How much time should a President spend campaigning?

I mean, there are a few things going on in the world that might demand the President's attention? Is this just the way of doing business now? Is this the new standard? The permanent campaign, as it is? Read the original here.

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'By TOBY HARNDEN
PUBLISHED: 07:41 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 April 2012

UK Daily Mail

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Doherty, a political science professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, has also analysed presidential travel to battleground or swing states, which change and fluctuate in number with each election cycle.

In their first years in office, Carter visited eight out of 18 battleground states and Reagan seven out of 17. Bush Snr, Clinton and Bush Jnr all visited around three-quarters of battleground states while Obama went to all 15 within his first 12 months.

While the Obama’s campaign activities in office have been largely in line with historical trends, he is especially vulnerable to criticism because in 2008 he promised to change how politics works and to curb links with special interests.

Vowing in 2008 to ‘launch the most sweeping ethics reform in US history’ Obama said that if elected he would ‘make government more open, more accountable and more responsive to the problems of the American people’.

In his State of the Union speech in January, Obama bemoaned the ‘corrosive influence of money in politics’. The following month, he reversed course and announced he was allowing cabinet members and top advisors to speak at big money events for so-called super PACs – unaccountable outside groups raising money for his re-election.

During the 2008 election, Obama abandoned a pledge to opt for public funding of his campaign, instead opting to raise an unlimited amount privately. He then raised and spent approximately $730million, almost double the campaign funds of Senator John McCain, his Republican opponent.

Up to the end of March, Obama had raised $191.6million for his re-election bid, compared to $86.6million raised by his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. His frenetic fundraising activities are in part because he is lagging behind campaign expectations. Early last year, some advisers spoke privately of raising $1billion.

In his book, Doherty writes that in his first full month in office Obama visited Indiana, Florida, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina – all battleground states - in 2012. 'Clearly, the White House made a point of the president travelling to key electoral states early in his term in office.'

This week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) lodged a formal complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about alleged misuse of taxpayer money by Obama.

The Obama campaign dismissed the complaint as a ‘stunt’ and the White House said that it would follow the same rules as previous administrations and refund the appropriate amounts.

In the complaint, Reince Priebus, RNC chairman, wrote: ‘Throughout his administration, but particularly in recent weeks, President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as “official events,” thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his re-election efforts.’

Doherty, however, said that although the tactic of labelling Obama’s activities as fraud was ‘novel’ in reality the opposing party always complained about a president facing re-election dressing up political events as official ones.

‘This is not new. The Republican complaint is more of a situational complaint than a principled complaint because they certainly weren’t complaining when George W. Bush did this eight years ago.'

He added: ‘In 2004, President George W. Bush broke all records for presidential fundraising in terms of time devoted to fundraising and in terms of money raised and at the time Democrats hit him hard for that.

'Obama has already surpassed Bush [Jnr] in numbers of re-election fundraisers, but not yet in money raised.'

The rising costs of campaigns, lower contribution limits, the breakdown of the public financing system, the 24/7 media environment and the professionalisation of campaigns had all led to successive presidents having to devote more and more time and energy to raising money.

He added that the ‘big picture’ was incumbent presidents fearing defeat. ‘Until 1976 [when Carter beat President Gerald Ford] no sitting president had been defeated for re-election since 1932. It had been 44 years.

‘And then three of the next four presidents who tried [Ford, Carter and Bush Snr] lost. Of all the presidents re-elected since Ford lost to Carter, only Reagan has won in a landslide. George W. Bush’s re-election [in 2004] was close, Clinton got less than 50 percent [in 1996]. There is a very keen sense among presidents that they really might lose.’

Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokesperson, said: 'It’s no surprise that the Campaigner-In-Chief has taken raising money for his re-election to a whole new level. The worst part is the American taxpayer has been footing the bill.' The Obama campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html#ixzz1tXASzMDq

Fair Game or beneath the Office?

WSJ makes a good point in my opinion...Read the original here.

Obama the Unseemly: A more aggressive press corps might have motivated him to preserve his dignity.
By JAMES TARANTO
Updated April 27, 2012, 4:08 p.m. ET
Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal

There's been a lot of talk of late about how "cool" Barack Obama supposedly is. But people are starting to notice the man has no class.

"Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing 'staycations' because they can't afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family's 17 lavish vacations around the world and don't want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas' holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters," reports the Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard.

A group of Republican pollsters conducted focus groups of swing-state swing voters, mostly Democrats and independents, and John McLaughlin "handled blue collar and Catholic voters" in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. He found that they tend to think Mitt Romney is "too rich," but "there is a start of resentment of the government." In Bedard's words, "voters were also lumping in the president's vacation spending in with the General Services Administration's Las Vegas scandal and federal spending for those who aren't looking for work."

Obama is also notorious for his golf outings. Blogress Ann Althouse, another swing voter (she has admitted supporting Obama in 2008), notes that George W. Bush was "savaged" for going golfing "when Americans were fighting and dying." Michael Moore made hay of it in his 2004 agitprop film "Fahrenheit 9/11," notwithstanding that Bush had given up golf in 2003 on the ground that it was unseemly: "I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong message." Althouse opens her post with a story about the latest casualties in Afghanistan.

The student-debt debate has underscored another unattractive aspect of Obama's presidential style: his tendency to be always and indiscriminately on the attack. The Washington Post's Rosalind Helderman notes that the president not only personally attacked two Republican congressmen, Missouri's Todd Akin and North Carolina's Virginia Foxx, but grievously misquoted both of them.Althouse further criticizes Obama for his appearance earlier this week on the NBC show "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon," in which, as Althouse notes, "Obama performs 5 minutes of a musically sexualized speech about students. . . . It's wearing down my sense of the outlandish." We watched part of the Fallon video and found it to be a head-scratcher. The president seems to be making a serious policy argument (in favor of extending subsidies for college debt), Fallon is sucking up to him, and somehow it's supposed to be a comedy routine. We guess you had to be there.

Helderman dryly notes that "it is somewhat unusual for a sitting president to single out individual rank-and-file members of the opposition party for criticism and scorn in public speeches." She quotes Speaker John Boehner: "Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House."

But is anything beneath the dignity of the Obama White House? This, after all, is the same president who has ignorantly blasted the Supreme Court and Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee. The only difference in his attacks on Akin and Foxx is that he is manifestly punching down. What next? Will he go after private citizens?

