First it was high speed trains

Now this.

President Obama pitches $18 billion wireless broadband plan

By Cecilia Kang

MARQUETTE, Mich. — In this remote snow-swept college town rejuvenated in parts by Internet commerce, President Obama on Thursday outlined a plan to create similar economic stories through the expansion of super-fast wireless Internet connections.

Speaking at Northern Michigan University, Obama unveiled an ambitious blueprint to use $18 billion in federal funds to get 98 percent of the nation connected to the Internet on smartphones and tablet computers in five years.

To get there, the federal government will try to bring more radiowaves into the hands of wireless carriers to bolster the nation's networks and prevent a jam of Internet traffic. He said he hoped to auction airwaves currently in the hands of television stations and government agencies to raise about $27.8 billion.

And with the money raised, the government would fund new rural 4G wireless networks and a mobile communications system for fire, policy and emergency responders. The remaining funds raised — about $10 billion — would go toward lowering the federal deficit over the next decade.

First outlined in his State of the Union speech, the plan is part of a push to reshape the nation's infrastructure of deteriorating roadways and manufacturing plants into one with high-speed railways and high-speed Internet networks the president said are essential to compete globally in years ahead.

"To attract the best jobs and newest industries, we've got to out-innovate, out-educate, out-build and out-hustle the rest of the world," Obama said in his speech.

The plan is ambitious and complicated and relies heavily on the participation of cautious television broadcasters who are loath to easily give up their greatest asset — spectrum, experts say.

Specifically, $10.7 billion would go toward building an interoperable public safety network so first responders can communicate, send video files and e-mails during disasters and national security threats.

The administration also plans a one-time allotment of $5 billion from a federal phone subsidy to be used for wireless broadband expansion in rural areas. About $3 billion would go to a government research and development program for ways to use mobile Internet access for emerging technologies and applications in health, education and energy.

Its estimates don't include how much money it would return to broadcasters who give up airwaves in voluntary "incentive auctions." Those television broadcasters will get a cut of the proceeds, the administration has promised though it hasn't offered more details.

But broadcasters want more guarantees auctions will be voluntary and they are searching for details on how much they would receive from the auctions.

Those details, however, are crucial for broadcasters, said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters.

"We aren't against the plan but want to make sure this is truly voluntary, and we want to hold harmless those who don't want to participate," Smith said.

They are sitting on what is considered beachfront spectrum that is ideal for powerful Internet connections from a flood of Droids, iPhones and Xoom tablets hitting the market.

"It is not at all clear that incentive auctions will take place," Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. She praised the federal attention to mobile broadband technology but said, "even under circumstances of familiar auction procedures, estimates of revenue can vary greatly from what is actually achieved."

Some lawmakers point to a questionable track record for federal programs to expand broadband connections.

As Obama toured Marquette's Getz's Clothiers, a retailer that has expanded its business on the Web thanks to broadband Internet for Marquette's population of 20,000, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on oversight of recent funding for broadband programs.

More than $7 billion in stimulus funds have been distributed to broadband grants in rural areas and lawmakers grilled recipients and government officials over economic gains from those grants.

"Before we target any more of our scarce taxpayer dollars for broadband, it is critical to examine whether the money already being spent is having an impact, as well as how we can minimize waste, fraud and abuse," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the energy and commerce committee.

Because the funds for new mobile broadband networks would come from auctions and not from the U.S. Treasury, it "has a better-than-even chance of happening," Paul Gallant, an analyst at investment firm MF Global said.

The White House said the funds won't come out of taxpayer pockets, pointing to its expectations of auction proceeds.

Obama chose to visit Marquette because of the town's success in attracting commercial partners such as Intel to build a mobile broadband network based on WiMax technology on the university campus. Northern Michigan University partnered with towns nearby to expand cell towers so that elementary schools, police and residents could also access wireless networks fast enough to access streaming videos without a wireline connection.

"If you can do this in the snowy wilderness of the Upper Peninsula, we can do this all across America," Obama said.

First it was high speed trains

King chides Napolitano for belated embrace of the term "terrorist"

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said "terrorist" and "terrorism" more than 60 times in her opening statement Wednesday before the House Homeland Security Committee. At least that was the count of committee chairman, Rep. Peter King of New York. He pointed out that she, rarely if ever, used the words last year and asked if the administration had backed away from the phrase "war on terror." 

