th is Detroit’s Judgment Day because it is a pivotal day to see if Detroit is going to go away from the status quo and pick individuals who have presented themselves to Detroit in terms of quality, substance and innovation. Detroit we can’t stand pat on August 4th because too much is at stake and for people to say not to vote for school board members or mayor, they are not helping us the citizens of Detroit solve our problems. Outsiders who use their influence to stand in the way of progress in Detroit should not be listened to and that is why we need to influence ourselves as well as our neighbors, friends and family as well as strangers on the street to get out and vote on August 4th because too much is at stake for anyone to sit on the sidelines.

Detroit this is the moment of truth for us to change the fate of our city forever and this moment only comes once and every blue moon. That is why we can’t afford to get it wrong. We can’t wait to November 3rd to show up and show out. August 4th is Detroit’s Judgment Day and the candidates that advance to the General election will tell a lot about what we have learned as citizens and just how far we want to go in the future. This is not the time to revert to our old habits of picking candidates for office. We must think outside the box. Throughout all the political endorsements and really evaluate a candidates competence, a candidate’s service to Detroit, a candidates ideas and plans for office. We can’t depend on other people to choose for us anymore. We have to make these decisions on our own people because it is clear that if we leave it up to the newspapers, organizations and outsiders who don’t stay in Detroit than we will elect the same old status quo to the elected office. We can’t do that and we must change.

So make sure Detroit that you vote on August 4, 2009 because this is our Judgment Day for a better future.

My Perspective: A Deficit is a Deficit

When it comes to national deficit’s it seems that more finger pointing is done than accepting responsibility for it. Therefore to get through all the political rhetoric and nonsense that Democrats and Republicans like to throw around, we as a people need to follow the money and listen between the lines of what political pundits as well as politicians like to say. Democrats like to throw around the fact that they inherited a deficit from President Bush but only part of that is true. The part that is true is President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit from President Bush but from January 2007 until now, the Democrats have had control of both houses of Congress so they helped contribute to part of Bush deficit at least $350-$500 billion of it with bailouts and the passage of TARP where part was paid in September in 2008.

However Republicans try to taunt around the fact that since Obama has taken office that the national deficit has increased to $2 trillion which is true but Obama has only contributed about 700 billion to that deficit. So it is unfair that Republicans try to paint the picture to the American people that President Obama is spending reckless which to a degree is true but Obama still has 3 more years to try to fix the deficit. Obama did inherit a disaster and he had to take some drastic steps to try to get the economy back on track and while much of the steps have not yielded the type of results that President Obama as well as many in Congress would like. The reality is that the recovery of the economy might come before half of the quote unquote stimulus bill money is even spent which can cause the rate of inflation to spiral if the other half is allowed to be spent if the economy recovered.

Still, it is time for people to understand the economic talking points of the Republican and Democratic politicians, pundits and consultants. Both political parties are to blame for the economic problems of this nation. Both political parties turned a blind eye to Wall Street, illegal immigration, and trade policies that caused the economic meltdown that our nation faced for the last year and a half. That’s why it amazes me how both political parties like to point fingers at whose fault the national deficit. The truth needs to be heard and the truth is that in 8 years under President Bush, he created a deficit of $1.3 trillion because of two wars and financial bailouts. Now President Obama in just 7 months has a deficit of nearly $700 billion but he does have 3 years and 5 months to deal with his deficit problem.

A deficit is a deficit and instead of making excuses and pointing fingers when it comes to deficits, our politicians need to accept responsibility for it and try to work to decrease it. At the same time it is time for both Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that national deficits don’t exist anymore but producing a balanced budget for our federal government like our states and local municipalities governments have to do. It is time that our federal government worked to do the same every year instead of spending like it is no tomorrow on projects that don’t stimulate the economy but rather many parts of a Congress member district or state look good. We need our politicians in D.C. to stop with the political distractions and rhetoric and instead start dealing with the deficit that we have today.

President Obama promised us the American people that he would fix the nation’s deficit and would decrease the national debt but he has not put together any plans to detail exactly how he will do it. I understand that putting together healthcare reform is a part of Obama’s plan to decrease our nation’s deficit and national debt but the truth of the matter is, it will take more than just healthcare reform and $102 million in savings from the budgets of all the federal departments. Now time is on President Obama’s side in fixing the nation’s deficit and decreasing the nation’s national debt but as many Presidents as well as politicians find out, time flies at the blink of an eye. That’s why it is critical that President Obama and his advisors have ideas now on the table as to how to go about decreasing the nation’s deficit that they have contributed to and the national deficit which many President’s have helped add to. No matter how you look at it, Obama does have time to deal with the nation’s deficit and debt but at the same time, he needs to be honest about the fact he did add to the deficit with nearly $700 billion. However Obama has time to fix it and that is the good thing he should tell us, the American people instead of just finger pointing.