Oh ha ha, he's doing that already, as our colleague Kim Strassel notes:

This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

Strassel likens Obama's demonization to Richard Nixon's "enemies list," which "appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust." It's an apt comparison, but even Nixon delegated much of his attack-doggery to his vice president, Spiro Agnew. We guess Joe Biden is too goofy for that role so Obama has to do it himself.

It seems to us that Althouse is on to something in suggesting that part of the reason Obama conducts himself in such an unseemly way is that the mainstream media are largely Democratic partisans, inclined to give their man a pass. True, there are plenty of alternative media voices now, but it's relatively easy for a leftist president to dismiss them and continue to enjoy the adulation of the so-called mainstreamers, who have also been suggesting lately that Obama is a shoo-in for re-election because he is so likable.

The McLaughlin findings point to the risk that that isn't the case. Obama could end up losing because sycophantic media encouraged him to act in such an unseemly way.

There's a parallel in the way the media have strained to play down bad economic news. A couple of hilarious examples come from NPR's website today: A homepage title asked: "Is Slow Growth Actually Good for the Economy?" (The actual story, which has a less risible title, pretty much answers in the negative.) And an NPR "Special Series" is titled "Looking Up: Pockets of Economic Strength."

Remember when the economy was strong and there were pockets of poverty? In November, it is possible the voters will.

EPA wants to be friends with the Oil companies. Just kidding.

This is probably not productive. At least we know where the EPA stands on such a large sector of the US economy. Because remember, any punitive taxes or financial burden the US government places on energy corporation, will not be passed down to the consumer. No, the energy company will accept the additional financial cost, and say 'yes, we should make less money'. And all of their shareholders will agree. Oh wait, that's not true in any sense of the word. Read the original here.

EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered CitizensBy Craig Bannister
April 25, 2012
CNSNews.com

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’dfind the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

Good News! The War on Terror is declared over...

But it makes me wonder, is it now an "Overseas Contingency Operation part 2"? I wish that I could just rename things to make them "complete". Seems a bit hasty to me... Anyways, read the original here.

'The War on Terror Is Over'
9:29 PM, APR 23, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER

The Weekly Standard

In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is grappling with how to handle Islamists, radical adherents to Islam. Particularly, the issue has come to the fore in regards to Egypt, which, as Reuel Marc Gerecht notes, "is now certain" to elect "an Islamist" as its leaders the next time the Egyptian people go to the polls.

But some in the Obama administration are now seeing things differently.

"The war on terror is over," a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. "Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism."

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that "It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists."

The National Journal explains:

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama's savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

For the president himself, this new thinking comes from a "realiz[ation that] he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively 'moderate' Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere."

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," Bush said on November 6, 2001. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us--or not with us, but not quite against us.

Work while you get unemployment...what could go wrong?

Ummm... Read the original here.

States asked to apply for unemployment test plan

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is looking for states that will experiment withunemployment insurance programs by letting people test a job while still receiving benefits.

The plan is a key feature of a payroll tax cut package that President Barack Obama negotiated withcongressional Republicans in February.

The Labor Department will open the application process Thursday for 10 model projects across the country. Any state can apply for the "Bridge to Work" program.

The plan is modeled after a Georgia program called "Georgia Works." Under the plan, workers who have lost jobs can be placed in other temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while receiving jobless assistance. About a third of the time, those workers wind up getting hired full-time.

A number of states are combining unemployment benefits with on-the-job training, including North Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah and Missouri.

A senior administration official said those states would be eligible to apply for the federal demonstration project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the program before an administration announcement.

States that are chosen could get waivers from the federal government allowing them to tap their unemployment insurance accounts to pay for such costs as transportation for workers in temporary jobs.

The program has had mixed results in some states that have their own programs. Administration officials said they hope the waivers and assistance offered by the federal demonstration projects could help rectify any problems that have emerged.

Supporters of the programs say it helps workers retain or learn new skills and add new job references to their resumes. The plan passed with support from leading Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

It also is designed to answer critics of unemployment benefits who say the aid discourages some people from aggressively seeking work.

Change

Well, no one said he was lying. I suppose it depends on whether you think this kind of change is good or bad. The way I see it, this change has: skyrocketed the debt, expanded government dependency, done nothing to help unemployment, alienation of traditional allies, frozen the US economy, and specifically in terms of the auto "bailout", wrested financial control of a private corporation through the power of government from it's legal shareholders and gifted it to the unions (aka, their cronies and lobbyists). While I disagree with some or many of the wartime decisions made by POTUS, I do not blame him for the US continued state of war. Read the original and see the video here.

Obama: "We've Begun To See What Change Looks Like"
Posted on April 19, 2012
RealClearPolitics.com

Touting the auto bailout at a fundraiser in Detroit, President Obama told supporters we are now seeing what change looks like.

"In just three years, because of what you did in 2008, we've begun to see what change looks like. We've begun to see it," Obama said. Transcript below.

OBAMA: When you decide to support a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama, you know the odds are not necessarily in your favor. You didn't need a poll to tell you that wasn't going to be a sure thing. But the point is, you didn't get involved in this campaign just because of me. You did it because you were making a commitment to each other. You had a shared vision for America.

It wasn't a vision where just a few were doing well and everybody else was left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. It was a big, bold, generous vision of America where everybody who works hard has a chance to get ahead, not just those at the very top. That's the vision we share. That's the commitment you made to each other.

We knew it wasn't going to be easy. We knew the changes that we believed in wouldn't necessarily come quickly, but we understood that if we were determined that we could overcome any obstacle, that we could beat any challenge. And in just three years, because of what you did in 2008, we've begun to see what change looks like. We've begun to see it.

Think about it. Change is the decision we made to rescue the American auto industry from collapse when some politicians said let Detroit go bankrupt. There were one million jobs on the line and the fate of communities all across the Midwest was on the line and we weren't going to let it happen.

White House believes in Double Standards

I don't recall anyone being "disappointed" in the media when Abu Ghraib photos were released. I seem to recall every Democrat from LA to NYC jumping all over it as a sign that George Bush was the devil. But when it happens under their administration, now we should see "restraint". Please. Neither one of them should've happened (the incidents). Whether the photos should've been released to the public is debatable. But treat both sides equally, as opposed to the "politically bashing the wife policy". Read the original here.

