Tag Archive: president


Does Santorum Hear the Music?

Rick Santorum has every right to continue his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, just as Edward Kennedy did when he carried his fight against President Carter to the Democratic convention in 1980, and just as Hillary Rodham Clinton did through the last of the primaries four years ago. But Santorum’s right to persevere doesn’t preclude our right to say, “Put a fork in it; this thing is done.”

The Associated Press delegate count shows that Mitt Romney has won 655, or 59 percent of the delegates who have indicated a candidate preference. He needs to win 47 percent of those remaining to get the nomination. Santorum has won 278 delegates, or 25 percent of those who have indicated a preference. He would need to win a staggering 83 percent of the remaining delegates to reach the 1,144 necessary for the nomination. Obviously, that isn’t going to happen. The GOP nomination process is now more of a mop-up operation for Romney than a competition. Santorum will win some more delegates and a state here and there. But the former senator from Pennsylvania has no plausible path to 1,144.

For Romney and the Republican Party, this stage of the campaign didn’t come a minute too soon. The rehabilitation of the presumptive nominee and his party is long overdue. Ever since Congress began wrangling over the economic-stimulus and health care packages and since the tea party movement got its start, the Republican Party has detoured to the right. The GOP ventured into some of the more exotic reaches of conservative political thought, far, far away from the middle of the political spectrum, the area between the 40-yard lines where independent and swing voters live. Tea party supporters’ passion and energy only underscored the intensity of the movement. The end result has been that the Republican Party has turned inward.

The GOP’s 21 presidential debates, as well as the party’s rhetoric and policies in Washington and state capitals, have revealed an inward, self-absorbed focus. Republican officeholders are so obsessed with pleasing their party’s conservative base that they have virtually ignored how their overheated rhetoric might be interpreted by less-ideological independent and swing voters who, after all, are the ones who effectively decide general elections. If the GOP nominee won 100 percent of Republican voters, he would still lose the general election badly if he didn’t also win the support of a large slice of independent voters and close to 10 percent of Democrats.

The moment that really captured the candidates’ rightward lurch came during an August GOP debate in Iowa sponsored by Fox News. Conservative writer Byron York commented, “The deficit-cutting super committee is now getting to work. Democrats will demand that savings come from a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, maybe $3 in cuts for every $1 in higher taxes. Is there any ratio of cuts to taxes that you would accept? 3-to-1? 4-to-1? Or even 10-to-1?” Fox News’s Brett Baier followed up by asking each of the eight candidates, “Say you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases. Speaker [Newt Gingrich], you’re already shaking your head. But who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?” All eight raised their hands, to the audience’s thunderous applause.

My hunch remains that this will be a very close election. But it’s clear that we’re witnessing a pretty low point for the GOP and for Romney. Both have been pulled way to the right and need to scramble over the next seven months to get back into position for the general election.

Taken together, Gallup’s 16,037 interviews last month reported President Obama’s job-approval rating at 46 percent, with a disapproval rating of 46 percent. These numbers hardly signal an easy reelection victory. Although 83 percent of those who call themselves Democrats said they approved of the job he is doing, only 11 percent of Republicans did; and, far more important, only 42 percent of independents said they approved. Obama carried independents in 2008 by 8 points, 52 percent to 44 percent. Among “pure independents—those who, when pushed, don’t lean to either the Democrats or the Republicans—his approval rating was just 33 percent.

General-election matchups in Gallup polling released this week, both in national and swing-state surveys, showed Obama leading Romney. The March 25-26 national sampling put the incumbent up by 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent. Gallup notes that while the lead is not statistically significant, it is Obama’s widest advantage over Romney in its polling this election cycle. In the March 20-26 Gallup/USA Today survey of voters in the 12 swing states, Obama had a much bigger lead, 51 percent to 42 percent.

If you believe, as I do, that when presidents seek reelection, the contest is more of a referendum on the incumbent than a choice between the incumbent and his opponent, Obama’s job-approval numbers and head-to-head polling numbers suggest that the president still has a very tough fight. Republicans, though, have made their own job a lot harder than it needed to be.

In one of Washington’s rare bipartisan bill-signing ceremonies, President Obama on Wednesday enacted the STOCK Act, a set of new financial disclosure requirements designed to prevent insider trading based on information gathered in the course of work by members of Congress and top executive branch officials.

At a ceremony in a White House auditorium attended by some dozen lawmakers and Vice President Joe Biden, Obama hailed the new law as one step toward closing “the deficit of trust between this city and the rest of the country.” He added that “the notion that everybody plays by the same set of rules is one of our most cherished values.” He did not mention the impact on federal employees.

Though the event was attended by lawmakers as varied as as Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., Obama noted that the bill’s chief champion Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., was absent due to a broken leg.