A deficit is a deficit no matter what anybody says or how news correspondents and political pundits as well as politicians try to spin it. Obama inherited a deficit from Bush but he has added to it and that is the complete true. Now is the time for Obama to turn the page and just accept responsibility for adding to the deficit and dealing with it cause he has a whole another 3 years to do that. That is the truth and that is the reality. Our national debt has increased slightly but it can easily decrease with the right planning from the Obama administration and that is the hope that we as the American people should hold on to while holding the White House as well as our Congress responsible for dealing with our national deficit and debt. This is the only way we will address both properly and move on from the political bickering if we the American people hold Democrats and Republicans responsible for dealing with our national deficit and debt properly.

My Perspective: How to Keep Michigan’s Youngest, Brightest and Best

In Yesterday’s Detroit News, Michigan’s Attorney General and 2010 Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mike Cox released an article talking about how Michigan can keep its youngest, brightest and best in the state. Cox proposes that the state of Michigan give a three year tax exemption to those college students who graduate from the state of Michigan and decide to stay in the state instead of moving out of state. The idea is a good if Michigan’s economy was diversified and attracted Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best. However the state of Michigan’s economy is not suited for the influx of college students who are considered the brightest and best in the state.

Michigan’s young don’t leave the state because they don’t love the state of Michigan but they leave the state because there are no job opportunities to attract the youngest, brightest and best. Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best have family and friends here and a large majority of them would love to stay in the state if there were job opportunities for them to pursue. Diversification of Michigan’s economy would attract not only students to attend colleges and universities in state but those who attend out of state colleges and universities as well. The three year tax exemption would be enticing to Michigan’s youngest residents and more of Michigan’s own brightest and best would want to come back to the state not only benefit from the tax exemption but because they love the state and want to continue to stay in the state that they grew up in.

Still the tax exemption alone will not keep Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best in the state if there are no jobs for people like me to fill. If you look across the state, where are the new job creations and where do young people fit in Michigan’s future plans when there are no innovative job opportunities for them or any current jobs open for them to fill. Michigan’s economy is just not prepared and equipped to attract Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best when Michigan’s unemployment is above 10% and many of the factory jobs are gone and probably will never come back and the green job movement is slow. Plus I didn’t mention that perhaps many of Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best probably are not equipped for the green jobs that are soon to come but who is, which is why Michigan as well as the U.S. will probably have to train hundreds of thousands if not millions for the green job revolution because many of them did not go to college for such jobs.

Tax exemptions along with job creation will attract Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best. Until the state understands that than Michigan will simply continue to lose out on innovation which comes when a state holds on to its youngest, brightest and best. If you look across Michigan’s state government, local municipality governments and county governments than you will find that those planning our state’s future as well as local city and county futures are not young at all. There are is nothing wrong with having middle age and elderly planning Michigan’s present and future but it would be great to have young people involved in the mix. Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best brings something different to the table that the whole state of Michigan can benefit from. Their ideas can help the state look at how to balance its budget and perhaps come up with new ways of innovation for education, the economy and other things that continue to plague our state and local municipalities including county.

Michigan has to diversify its economy and must bring about opportunities for its youth if the state is to grow. Also Michigan has to consider ways to provide loan repayments for at least parts of Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best. Some state colleges and universities provide this opportunity depending on the career that students go off into in which they offer loan repayment. However the state of Michigan needs to find other ways to help out its youngest, brightest and best in terms of not just tax exemptions and jobs but also loan repayments as well as perhaps an opportunity for many of them to pursue higher education degree programs such as Master’s, Ph.D. or J.D. We can’t stifle our youngest, brightest and best from getting higher learning degrees to accompany their B.A. or B.S. but it is things like this that will help the state hold on to its youngest, brightest and best.