Napolitano said her use of the word evolved from working with law enforcement and intelligence agencies and had nothing to do with any policy changes. (Just exactly what does that mean…they had to explain to her what a terrorist was?) Later, Rep. Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, criticized the administration for working to eliminate the words "jihadist" and "Islamic extremist" in reference to terrorist acts. Broun said that political correctness has led to more grandmothers and children being patted down at airports than potential terrorists. "I have yet to see a grandma with chemicals in her bloomers," he said.

King chides Napolitano for belated embrace of the term "terrorist"

No simple solutions

Egypt today

This latest episode in Egypt smells like the Iran of 1979.

☟

 They couldn't wait to get rid of the Shah. Overjoyed they were with the prospects of Khomeini who promptly pursued the Iran-Iraq war. What they accomplished .... essentially trading one dictator for another who was even more ruthless. The country's been run by Mullah's who rule with and iron fist ever since. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only a "puppet president" but is nonetheless dangerous, not to mention insane.

Sooner or later push will come to shove and Iran will be bombed. Either by us or Israel. Thousands of Iranians will most likely be killed.

Egypt should take another cold hard look at the situation before going off half cocked. 

Mubarak is no prize package but then again he certainly is no Saddam Hussein either. If the Muslim Brotherhood fills the vacuum all bets are off. 

A prelude of things to come

Muslim Brotherhood blames Israel for Egyptian unrest

No it ain't the Klu Klux Klan 

Mohammed Ghanem one of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt called on his country to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army to wage war against Israel.

In an interview on the Iranian television station al-Alam, Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting President Hosni Mubarak's regime but warned that neither the Egyptian police or army will be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the country and criticized Mubarak in the latest parliamentary elections of rigging the votes. While they have not come out vocally in the recent wave of anti-government protests, many believe they are purposely maintain a low profile until the time is right to attempt to take over the government.

Bottom line.

A Muslim could step on a nail and swear to Allah an Israeli put it there.

No simple solutions

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department plans to appeal Vinson's ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," she said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

The case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. But for now, opponents of President Obama's signature domestic legislation exalted while supporters denounced the decision.

"I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson," said Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who, prior to getting elected in November, helped lead the charge against the law. "In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start -- ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people. ... Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed."

"Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal. The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America's families."

Vinson's decision, while surprising, was not unforeseen. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six counts in the suit led by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 25 other states. But he allowed two counts, including one challenging the law's controversial requirement that Americans buy health insurance, to proceed. Arguments were heard in December.

In his earlier ruling, Vinson said that a government report called the requirement to buy insurance legally unprecedented and worth examining in court.

"The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive," he wrote.

Nearly two dozen suits have been filed in federal courts, but Monday's ruling is the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since Congress last March passed the bill aimed at covering 30 million uninsured Americans whether they want insurance or not.

In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.

"That judge, under his mindset, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold's Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold's Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol," said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. "That is the kind of logic that we're going to right now where you're actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government."

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan that critics say will cost closer to $2.6 trillion. But the repeal bill will likely die in the Senate, meaning Vinson's ruling is the newest grounds on which supporters and opponents proceed.

Defenders of the law say that Americans need to be covered from ruthless insurance companies that either refuse to insure children with illnesses and adults with pre-existing conditions or charge exorbitant amounts for individual coverage. The law aims to provide a federal umbrella under which Americans can purchase and keep insurance regardless of their health, career changes or ability to pay.

But Vinson said that is not the U.S. government's job.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government," he wrote.

Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare.

In his State of the Union address, Obama said he was willing to open his mind to changes in the law if they made dollars and sense and didn't prevent patients with pre-existing conditions or other barriers to insurance companies from gaining coverage.

He pointed to the near-universally hated 1099 provision that orders businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases exceeding $600 as the first provision to be scrapped.

Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley repeated the president's position on Sunday, adding that the law was intended to help employers as much as patients.

"The president has said he's open to changes to this. He is not open to re-fighting the entire fight of health care," Daley told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I absolutely believe, having been in business and hearing from business people, the importance of a need for the reform of health care. It was the business community that was really saying to the politicians, this is costing us too much, it's too much of a wet blanket on the economy," he said.

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

Chicago mayor's race could be up for grabs

Chicago mayor's race could be up for grabs with Emanuel's candidacy in doubt amid court ruling

Maybe this guy will get in.