Also absent was House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., who played a key role in the bill’s final passage. His staff said he was invited but had district events to attend. Cantor posted a statement on his website saying, “The STOCK Act demonstrates that we can come together and deliver results for the American people, and we should build on this momentum going forward.”

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act seeks to clarify an ambiguity in the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act by prohibiting members of Congress and their staffs from trading on information they obtain from their work that is not available to the general public. The law requires disclosure 30 days after any securities trade of more than $1,000 and compels all disclosures to be available electronically.

Aimed primarily at Congress and supported by many ethics watchdog groups, the act gathered momentum last year after a “60 Minutes” expose on the trading profits made by some high-level lawmakers at a time when Congress’s public approval rates are stunningly low. The idea of broadening it to cover some 28,000 federal employees occurred late in the legislative process.

Senior Executives Association President Carol A. Bonosaro told Government Executive she was “disappointed” and wished Obama had vetoed the bill, “but it’s understandable given the nature of the act and its application to Congress. It was an impossible situation.”

The SEA’s concerns are twofold, Bonosaro said. First there is the burden on agency ethics office, on the Office of Government Ethics, and on career executives, she said. Secondly, “there is potential for privacy to be invaded” by making more financial information available on a public website that might become a “prime phishing site for identify theft.”

SEA plans to pay attention to how the Office of Government Ethics writes the regulations, hoping to encourage as much privacy protection as possible, she said.

The Office of Government Ethics posted a statement saying it “fully supports the act’s focus on improving transparency and promoting public confidence in government and is carefully analyzing the provisions of the new law. In consultation with [designated agency ethics officials] and other senior agency ethics officials, OGE will issue a series of legal, program, and education advisories to implement the act’s provisions.”

A positive view of including federal employees was offered by the nonprofit OMBWatch, whose federal information policy analyst Gavin Baker attended the ceremony. The group’s analysis said the act will bring disclosures “under a common legal standard and significantly expand the number of officials whose reports are available online.”

As of March, the group noted, the Office of Government Ethics had posted financial information on only 900 federal executives. Under the new law, thousands more will be required to post by August 2012, and agencies must present them in a searchable database by September 2013. Some 350,000 employees who currently file financial information privately to agency ethics officers will now be required to do so electronically.

Such work previously was left to nonprofit activist groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org and Judicial Watch’s Judicial Financial Disclosure Project, the analysis said.

“In addition, the bill enhances the content of financial disclosure reports by requiring timelier reporting of transactions and requiring a subset of top officials to report mortgages on personal residences,” OMBWatch said.

Many state governments already provide some online access to similar disclosures by officials; others, including Maryland, are considering following suit.

House intelligence leaders said on Sunday that arming Syrian rebels remains unwise because they are unknown actors and Syria’s regime continues to be backed by Iran and Russia.

“I think we both agree that’s probably a bad idea,” said Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, appearing on CNN’s State of the Union.

Appearing with Ranking Member C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, D-Md., he argued for greater international diplomatic pressure rather than “sending in arms and hoping for the best.”

“We think that there are other things that we can do that we haven’t quite engaged in yet, and that probably need to happen,” Rogers said, including engaging the Arab League so the United States could take a “support role.”

Rogers said President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime appears unmoved by Washington’s pleading, but cautioned against weapons falling into the hands of “bad actors there.”

“We don’t really see Assad’s inner-circle crumbling,” Rogers said. “They believe that they’re winning.”

He added: “Iran and Russia both have stepped up to the plate and can’t afford, in their minds, can’t afford to lose Syria as their toehold.”

Said Ruppersberger: “The United States can’t be sheriff for the whole world.”

A recent audit of a popular federal charity drive uncovered regulatory violations and questionable expenses.

The Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general examined the Combined Federal Campaign of the National Capital Area from 2007 through 2010 and identified seven instances of noncompliance with regulations, according the text of the audit, first reported by The Washington Post.

The IG also questioned $308,820 in expenses charged to the campaign and said an additional $764,069 “could have been put to better use.”

Some of the $308,820 went toward overcharges for food, travel and other campaign expenses, the audit said.

Global Impact, the nonprofit that manages the charity drive for the region, has agreed to reimburse the capital area CFC for the $308,820, so as not to interfere with the upcoming fundraiser. But the nonprofit plans to appeal the reimbursement, according to the Post.

The audit suggested that Global Impact stop covering campaign workers’ meals and travel, although the IG acknowledged this has been a general practice for “many years” on the Combined Federal Campaign of the National Capital Area and other regional drives.

OPM Director John Berry told The Washington Post that Global Impact also agreed to certify compliance with additional controls by April 23, and OPM is in the process of creating a task force to look further into the “potentially wasteful expenditures identified by the IG.”

The capital area drive is part of the nationwide Combined Federal Campaign, started in 1961 by President Kennedy and is managed by OPM. CFC has grown into the nation’s largest annual workplace fundraiser.