W.H. 'Disappointed' L.A. Times Published Photos 'Two Years After the Incident'
1:41 PM, APR 18, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard

White House spokesman Jay Carney reacted to the publication of photos in the Los Angeles Times of U.S. soldiers posing with corpses in Afghanistan by saying the Obama administration is "disappointed.. [with] the decision to publish two years after the incident," according to a pool report.

Carney is suggesting, it would seem, that the photos might put at risk U.S. soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. And that, since the photos were taken two years ago, there would not seem to be pressing need for the Los Angeles Times to publish the photos while the soldiers are in that war theater.

Carney also blasted the photos themselves--at least, the actions of those American in the pictures. "[The] conduct depicted in those photographs is reprehensible and does not in any way represent the high standards of the US military," Carney told the press aboard Air Force One. "And the president certainly shares in the defense secretary's opinion that this should be investigated and those held responsible will be held accountable."

The spokesman said he was unsure whether the president had actually seen the photos in question, though Carney is sure that Obama is aware of the scandal.

Who pays their fair share?

I'm guessing you do. But do government workers? Of course, the IRS is currently lead by a Treasury Secretary who decided that paying taxes was too complicated. So he just didn't. And then became Treasury Secretary. Other people would have had their wages garnished or been arrested. Read the original here.

Hey, how about administration officials pay their fair share of taxes?
POSTED AT 2:31 PM ON APRIL 18, 2012
BY TINA KORBE
HotAir.com

Over at our sister site, Townhall.com, Carol Platt Liebau and Kevin Glass issue a timely reminder. At the same time that the president shrilly demands passage of a rule to force millionaires to “pay their fair share” of taxes (passage the Senate didn’t deliver), administration officials and federal workers owe an astonishing amount in back taxes.

Some 36 members of Obama’s executive staff owe more than $800,000 in back taxes, while federal workers owe more than $3.4 billion in unpaid taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Granted, we can’t wait for perfect compliance to reform the tax code, just as we can’t wait for the elimination of every instance of waste, fraud and abuse before we reform entitlement programs. The noncompliance of so many members of the Obama administration and the federal government, though, might reveal yet another reason why they target “the rich” for tax increases. Because they don’t pay their own taxes, they don’t trust others to pay their fair share without special enforcement, either. “The rich” — as such a small portion of the population — are easy to monitor and easy to milk. Few millionaires would take the risk of fudging their tax returns — especially since the IRS is, in fact, auditing more millionaires these days.

Meanwhile, the Buffett Rule isn’t even the most disastrous tax the Obama administration has proposed of late. John Ransom calls attention to the many pitfalls of a global minimum tax, which Joe Biden recently touted:

A global minimum tax is a tax on all profits made by nominally US companies that operate overseas. They operate overseas for various reasons, but one big reason is because corporate taxes are higher in the US than overseas. And to fix high corporate taxes in the US, the Obama administration proposes even HIGHER TAXES on corporations. …

Not content to tax the rich here in the United States, Democrats are so hungry for welfare revenues that they now want to tax all revenue, everywhere, ignoring international borders, international waters and universal common sense.

And guess who is gonna pay the tax? When they toll the bell “rich” during this campaign, understand that that bell tolls for thee.

Because, while the “rich” may be someone across town in the US, the “rich” in Obama’s global sense, isyou. This is a tax that will fall most heavily on the poor and middle income earners.

The truth is, most of the tax increases the president has proposed will eventually hit the middle class, thanks to the phenomenon of trickle-down taxation. Grover Norquist thinks the American people won’t fall for tax-the-rich rhetoric again because they know eventually, in the eyes of the government, everybody will be considered “rich.” I hope he’s right — but the president’s opportunistic emphasis on the Buffett Rule during an election year suggests the president thinks his rhetoric will work.

The tax battle is not about “paying a fair share.” If it were, Obama would direct the injunction to pay up directly at the tax evaders in his administration. It is and always has been about wealth redistribution and centralization of power.

POTUS's taxes are lower than mine.

If I could afford to donate 22% of my earnings, I would. If I could lower my tax rate to equal that of POTUS, I would. There are a lot of things I wish I could do...How annoyed would you be if you were the secretary in this story? Read the original here.

President Obama’s Secretary Paid Higher Tax Rate Than He Did
Jake Tapper
Apr 13, 2012 3:00pm
ABC News

President Obama today released his 2011 federal income tax, with he and his wife reporting an adjusted gross income of $789,674. The Obamas paid $162,074 in total tax – an effective federal income tax rate of 20.5%. The Obamas also reported donating approximately 22% of their income to charity — $172,130.

President Obama has been making a big political push for the “Buffett Rule,” which would require millionaires to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes. To illustrate the point, the president has pointed out that billionaire investor Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than does his secretary.

President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge, makes $95,000 a year. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage tells ABC News that Breckenridge “pays a slightly higher rate this year on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share. ”

It should be noted that president would not be impacted by the Buffett Rule, though he would see his taxes go up if the so-called Bush tax cuts on higher income wage-earners were allowed to expire, as the president says he wants.

-Jake Tapper

Pretty sweet gig, where do I sign up?

Seriously Joe, I mean Mr. Vice President. I have to give you props on this one. Anyone else was doing this, I'd call this a scam. But, I suppose in modern US politics, this is leadership. Read the original here.

Biden Earned $21,000 Last Year From the Secret Service
by KEITH KOFFLER
APRIL 14, 2012, 12:16 PM
White House Dossier.com

No, he’s not moonlighting as an agent.

Vice President Joe Biden last year earned $20,900 in rental income from the Secret Service, which is paying him to host agents on his property so they can protect him.

Most high-profile people in need of protection pay people to keep them safe. Government officials are allowed to have taxpayers pick up the tab. Biden is unique in that he actually gets paid by his bodyguards for the right to protect him.

Biden’s tax records list rental income of $20,900 from a “cottage” on is property, which is reportedly being leased by the Secret Service and paid for at a rate that could earn him even more money next year.

Biden took deductions for mortgage interest and taxes that allowed him to report only $12,653 of the amount on his federal tax return.

Of course, the Bidens badly need the money. They only had an adjusted gross income of $379,035 last year. This probably also explains why they gave less than 1.5 percent of their income to charity.