Michigan’s youngest, brightest and best will give Michigan a boost in all types of ways that will not only benefit the present but the future of the state as well. Michigan has to find the right balance and mixture of ideas to hold on to the state’s youngest, brightest and best talent so that we don’t lose out on innovation, energy and leadership that these individuals can give to our state. That’s why Mike Cox’s idea should be applauded but more needs to be done in order for the state of Michigan to hold on to its youngest, brightest and best. So let’s keep the dialogue going on how do we as a state hold on to our youngest, brightest and best while at the same time attracting other state’s youngest, brightest and best. This is what I call innovation and any gubernatorial candidate not talking about this should not be considered a serious candidate come 2010. We have to think of ways to repopulate our state while also holding on those who have grew up in this state and offer new ideas to our state that many outsiders might not see as quickly as someone who grew up in the state. If the state of Michigan can strike the right balance of in-state and out-of-state youngest, brightest and best than imagine what our state can be and become for the next 20 years. Endless possibilities and an abundance of creative for a state craving change along with solutions to constant problems we face such as balancing our state budget.

Source:
How to keep college graduates in Michigan
By Mike Cox

In a few weeks, about 40,000 students will begin their college careers at a Michigan university. Unfortunately, when these students are ready to graduate, less than half will choose to stay in Michigan if recent trends hold. Families will see one another less, students educated with billions of our tax dollars will use their talents to build other states' economies, and employers will continue to leave Michigan. Our economy will never turn around if this brain drain continues.

It's hard to blame college graduates for leaving. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. States that can provide good-paying jobs have an advantage despite the high quality of life Michigan has to offer.

To regain the upper hand, we must make immediate, bold changes to turn this economy around. The first step is to change our business tax structure (the "jobs tax"), moving it from 48th in the nation to the top 10 by cutting the Michigan Business Tax in half.

But we also need to demonstrate to our college graduates that keeping them here is a priority for us.

Other states -- like Indiana, North Carolina, and Illinois -- are competing with us for our children. We have to fight back.

That is why we should give our college graduates a three-year income tax exemption, putting money directly into their pockets. This tax credit would be an investment in Michigan's talented graduates and our economy. The funds could help pay down college debt, go toward a home and, most of all, serve as an incentive to use their education in Michigan.

Michigan spends approximately $2 billion per year on higher education. Each time a college graduate leaves the state, the tax dollars that helped pay for that education leave as well.

According to a report by MichiganFuture.org, nearly 50 percent of recent Michigan graduates left our state within a year of graduation. If that departure rate applies to every public university in Michigan, then taxpayers are literally spending $1 billion per year to build the work forces of other states. No state can recover when it is exporting its tax dollars and college graduates.

Our state economy cannot afford this, our state budget cannot afford this, and our families should not have to endure this. The brain drain has to stop. To do so, Michigan must compete for our children.

This competition for Michigan's best and brightest starts with changes in our business tax structure. And we must compete to keep our world-class graduates, trained with our tax dollars, right here in Michigan. That's why offering college graduates who choose to remain in Michigan a three-year tax exemption should be a part of any plan to turn around Michigan's economy.

Mike Cox is Michigan's attorney general and a candidate for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. Fax comments to (313) 496-5253 or e-mail to letters@detnews.com.

My Perspective: A Teachable Moment

For the last two weeks, the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates known to many of his friends as Skip has brought about a major issue in America known as racial profiling. Racial profiling is nothing new to America but to consider the incident involving Professor Gates as a racial profiling case would be incorrect. Even President Obama involved himself in this debate because a reporter asked him a question about it and President Obama calibrated his words wrongly by referring to the police officers or police force actions as stupidly. To President Obama’s credit, he hosted a beer summit that brought Sgt. Crowley, the arresting officer in Gates incident, and Professor Gates together to talk about the issue as well for them to work together to learn how to improve police relations with the community.

The whole incident is truly a teachable moment as President Obama has said and it is the type of teachable moment that tells us as people not to take sides in a situation until we know all the facts. Even if that is your friend or relative, we shouldn’t quickly jump to the side of our relative or friend until we know all the facts of a situation regardless of what it is. As soon as Professor Gates was arrested, many people jumped to the conclusion that it was racial profiling and even the news media itself might have played a role in putting that notion in our heads but it is far too easy to blame the media for such notions when we as a people have a brain to come to conclusions as to what is racial profiling and what is not. Nonetheless as it turns out, the incident involving the arrest of Professor Gates was not racially motivated but was more so male ego because two man who didn’t want to let another man get the better of them.

That is why the real teachable moment is for us as a people to understand what racial profiling is and how to properly deal with. The real teachable moment is for us as a people to stop calling things racists if it is not necessary. It is those people who think before they act that usually come to the best solutions in this world. That is why the real teachable moment in the arrest of Professor Gates is that it teaches us as a people regardless of our economic status in life how to act in the presence of police and it teaches police to be more professional regardless of how rude and disrespectful an individual might be. It is moments like this that shouldn’t leave a bad stain on America but instead it should allow us to have real conversations as to what racial profiling is and what it isn’t.