Many members of Congress have raced to defend civilian Defense Department employees from spending cuts.

In a letter sent Monday, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., urged Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to eliminate his department’s cap on civilian employees. The letter was co-signed by 130 House members.

“It makes no sense to prevent DoD managers from using civilian employees simply because they are civilian employees,” Hinchey wrote. “If there is work to be done and funding to pay for that work, managers should not be arbitrarily prevented from using civilian employees.”

Current cost-saving initiatives within Defense call for the civilian workforce to be cut back to fiscal 2010 levels, a size-reduction effort that initially was spearheaded by Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates. In July 2011, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and four other Senate Democrats co-signed a letter similar to Hinchey’s, also urging Panetta to reconsider the civilian employee cap.

In addition Hinchey requested other changes to the department, including a spending cap on service contracts, cost comparisons for all contract outsourcing decisions and a prohibition on outsourcing of “inherently governmental work.”

The American Federation of Government Employees came out Tuesday in support of the letter.

“This ill-conceived cap has forced managers to cut tens of thousands of federal jobs while the much larger and more expensive contractor workforce continues to grow unchecked,” AFGE National President John Gage said in a statement. “I hope Secretary Panetta takes immediate action to comply with these recommendations.”

A Defense spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

Following his hot mic incident with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, President Obama clarified his request for “space,” saying the complicated issue of arms control needs to be handled carefully and that he was not trying to hide anything or play politics.

“This is not a matter of hiding the ball,” Obama said, according to the White House pool report. “I’m on record. I made a speech about it to a whole bunch of Korean university students yesterday. I want to see us over time gradually, systematically reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.”

The New Start treaty, which the U.S. and Russia ratified last year, took a painstaking two years to hammer out, the president told reporters. Given the political climate in both countries, he said, they needed more time to tackle this issue.

“We’re going to spend the next nine, 10 months trying to work through some of the technical aspects of how we get past what is a major point of friction,” Obama said. “One of the primary points of friction…is this whole missile defense issue.”

Obama spoke after a nuclear clean-up agreement between U.S., Russia and Kazakhstan was announced. But before he got into the details, the president injected a little humor.

“First of all, are all the mics on?” he said.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis hosted hundreds of members of the United Farm Workers, Cabinet officials and Labor Department employees at a two-part ceremony on Monday to induct farmworker activists into the department’s Hall of Honor and to rename its auditorium for the late labor leader Cesar Chavez.

Assisted by Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, Solis stood with members of the Chavez family at the auditorium’s entrance and unveiled an inscription and a mosaic of Chavez created by Arizona schoolchildren. “The auditorium is a place where we at the Department of Labor come together to draw inspiration from each other,” she said. “His words still echo through these halls.”

Solis and Chavez’s son Paul said Chavez “would have been uncomfortable with all this recognition” because his decades-long movement to organize fruit and vegetable pickers to improve health and safety conditions relied on “so many names who’ve been lost to history.”

Before the dedication of the Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Auditorium — the first commemoration of Chavez in Washington — an audience approaching 1,000 gathered in Labor’s Great Hall for the induction of five “martyrs” and an unnamed number of living or deceased pioneers of the farmworkers movement into the Hall of Honor.

That display features inscriptions on a wall across from the auditorium that includes such luminaries as Chavez, Helen Keller and, more recently, the Memphis, Tenn., sanitation workers whom Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was seeking to help when he was assassinated in1968. The individual stories of the activists who lost their lives to violence while helping the farmworkers were recounted with many of their relatives present.

“This is one of America’s most powerful stories of courage and victory, and I am proud to give them the Department of Labor’s highest honor,” Solis said. She also introduced Dolores Huerta, co-founder and treasurer of the UFW, who “endured death threats and worked mano a mano with one of the celebrated icons of the American labor movement.”

President Obama on Friday issued a proclamation declaring March 31 as Cesar Chavez Day. Solis noted that her own father was a bracero, adding, “only in America could a farmworker’s daughter stand before you as secretary of Labor.” She recalled that upon taking office, she immediately hired 300 new wage and hour division workplace inspectors, two-thirds of whom are bilingual. “We will continue our aggressive enforcement,” she said. “As long as I am secretary, I will not rest until every farmworker can claim the dignity that is his or her birthright.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar praised Solis as the nation’s first Latina Labor secretary, stressing the importance of celebrating ignored minority groups “who are an important part of the American story.” He noted that only 4 percent of national historic sites honor Latinos and African-Americans, and mentioned the coming Museum of African-American History and Culture on the National Mall. He also noted that Chavez’s former home base in Delano, Calif., in 2011 was designated a national historic landmark.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who referred to Labor as “Hilda’s House,” said he had struggled “as the only white male Caucasian” on the stage to find his direct connection to the ethnic flavor of the event. He settled on the fact that he was born in an orphanage, which helped him to recognize the “dignity of those who for far too long were orphaned in this country because they worked the land, picked our food, processed our food and packaged our food, sacrificing under extraordinary conditions.”