Among the $5,540 in charitable donations were $1,000 to the UN World Food Program; $1,080 to the Northern Virginia Community College Alumni Scholarship Fund; $1,000 to the Diocese of Wilmington; Delaware; $360 to a breast health initiative launched by Dr. Jill Biden; and $50 to the Wounded Warrior Project.

N. Korea is not under POTUS's spell

It's a good thing that North Korea's technology is as up to date as their fashion. It looks like politically, POTUS isn't really able to get them to back off. Of course, if the result is always going to be with North Korean technology falling apart and sinking into the ocean like an ACME product bought by Wile E. Coyote, then it's probably okay. However, that's a pretty big if, to me...Read the original here.

Obama engagement policy 'in tatters' after North Korean rocket defiance
Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk

Friday 13 April 2012 12.56 EDT
US officials expect Pyongyang to carry out third nuclear test in near future, respresenting significant policy failure for president

Barack Obama's policy of engagement with North Korea lies "in tatters" after it was effectively shot down by Pynongyang's defiant but failed attempt to launch a long-range rocket.

Former US officials closely involved with North Korea policy said Washington's attempt to win agreement from Pyongyang to abandon its development of nuclear weapons and rockets in exchange for desperately-needed food aid has failed. They now expect North Korea to try and overcome the embarrassment caused at the rocket breaking into pieces over the Yellow Sea by carrying out a third nuclear test in the near future.

If that goes ahead, it will represent a significant foreign policy failure for Obama and prove a severe political embarrassment in an election year.

In February, the Washington and Pyongyang reached an agreement under which the communist regime would halt its missile testing and uranium enrichment, and agree to the resumption of international monitoring of its nuclear sites, in return for Washington providing 240,000 tonnes of food to the North Korea which has faced widespread shortages and famine.

The US says it warned North Korea that the rocket launch – which Pyongyang said was intended to carry a satellite but which the Obama administration claimed was a ballistic missile test – would violate the agreement.

Charles Pritchard, a special envoy for negotiations with North Korea in the Bush administration and a special assistant to Bill Clinton on national security, said Obama's policy of engagement has now failed.

"It is essentially in tatters. They made a calculation. They reached out to North Korea and it fell apart," he said. "I think the US will be essentially regrouping on an international basis. They're not going to go back to a bilateral engagement with the North Koreans any time soon."

Pritchard said that the regime's young new leader, Kim Jong-un, is likely to attempt to restore Pyongang's credibility – and possibly also his own with North Korea's military – by pressing ahead with development of a nuclear weapon.

"The failure of the rocket makes it much more likely that there will be a third nuclear test. This has been a huge public and domestic embarrassment for North Korea. A brand new, untested, inexperienced regime that has gone out on a limb to really have a spectacular successful celebration, and now it'll be a dark shadow over all of their celebrations. They need some new achievement."

That view was backed by Christian Whiton, a US state department deputy special envoy to North Korea in the Bush administration.

"It looks pretty likely. The way this usually comes out is that South Korean intelligence starts leaking information to the South Korean press. That has happened and it looks like preparations are underway," he said. "If you step back and look at this it looks like a failure by North Korea with its rocket but actually what you're seeing is more of a power move by the regime."

One of Obama's deputy national security advisers, Ben Rhodes, denied that the administration's dealings with North Korea have been a failure. He argued that the president has taken a tougher stand with Pyongyang than the Bush administration because Washington will not now deliver the promised food aid.

"What this administration has done is broken the cycle of rewarding provocative actions by the North Koreans that we've seen in the past. Under the previous administration, for instance, there was a substantial amount of assistance provided to North Korea. North Korea was removed from the terrorism list, even as they continued to engage in provocative actions. Under our administration we have not provided any assistance to North Korea," he said. "The message that we've been delivering is that North Korea is wasting its money on these weapons as many of their people starve and as their economy is one of the most backward in the world."

Asked if it is proper to leave ordinary North Koreans to go hungry or even starve because the actions of their government, Rhodes said that it is the regime in Pyongyang "that is holding its own people hostage".

He said he would not be surprised if Pyongyang now attempts a nuclear test.
"The North Koreans have tended to pursue patterns of provocative actions to include missile launches, nuclear tests as they undertook in 2006, 2009. And so we're certainly concerned about the pattern of provocative behaviour that the North Koreans engage in. What we want to make clear to them is that each step that they take in terms of provocations will only lead to a deeper isolation, increase consequences. And frankly, that's not just a message they're hearing from us, they're hearing it from the Chinese and the Russians as well," he said.

The US was expected to lead the condemnation at a UN security council meeting on the crisis on Friday. The White House warned of new sanctions.
Obama's domestic critics swiftly accused him of creating the crisis through weakness. Some have contrasted the president's stand against Iran with his more cautious approach on North Korea.

Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential candidate, said Obama was incompetent and naive in handling North Korea.

"Instead of approaching Pyongyang from a position of strength, President Obama sought to appease the regime with a food-aid deal that proved to be as naive as it was short-lived," said Romney. "This incompetence from the Obama administration has emboldened the North Korean regime and undermined the security of the United States and our allies."

Jon Kyl, the Republican whip in the US Senate, called on the White House to "abandon its naive negotiations with North Korea".

Pritchard said the crisis now threatens to become an election issue.

"In a presidential election year, the president can't afford a spectacular loss on the foreign policy side over North Korea where he's been very cautious over the last three years. It will essentially erase all the good things he can point to in other areas of his foreign policy," he said. "So I think Obama steps back. You're not going to see any bilateral engagement on the part of the United States for the remainder of this term."

The former officials now expect the White House to abandon bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang and to attempt to build on collective international pressure.

Pritchard said that will be made difficult by China's dual role of attempting to pressure North Korea while also shielding it. That, he said, will give Pyongyang a relatively free hand.

"This regime (in North Korea) cannot afford to negotiate away, to be seen to be knuckling under to pressure from others to stop what they are doing. They have nothing else going on for them. They are going to march forward and there's very little the international community can do," he said.

Whiton said he regards that as very dangerous.

"There's a cost to doing nothing with North Korea because North Korea proliferates nearly every weapons system it has. In 2007, one of the reasons the last round of talks fell apart was because we caught the North Koreans helping the Syrians build a carbon copy of the North Korean nuclear reactor.

"They were building it in Syria. There were North Koreans on the site. Thankfully the Israelis blew it up," he said.

Selling Access or this is how the world works

You decide. Is this just how "business is done" or are they selling access to the leader of the free world? Read the original here.

