http://www.latimes.com/...

Reporting from Washington and Beijing – In a decision that could roil trade tensions with Beijing, President Obama agreed Friday to impose hefty tariffs on tires imported from China.

The decision came after the U.S. International Trade Commission, a federal agency, determined that a surge of Chinese-made tires had disrupted the domestic market and cost thousands of jobs in the U.S.

Within 15 days, the U.S. would add a duty of 35% in the first year, 30% in the second and 25% in the third on passenger vehicle and light-truck tires from China. That is less than the 55% tariff recommended by the trade panel, but analysts said it would still be large enough to keep most Chinese tires out of the competitive U.S. market.

“The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

The decision was a victory for the United Steelworkers union, which filed the complaint in May. The union represents about half of the more than 30,000 tire production workers in the U.S.

Victory for the union… loss for everyone else. Hundreds of years of economic theory and reality showing this kind of shit is bad for everyone involved isn’t enough for Obama and friends. Selling the many down the river for a short term benefit for the few.

“Unfortunately, there are some elements here who will call this protectionism,” Shi said. “But I don’t think it will have that much of a negative impact. The volume of trade is still very large.”

Other analysts disagreed, saying Beijing would take the decision very seriously. Some in the Chinese tire industry warned of retaliation.

There’s definately a part of me that wants China to retaliate. Bring on Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act Part 2.

http://www.cnn.com/…

The Obama administration will ask Congress for another $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September, Democratic congressional sources said Thursday.

The request is expected to pay for those conflicts for the rest of the 2009 budget year, two Democratic congressional sources said.

The money would bring the running tab for both conflicts to about $947 billion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service.

More than three-quarters of the $864 billion appropriated so far has gone to the war in Iraq, where most of the U.S. troops involved in those conflicts have been deployed, the agency estimated.

Since taking office in January, President Obama has announced plans to shift troops out of Iraq and beef up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where American troops have been battling al Qaeda and Taliban fighters since al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks.

The additional money is needed “to fund the new strategy in Afghanistan and fund the process in Iraq that will lead to a drawdown of all of our combat troops,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

About $75 billion of the requested funds would pay for military operations, with the rest going to diplomatic programs and development aid.

The measure is likely to be the last supplemental request submitted to Congress to pay for the wars.

Likely the last supplemental request? Is it the last just like the DEA raids in California were to stop?

Another clip with Santelli on Hardball

I’m not familiar with other Whitehouse attacks on media people but this seems rather tame. Pompus… but tame.

Watch the Hardball clip too… it’s pathetic how biased and ignornat Mathews is.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…

The White House warned Iran last night that military action is still one of its options despite the “hand of friendship” offered by President Obama.

Officials moved to cool fevered expectations – and assuage lingering European concerns – about plans to thaw a 30 year freeze in US relations.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, reiterated that any talks held with the Iranian leadership would not necessarily be with President Ahmadinejad and would involve careful preparations beforehand.

Asked if the use of force was still possible, he replied: “The President hasn’t changed his viewpoint that he should preserve all his options.” Mr Gibbs added that the US needed to address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and its threats against Israel, as well as an “illicit nuclear programme”.

It’s sad that so many supposed anti-war liberals were taken in by those who now make up the Obama administration. What is even worse is the fact that most of them will excuse much of their behavior.