"Rent is too damn high"

His first official act.... put the entire city on Section 8.

Illinois appeals court 

By Tammy Webber (CP) – 57 minutes ago

CHICAGO — For months, three of the main candidates in the race to become Chicago's next mayor struggled for attention while former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel outpolled them and raised more money.

He also blanketed the airwaves with TV ads and gained the endorsement of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who came to town to campaign for Emanuel.

But suddenly the campaign to replace Chicago's retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley looks like an actual race.

With an Illinois Appellate Court knocking Emanuel off the Feb. 22 ballot over a residency dispute, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, city Clerk Miguel del Valle and former Chicago schools chief Gery Chico suddenly found themselves in the spotlight — and trying to win over Emanuel supporters who suddenly may be up for grabs.

Even as Emanuel vowed to fight the decision, Braun was urging voters to join her campaign "with your time, your effort or your money."

"I'm extending a hand of friendship to all the Chicagoans who have been supporting Mr. Emanuel and all those who haven't made their minds up yet," she said. "Going forward, we pledge to work to create a city great enough to provide opportunity for every family. But we can only do this if we come together."

Reporters surrounding former Chicago Public Schools Chico outside a restaurant asked him if he was a front-runner — something that seemed inconceivable last week when a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed him with the support of 16 per cent of voters surveyed compared with a whopping 44 per cent for Emanuel. The same poll showed Braun with 21 per cent support, and city Clerk Miguel del Valle with 7 per cent.

"I'm trying to get every vote I can from everybody in this city," said Chico, who released records last week showing he had just over $2 million at his disposal, about one-fourth of the money available to Emanuel.

In their 2-1 ruling Monday overturning a lower court decision, the appellate justices said Emanuel met the requirements to vote in Chicago but not to run for mayor because he didn't actually live in the city for a year before Feb. 22.

Challengers to Emanuel's candidacy argued the Democrat did not qualify because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years. Emanuel — who quit his job and moved back to Chicago in October after Daley announced he would not to seek a seventh term — has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was living in Washington at the president's request.

Emanuel's lawyers promptly asked the state's highest court to stay the appellate ruling and hear an appeal as soon as possible. Lawyers also asked the court to tell Chicago election officials to keep his name on the ballot if it starts to print them. The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners said it would start printing ballots on Tuesday without Emanuel's name; early voting starts next Monday.

The Supreme Court could act as early as Tuesday.

Appellate litigation attorney Christopher Keleher said it's likely the court would rule against Emanuel.

"I can tell you from experience that getting a reversal from any Supreme Court is difficult — even more so when you've got a truncated time frame," Keleher said.

But Emanuel said he was forging ahead.

"I have no doubt that we will in the end prevail at this effort. This is just one turn in the road," Emanuel said, adding that the "people of the city of Chicago deserve the right to make the decision on who they want to be their next mayor."

If he doesn't win the appeal, the race takes on a whole new dynamic. In a city with huge blocs of black, white and Hispanic voters, the Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed Emanuel leading among all of them, even though his three top rivals are minorities.

Laura Washington, a local political commentator who writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times, said if Emanuel is out, Chico, who is Hispanic, could be the big winner in terms of fundraising.

"Rahm has the establishment support, the civic leaders, business community, the money class, and Chico is as close to that type of candidate as anyone," Washington said. "They'd take Chico as a second choice, easily."

But Braun would be the big winner among black voters, she said. The recent poll showed Emanuel with the support of 40 per cent of black voters compared with 39 per cent for Braun, even though two other prominent black candidates dropped out of the race to try to unify the black vote.

But 27-year-old Thurman Hammond, who is black, said he never cared for Braun and planned to vote for Emanuel "because he was part of the Obama camp." If he can't, he said, he'll "have to do my homework" on the other candidates.

Others also said they would have to reevaluate the field.

Sara Grosby, 58, said she would consider Braun — although she's hoping she doesn't have to.

"In my opinion (Emanuel) already was a civil servant, working for Obama. I would think the court could cut him some slack," said Grosby, an aviation security worker at O'Hare International Airport.

Del Valle, another Hispanic candidate, said Emanuel's quandary bodes well for the other candidates, regardless of what the court does.

"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look," del Valle said. "People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates."

___

Associated Press writers Don Babwin, Deanna Bellandi, Sophia Tareen and Michael Tarm contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Chicago mayor's race could be up for grabs