Former Dem. Congressman Kennedy Alleges 'Quid Pro Quo' for Access to White House
8:42 AM, APR 15, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER 

The Weekly Standard

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.

The Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."

But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

Mr. Kennedy visited the White House several times to win support for One Mind for Research, his initiative to help develop new treatments for brain disorders. While his family name and connections are clearly influential, he said, he knows White House officials are busy. And as a former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said he was keenly aware of the political realities they face.

And Kennedy admits that folks in the White House are checking out the donor records:

“I know that they look at the reports,” he said, referring to records of campaign donations. “They’re my friends anyway, but it won’t hurt when I ask them for a favor if they don’t see me as a slouch.”
Translated, "quid pro quo" means "this for that." As in, if you want this from the Obama White House, then give that (e.g., cash).

Secret Service buys a little more service, should have stayed a little more secret

Umm....Not sure what to say about this one. This is pretty bad.  There better be some severe disciplinary action, as this exposes the President and other officials to a high security risk, if their bodyguards are susceptible to blackmail.  Read the original here.

Secret Service hooker flap over $47 (or just 83,475 naughty lil’ pesos)
By GEOFF EARLE in DC and DON KAPLAN in NY
With POST WIRE SERVICES
Last Updated: 9:52 AM, April 15, 2012
Posted: 12:52 AM, April 15, 2012
NY Post

A Secret Service agent shamed the United States after a wild night of babes and booze that ended in an argument with a Colombian hooker over as little as $47.

One of 11 elite agents assigned to ensure President Obama’s protection at a summit meeting in Cartagena, Colombia, was busted after his lady of the evening refused to leave his hotel room in the morning without her fee.

That woman was one of 11 hookers hired by the agents — and the only one who hadn’t left Cartagena’s swank Hotel Caribe, where White House staffers, members of the press and dignitaries are staying during the Summit of the Americas meeting, sources said.

The confrontation occurred early last week, said Rep. Pete King, a Long Island Republican who was briefed on the incident yesterday.

One of the agents sent home after agency bosses in DC learned what was going on was “in a supervisory role,” said King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

A hotel employee told The Associated Press that agents arrived at the beachfront hotel a week ago and drank heavily during their stay.

Prostitution is legal in much of Colombia inside “tolerance zones” controlled by police. The going rate for hookers in Cartagena is around $47, according to Colombian TV.

The trouble began for the Secret Service after the agents’ night of carousing, when a hotel employee noticed a hooker’s ID was still at the front desk at 7 a.m., in violation of hotel policy on overnight guests, King said.

The manager went to the agent’s room where the woman had spent the night and saw the two inside arguing, King said.

“She said the agent owed her money,” King said. “He said he didn’t have to pay her.”

He eventually forked over the money and the situation was resolved. But the cops were called and they filed a report, which was sent to the US Embassy.

The probe widened yesterday to include five members of the US military who were allegedly involved in the same incident, officials said.

The service members, with the Southern Command, are still in Colombia “because of the expertise and the knowledge that these guys have,” a military spokesman told CBS News.

A statement released by the Southern Command said the service members “violated the curfew . . . and may have been involved in inappropriate conduct.”

An expert on the Secret Service yesterday said that, although the agents involved in the scandal were not breaking Colombian law, most of them are married and could have been exposed to blackmail.

“It could have resulted in a potential assassination attempt on the president,” said Ronald Kessler, author of “In the President’s Secret Service.”

“It the biggest scandal in the history of the Secret Service and the most basic breach of security,” the author said.

Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said that Obama’s security was not compromised because of the incident.

“This entire matter has been turned over to our Office of Professional Responsibility, which serves as the agency’s internal- affairs component,” he said.

None of the agents involved was directly assigned to protect the president. Donovan said the agents involved were relieved from duty and replaced.

But the scandal has made the United States the laughingstock of the important summit, as diplomats have been gossiping about hooker high jinx rather than focusing on Obama’s goals in the region.

“I had a breakfast meeting to discuss trade and drugs, but the only thing the other delegates wanted to talk about was the story of the agents and the hookers,” chuckled one Latin American diplomat.

Without mentioning the Secret Service scandal specifically, Obama — who arrived in Cartagena on Friday — blasted “flashy” coverage of the controversy.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/ho_lombia_twist_4oMCMx8CRfOyJhODIuCcfM#ixzz1s8b0t9x7

N. Korean Rocket launch is a failure...

Anyone surprised? No? Anyways....read the original here.

NKorea launch draws anger as failure wounds pride
Apr 13, 6:20 AM (ET)
By JEAN H. LEE

PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) - North Korea's widely condemned rocket splintered into pieces over the Yellow Sea soon after takeoff Friday, an embarrassing end to a launch that Pyongyang had infused with national pride during a week of high-level political meetings and celebrations.

Within minutes of the early morning launch, the United States and South Korea declared it a failure. North Korea acknowledged that hours later in an announcement broadcast on state TV, saying the satellite that the rocket was carrying had been unable to enter into orbit.

World leaders were swift to denounce the launch, calling it a covert test of missile technology and a flagrant violation of international resolutions prohibiting North Korea from developing its nuclear and missile programs.

The rocket's destruction suggests the country has yet to master the technology needed to build long-range missiles that could threaten the United States. Still, worries remain about North Korea's nuclear program amid reports that it may be planning an atomic test soon.

The launch is also a setback for the government of new leader Kim Jong Un, which had projected the satellite as a show of strength amid persistent economic hardship while he solidifies power following the death of his father, longtime leader Kim Jong Il, four months ago.

The foreign ministers of the Group of Eight industrialized nations meeting in Washington, including Russia, condemned the launch. The U.N. Security Council, meanwhile, scheduled an emergency meeting for later Friday, and Washington said it was suspending plans to contribute food aid to the North in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear programs.

North Korea had announced weeks earlier that it would launch a long-range rocket mounted with an observational satellite, touting it as a major technological achievement to mark the upcoming 100th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung, the country's founder and current leader's grandfather.

The failure "blows a big hole in the birthday party," said Victor Cha, former director for Asia policy in the U.S. National Security Council. "It's terribly embarrassing for the North."

Experts say the Unha-3 carrier was the same type of rocket that would be used to strike the U.S. and other targets with a long-range missile.