Simply being a person of colored is not racial profiling but it is why you are stop or the speculator reasons for the stop that create racial profiling. It is not new that people of color are stopped more often than whites but every time a person a colored is stop by a police officer yet alone a white officer, will it be considered racial profiling. That is the question that has lingered throughout African American and Hispanic communities for years when it comes to police stops and arrests. Nonetheless the arrest of Professor Gates sparked outrage from many that it Gates was arrested because he was black but nothing can be farther from the truth. The reality is that Professor Gates own mouth caused his arrest and Sgt. Crowley’s own male ego got in the way of his professionalism which would have lead Sgt. Crowley to allow Professor Gates to mouth off as Sgt. Crowley just left. Instead Sgt. Crowley’s male ego got in his way and Professor Gates own male ego prevented Professor Gates from simply showing the officer his identification than allowing the officer to leave. Professor Gates instead continued to mouth off at the mouth causing Sgt. Crowley to react in a way that defended his badge of honor in front of his fellow colleagues and other citizens who witnessed the incident.

That is why the real teachable moment for the rest of America is for us to teach our males how to keep their male egos in check even in the face of adversity because that it is ego that can lead to death and other harm which thankfully didn’t happen in the Professor Gates arrest. The teachable moment for our society is to not pass judgment upon those blacks who disagree with other blacks or don’t think like the majority of blacks when it comes to situations. The black officer from Cambridge shouldn’t be called an Uncle Tom for simply telling the truth on what actually happened on Professor Gates porch. The woman who was walking by and made the call to police that lead to the arrest of Professor Gates should not have been called a racist when she was doing the neighborly thing by witnessing something that looked suspicious and called the police in order for them to investigate it. The type of hate mail and racist comments aimed at those individuals for simply doing noble things should make all of us shameful for our actions if we are the ones who called these individuals racists or Uncle Tom’s.

It is moments like this that we should learn from as we work to continue to make America post-racial. The election of President Obama has helped a little but that alone will not resolve all of our nation’s racial tensions because it is moments like this that shows how easy it is for many people to revert back to our old habits of picking sides and playing the race card whenever there are incidents between whites and blacks. As a people, we do have more in common than we think and it is those things we have in common that brings us closer rather than allowing those things that we disagree on us divide us. Still if we are to learn from this nation, we must learn that there are three things we as a people can do to help in dealing with situations that we perceive are racial profiling which the Michigan Citizen lists in an article entitled Teen talk: How to handle racial & rapper profiling.

Top 3 things to do if you get profiled & stopped
1. Know your rights. You are not required to give permission to police officers to search your car. You can deny the request—but do so politely. Take basic law.
2. Don’t argue. Police might try to intimidate you. Don’t be confrontational, Cooperate to avoid being injured, tazed, shot or killed if things spiral out of control.
3. Get police names. Get badge numbers, scout car numbers, license plate numbers. Make a note of the street, location, date and time of the incident, and whether the police cruiser camera was on. Ask a bystander to take a cell phone video.
File a complaint if you feel you’ve been mistreated and profiled by police. Contact the ACLU, NAACP, NCLR/La Raza, ADC, or other civil rights organizations for further reporting and lawyer referrals.

If we teach our young people to handle police in this matter than they not only live to fight another battle but they live to fight ongoing war that few people ever try to fight with police out of far. However at the same time, it is not just up to us as citizens to be polite toward police but it is up to police to be polite toward us as citizens and this starts with police doing more community policing and interacting with the communities they serve better. Police have a responsibility to build relationships in our neighborhoods and that is what this lesson should teach police officers all over America. But most of all we must teach our young males, well all males, to keep their egos in check when dealing with police because this is the only way we can prevent incidents like Professor Gates arrest from happening again. Keeping our male egos in check goes to all males especially police officers because they have to always be professional when dealing with the public no matter what. However professional responsibility and courteous is something that all people should adhere to no matter what and this will help in resolving issues between police and individuals more quickly in the future.

If we learn these lessons from Professor Gates arrest than I am optimistic that real conversations surrounding race and racial profiling can finally begin with people choosing their words more carefully when future situations occur between people of color and whites. If we learn these lessons than we as a people will be more careful in picking sides in situations and we as a people including the news media will be more careful in labeling things as racists and racial profiling. These are the lessons that we must learn and these are the things that are the type of teachable lessons from this moment that not only President Obama learned but I learned as I watched all of this took play out.