Greg Thielmann, a former intelligence officer with the U.S. State Department, said it now appears the North Koreans haven't mastered the technology they need to control multistage rockets - a key capability if the North is to threaten the United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

North Korea has tested two atomic devices but is not yet believed to be able to build a nuclear warhead small enough to be mounted on a long-range missile.

Cha, who was an Asia adviser for former President George W. Bush, said the next step would be to watch whether North Korea conducts a third nuclear test, as has been speculated by the South Korean intelligence community.

State media said the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite was fired from the Sohae Satellite Launching Station in the hamlet of Tongchang-ri along the west coast but "failed to enter its preset orbit."

"Scientists, technicians and experts are now looking into the cause of the failure," the state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

Kim Jong Un, who has been given several important titles this week meant to strengthen his rule, was named Friday as first chairman of the powerful National Defense Commission, while Kim Jong Il became "chairman for eternity." The announcement came during a meeting of the Supreme People's Assembly in Pyongyang, state media said.

Kim Jong Il, who died in December, ruled the country in his capacity as chairman of the National Defense Commission.

At a massive gathering Friday in Pyongyang, Kim Jong Un and other senior officials watched the unveiling of an enormous new statue of Kim Jong Il, which stood beside an equally large statue of Kim Il Sung.

North Korean space officials said the Unha-3, or Galaxy-3, rocket was meant to send a satellite into orbit to study crops and weather patterns - its third bid to launch a satellite since 1998. Officials had earlier brought foreign journalists to the west coast site to see the rocket and the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite Sunday in a bid to show its transparency amid accusations of defiance.

The acknowledgment of the rocket's failure - both to the outside world and to North Koreans - was a surprising admission by a government that in the past has kept tight control over information. In Pyongyang, dozens of foreign journalists invited to cover the launch were not allowed to view the liftoff live.

"The failure, which was impossible to hide from the North Korean people given the advance publicity and presence of international media, will be a major source of domestic and international embarrassment for the Kim Jong Un regime," said Ralph Cossa, president of Pacific Forum CSIS, a Hawaii-based think tank.

Attempts to put satellites into orbit often pose problems even for developed nations. In 2010, a South Korean rocket carrying a climate observation satellite exploded 137 seconds into its flight. An earlier 2009 attempt, Seoul's first from its own territory, also failed.

The Unha-3's launch was monitored by a host of U.S., Japanese and South Korean military assets, which were expected to capture vital data on North Korea's ballistic missile capabilities.

U.S. Navy minesweepers and other ships in the area were expected to begin scouring the seas for debris from the rocket, which can offer evidence of what went wrong and what rocket technology North Korea has.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking for the Group of Eight, said earlier that all the members of the bloc agreed to be prepared to take further action against North Korea in the Security Council.

---

Associated Press writers Hyung-jin Kim, Foster Klug, Sam Kim and Eric Talmadge contributed to this report from Seoul, South Korea; Mari Yamaguchi and Malcolm Foster contributed from Tokyo; Matthew Pennington contributed from Washington.

Do as POTUS says, not as he does

Double standards, same stuff, different day. Read the original here.

OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PAYS WOMEN LESS THAN MEN, RECORDS SHOW
BY: Andrew Stiles - April 11, 2012 2:52 pm

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).


Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.

President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.

“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

The president and his Democratic allies have accused Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and have touted themselves as champions of female equality. Obama’s rhetoric, however, has not always been supported by his actions.

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters last week that Obama believes it is “long past the time” for women to be admitted to the traditionally all-male Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters golf tournament.

But the president has demonstrated a strong preference for all-male foursomes in his frequent golf outings, a bias that extends well beyond the putting green and into the Oval Office.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers told the New York Times.

In a 2011 article titled “The White House Boys’ Club: President Obama Has a Woman Problem,” TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan detailed the president’s fondness for male-dominated environments.

“There’s a looseness to Obama when he’s hanging out with the boys club that doesn’t appear in co-ed gatherings,” she wrote. “The president blows off steam on the golf course with male colleagues and friends. He takes to the White House basketball court with NBA stars, men’s college players, and male cabinet members and members of Congress.”

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama was criticized for paying the women on his campaign staff less than the men, and far less than GOP opponent John McCain paid his female staffers.
This entry was posted in Obama Administration. Bookmark the permalink.

DNC attacks Ann Romney

Remember, according to the DNC, bringing spouses and children into the the political battleground is wrong, and you should leave them alone. That is, unless they're Republican. Read the original here.

Ann Romney Fights Back: Debuts on Twitter to Counter DNC Advisor’s Insult
By Emily Friedman
Apr 11, 2012 10:47pm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Ann Romney’s debut on Twitter couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”

And then, just like that, a familiar name popped up on Twitter: @AnnDRomney.

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work,” Ann tweeted.

The Romney campaign confirmed to ABC News that the account belongs to Ann Romney.

The tweet came just as husband Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the “war against women,” packing events with female business leaders and accusing the Obama administration’s economic policies of hurting women.

“I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a tweet.

Top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod also tweeted his disapproval: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

Following the interview, Rosen herself tweeted, “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.”

Rosen kept tweeting, not appearing to back off of her comments.

“@AnnDRomney Please know, I admire you. But your husband shouldn’t say you are his expert on women and the economy,” said Rosen.

Then Rosen offered a welcome message to Ann, tweeting, “oh and @AnnDRomney welcome to Twitter. You will find it a very exhilarating and often unforgiving place!”

Spread is different than redistribution...apparently

So when you say you're going to "spread the wealth", that is different from "redistributing the wealth". Only in politi-speak. Read the original here.

Obama: I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth'
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer

April 10, 2012
Washington Examiner

President Obama, who famously called for tax increases on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around," denied today that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to "redistribute wealth."

"So these investments -- in things like education and research and health care -- they haven't been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another," the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. "This is not some socialist dream," Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.

When he advocated the same plan in 2008, though, Obama described this "spread the wealth around" policy. "I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts," he told Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber), who is now running for Congress.

Today, Obama similarly opposed "giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don't need them."

In 2008, Obama summarized his plan to make the tax code fairer by saying "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." Today, he specifically distanced himself from such a characterization of his position and -- as has been his recent habit -- made a point of rejecting the "socialism" label.

In short: Obama was careful to avoid the "spread the wealth" phrase today, but he defended the Buffett Rule by making the "spread the wealth" argument first made in 2008.

Krauthammer on POTUS v. SCOTUS

As always, an interesting read from Charles Krauthammer. Read the original here.

Obama v. SCOTUS

The Washington Post
By Charles Krauthammer

Published: April 5

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

— Barack Obama, on the constitutional challenge to his health-care law, April 2

“Unprecedented”? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. “Strong majority”? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.

In his next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal “restraint and deference” the courts owe the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren’t coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states — that fealty to it is the party’s litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.

With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.

Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party — in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, moreover, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.

The president’s preemptive attack on the court was in direct reaction to Obamacare’s three days of oral argument. It was a shock. After years of contemptuously dismissing the very idea of a legal challenge, Democrats suddenly realized there actually is a serious constitutional argument to be made against Obamacare — and they are losing it.

Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?

Liberals were quick to blame the administration’s bumbling solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, for blowing the answer. But Clarence Darrow couldn’t have given it. There is none.

Justice Stephen Breyer tried to rescue the hapless Verrilli by suggesting that by virtue of being born, one enters into the “market for health care.” To which plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Carvin devastatingly replied: If birth means entering the market, Congress is omnipotent, authorized by the commerce clause to regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave.”

Q.E.D.

Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”

Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.

Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they’ve grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.

As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

This does not make me feel warm and fuzzy...

I don't like it when:
1. Government quietly diverts large sums of money.
2. They do it outside the normal appropriations process. It's the normal appropriations process for a reason.
3. They do it to enforce policies that, are at this very moment, up for debate on whether the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. At least wait until the Court decides whether it is valid or not.

Read the original here.

White House has diverted $500M to IRS to implement healthcare law
By Sam Baker - 04/09/12 05:15 AM ET
TheHill.com

The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.

“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.

The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.

It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. And, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.

The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers are perfectly legal and consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past. The $1 billion fund was set aside for “federal” implementation activities, the GAO said, and can therefore be used by any agency — not just HHS, where the money is housed.

Still, significant transfers to the IRS and other agencies leave less money for HHS, and the department needs to draw on the $1 billion fund for some of its biggest tasks.

The healthcare law directs HHS to set up a federal insurance exchange — a new marketplace for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage — in any state that doesn’t establish its own. But it didn’t provide any money for the federal exchange, forcing HHS to cobble together funding by using some of the $1 billion fund and steering money away from other accounts.

The transfers also allow the IRS to make the healthcare law a smaller part of its public budget figures. For example, the tax agency requested $8 million next year to implement the individual mandate, and said the money would not pay for any new employees.

An IRS spokeswoman would not say how much money has been spent so far implementing the individual mandate.

Republicans charged during the legislative debate over healthcare that the IRS would be hiring hundreds of new agents to enforce the mandate and throwing people in jail because they don’t have insurance.

However, the mandate is just one part of the IRS’s responsibilities.

The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance policies.

The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of the new law — subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering the new subsidies.

The Republican-led House last year passed an amendment, 246-182, sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) that would have prevented the IRS from hiring new personnel or initiating any other measures to mandate that people purchase health insurance. The measure, strongly opposed by the Obama administration, was subsequently dropped from a larger bill that averted a government shutdown.

How do you measure unemployment?

Unemployment numbers that are shared on the news have a very specific set of criteria. That is, they are actually only counting the people who are on unemployment government assistance. Therefore, you are not counted if your unemployment benefits have run out, you have stopped looking for work, you never filed for unemployment, or if you are 'underemployed', aka if you have taken a part time job or similar just to have something. I agree with this proposal, that the way that they calculate unemployment right now is inaccurate and should be revised. This is not to make the current administration look bad (although, in my opinion, they don't need my help in doing that), it is to give people a more accurate set of information from which to make decisions from. Read the original here.

GOP lawmaker calls for change to how government measures unemployment
By Molly K. Hooper - 04/08/12 02:35 PM ET
TheHill.com

A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate.

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

Should the government measure unemployment with Hunter's figure, the unemployment rate would be higher than the current rate of approximately 8 percent– a potentially devastating assessment for the White House, especially in an election year.

The San Diego-based lawmaker contends that he did not introduce his bill to make the president look bad, since the number would reflect poorly on all individuals in charge of government.

On a recent interview with Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum, Hunter said, “it makes me look bad too when unemployment is sliding … it makes the Republican Congress, the president and the Democratic Senate - anybody who is an elected representative and in charge look bad. I don’t think it goes one way.”

His one-page legislation, the “REAL Unemployment Calculation Act” would require “the federal government [to] cite, as its official unemployment calculation, the figure that takes into account those who are no longer looking for work,” not only those individuals actively seeking jobs.

For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday with 8.2 percent unemployment, would be officially considered 9.6 percent, the so-called U-5 rate that was also released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.)

The measure would not require any additional numbers to be calculated, it would simply use a statistic that the BLS already calculates each month, alongside the so-called official unemployment rate and a handful of other stats.

The U-5 stat measures, “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” while the U-3 stat or the “official unemployment rate,” measures, “total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force.”

Though the government modernized how unemployment was surveyed in 1994 – adding the several different calculations, including the U-5 rate to the mix – the official unemployment calculation has remained largely the same, according to a report on the “alternative unemployment measures” released by the BLS in 1994.

“Since the inception of the survey in 1940, only relatively minor changes have been made to the official definition of unemployment, despite numerous outside reviews and ongoing assessments by academicians, business and labor organizations and various interest groups. The official measure has withstood the test of time largely because of its objectivity,” John Bregger, former Assistant Commissioner for Current Employment Analysis wrote.

For the past two decades, there has been a consistent spread between the U-3 and U-5 rates, until several years ago during President Obama’s administration, when the U-3 began to improve while the U-5 rose, according to a recent study of Labor Department data released by Investor’s Business Daily in late February.

Therefore, Hunter believes that it is imperative to deem that U-5 rate as the “official unemployment rate,” as he says, the U-3 avoids “a subset of Americans who are not counted.”

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics does in fact provide alternative measurements of unemployment, but they are consistently overshadowed by the U-3 rate, which ignores a large group of people. We need to be realistic and focus our attention on the figure that provides the most accurate representation of national unemployment—not the figure that under-represents the challenge we face,” Hunter said in a recent statement.

Still, the U-5 rate does not factor the reasons that individuals stopped looking for work, such as, deciding to go to school, inheriting money, or realizing that jobs were not available in their local area. It also does not account for the number of individuals who are on unemployment insurance, according to a source familiar with the monthly survey.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics refrained from commenting on Hunter’s legislation.

The Education and Workforce Committee has no action on Hunter’s bill planned at this time, according to committee spokesman Brian Newell.

Regardless, Hunter intends to pursue additional co-sponsors for his bill, spokesman Joe Kasper told The Hill. He will “definitely” make his case for consideration of the measure to leaders “in the coming weeks.”

Hunter conceded that should his measure become law, it could be politically detrimental to his party, but to him the most accurate picture of unemployment in the U.S. ranks above politics.

“If a Republican gets elected this year and gets sworn in next year this will be their unemployment figure too. So you have to have truth no matter who it hurts or who it actually affects. You have to have the actual truth, that’s what we need here - truth to power. And that’s how things start getting fixed,” Hunter said on Fox News.

I forgot, he's too smart...right?

Alright this kind of bugs me. Part of being POTUS is being able to effectively communicate to the people, isn't it? I'm sick of this continuing theme of he's the smartest guy in the room, he's smarter than the Republicans, he's smarter than flyover country. Take some responsibility for the words that come out of your mouth. Read the original and view the video here.

Carney: Obama Not Understood Because He Spoke In "Shorthand" Since He Is A Law ProfessorRealClearPolitics

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in "shorthand" since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Personal travel for politicians?

What do you think? Should politicians and government officials be required to foot more of the bill? Or since the Secretary of Defense is required to fly by secure military transport, should this be a taxpayer expense? What do you think the policy should be? Read the original here.

Panetta has paid $17,000 for commuting to Calif.
Apr 5, 6:59 PM (ET)
LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has commuted on military aircraft to his home in northern California more than two dozen times since he took over the Pentagon in July, paying about $630 per trip for a roundtrip flight that costs the Pentagon about $32,000.

The totals detailed by defense officials lay out his reimbursements for the first time, showing he paid the Treasury about $17,000 for the 27 personal trips. Based on fuel and other operating expenses for his Air Force plane, those same trips cost the government as much as $860,000.

As Pentagon chief, Panetta is required to travel on military planes because they have the secure communications equipment he needs to stay in contact with the president and other top civilian and military leaders.

His bill for the travel is calculated according to reimbursement formulas dictated by longstanding federal policies using what a full-fare coach trip would cost. And the Pentagon says it costs about $3,200 per flight hour to operate the small plane he usually uses for the 10-hour round trip.

When he took the job, Panetta made it clear that he would continue to return home to his family on the weekends as he had done as CIA director for the previous two years, and as a member of Congress from 1977-1993.

The cost of the flights is a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's proposed $614 billion budget. But Panetta comes to the defense job at a particularly difficult financial time for the department. If Congress can't reach an agreement on savings or additional revenues elsewhere in the federal budget by next January, officials could be forced to cut nearly $1 trillion in defense spending over the next 10 years.

When Panetta took the post it was noted that he came with budget skills honed during his time as chairman of the House Budget Committee, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget and White House chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.

"No one understands the budget pressures on the Pentagon better than Secretary Panetta, who is responsible for identifying nearly $1 billion per week in defense cuts - or roughly $140 million per day - over the next 10 years," Pentagon press secretary George Little said. "As a required-use traveler, he must use government aircraft for all travel."

Little said Panetta values his time with his wife and family, and "spending time away from Washington, in fact, helps him focus on the job and recharge."

White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor added that, "Secretary Panetta has done an exceptional job in both his role at the CIA and as secretary of defense. He has been on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has always been reachable through secure channels whenever necessary, wherever he is."

Panetta's two predecessors didn't make such frequent, long trips home. Robert Gates spent most weekends in the nation's capital, but traveled occasionally to his family home in Washington state. Donald H. Rumsfeld also lived in the D.C. area, but often spent weekends at his house in St. Michaels on Maryland's Eastern shore.

Panetta's wife, Sylvia, works full time at the Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which they established in Monterey, Calif., in 1997.

As a result, Panetta, 73, routinely works, makes phone calls and, when necessary, travels a short distance for secure video conferences while he is at home at his family's walnut farm.

Occasionally he's been there when tragedy has struck.

On March 10, he was at home when he got the call that a U.S. soldier allegedly had gone on a rampage and shot Afghan villagers - including women and children - at point-blank range while they slept in their beds. Over the next hours and day, he spoke with U.S. military and national security officials, participated in discussions about what the U.S. response should be, and called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to express his condolences and promise that the perpetrator would be held accountable.

Panetta usually flies out to California on Friday evening and comes back Sunday night. For those personal trips, according to the federal Office of Management and Budget, he is required to reimburse the Treasury for the equivalent "full coach fare" that would be available to the public for the same flight.

But on nine occasions so far, official domestic trips have been scheduled for Thursdays and Fridays, allowing the secretary to travel part way across the country for business, then fly the rest of the way to California for the weekend.

In those cases, which included visits to Fort Campbell, Ky., Barksdale Air Force Base, La., Camp Pendleton, Calif., and Fort Bliss, Texas, he pays only part of the trip.

According to the formula, he essentially reimburses the government for the difference between the cost of the full trip minus the cost of flying directly to the base or official event location and back to Washington.

Those trips sometimes incur additional costs because a few staff members traveling with Panetta have had to return to Washington separately, either on a military plane, if available, or on a commercial flight.

Little said the Friday trips are not planned to mesh with Panetta's travel to California. Instead, he said, travel on Fridays or Mondays allow Panetta to "maximize his time in light of regularly scheduled meetings in Washington," including congressional testimony and White House and National Security Council sessions that are usually mid-week.

Typically Panetta flies on an Air Force C-37 - somewhat comparable to a Gulfstream jet - which is the lowest-cost aircraft that can carry the necessary communications equipment. In contrast, the Air Force E-4B, the "doomsday plane" Panetta uses for overseas travel because it can refuel in flight, accommodate secure video conferences and serve as an airborne command post, costs about $70,000 per flight hour to operate.

The requirement that all travel - official and personal - by a defense secretary be conducted on military aircraft was instituted during the George W. Bush administration in 2001.

When Panetta took over as defense chief he asked for a legal review to insure all regulations were being followed. In a memo obtained by The Associated Press, Jeh Johnson, the department's general counsel, laid out the reimbursement rules, including for trips that include both official and personal travel.