Vilsack broadened the discussion to immigrants, saying, “it’s time to ask political leaders in Congress to fix the immigration system.” Cecelia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, praised Chavez’s movement tactics, noting how he “focused not just on the mission but how he did his work, focusing on hope not fear, love instead of hate.” Also in attendance were Reps. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.

Hollywood actor Michael Pena, the son of farmworkers who is starring in an upcoming biopic of Chavez, served as master of ceremonies for the event, which included a mariachi band. “It’s not always easy to get something done, but with good intentions, good hearts and perseverance,” movements can succeed, he said. The crowd responded with chants of “Yes, we can!” and “Viva Chavez!”

The event at times took on the ambience of a political rally. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez, who is preparing to celebrate the union’s 50th anniversary in May, said he didn’t wish to mention “the name of the previous president,” but he is glad that Solis is Labor secretary because “elections do matter.”

Those who are used to boycotting E.&J. Gallo Winery for its treatment of workers, he added, should know “we have a contract so it’s OK to buy Boone’s Farm and Strawberry Hill, which taste better now because they’re union-picked.”

Huerta recalled that during the early days when Chavez grew discouraged about prospects for a national farmworkers’ union, saying, “the owners are too powerful, too rich and too racist.”

In the final benediction, the Rev. Deacon Sal Alvarez blessed, among other causes, Obama for defending the health care law.

A U.S. soldier stands accused of massacring 16 Afghan civilians, the worst such attack in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently responded by describing the U.S. as a “demon” and demanding a faster U.S. withdrawal. Here at home, domestic support for the war has plunged to new lows, with Republicans as well as Democrats telling pollsters that the conflict is not worth its cost and that American troops should come home sooner than is currently planned.

But the Capitol Hill appearance on Tuesday of Marine Gen. John Allen, U.S. commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, passed with virtually no sparks of any kind. Few lawmakers cited the polls or raised specific demands for a faster withdrawal. There were only a couple of questions about Karzai’s diatribes against the U.S., and Allen parried them by stressing that those were the comments of a government assuming more of the powers of a fully sovereign government.

The first reference to the Kandahar shooting, meanwhile, came nearly an hour into the hearing of the House Armed Services Committee. Shortly after Allen’s brief answer — that there was a criminal probe into the alleged shooter, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, as well as an administrative probe into his full chain of command — many of the small number of journalists covering the hearing began streaming out.

The lack of any real fireworks at the hearing appears to have come about for two reasons. Despite the war’s unpopularity, Afghanistan remains of such little interest to most voters that lawmakers likely saw little reason to publicly question a decorated and respected four-star general like Allen. An Allen, Allen, for his part, showed surprising skill in deflecting potentially explosive questions and avoided giving any answer that could add fuel to the political debate over the war.

It was Allen’s first appearance on Capitol Hill since his confirmation hearing last year, but Allen handled himself like a seasoned pro. Take an early exchange between Allen and Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon R-Calif. McKeon has been a harsh critic of the Obama administration’s war policy, and asked Allen a series of questions clearly designed to elicit answers to bolster McKeon’s contentions that the White House was ignoring military advice and pushing for a faster withdrawal than Allen and other commanders would prefer.

“Has the White House always followed your best military judgement?” McKeon asked.

“As the commander in Afghanistan, it has,” Allen answered.

At the same time, the commander took pains to avoid giving the impression that he was simply parroting the administration’s positions. When McKeon asked if the White House had given him assurances that he could have the forces he needed to get through the 2013 fighting season, the commander replied that he’d been “given assurances by the White House that we are in a strategic conversation.”

Allen also tried to bat down recent media reports — criticized by many Republican lawmakers and cheered by many Democratic ones — that the Obama administration was kicking around various specific plans for withdrawing a greater numbers of troops than are currently planned. The stated White House policy is that 23,000 U.S. troops will depart this year, but recent reports indicated that more than 10,000 additional forces could depart. Allen insisted that he hadn’t made any decisions yet on how many U.S. forces should be withdrawn in 2013 and wouldn’t do so until the end of the year. And he said he hadn’t had conversations with the administration about additional troop withdrawals this year.

“There has been no number mentioned,” Allen said. “There has been no number that has been specifically implied.”

Politics aside, there were several revelations that came during the hearing. Allen said 13 NATO troops had been killed by Afghan troops since the start of the year, a higher number than many officials had previously cited, even as overall violence in the country had fallen when compared to last year. He said many of the killings appeared to be motivated by Afghan fury over the recent U.S. burnings of several Korans, but the general didn’t speak to the widespread belief inside and outside the military that such fratricidal attacks reflect the grim fact that many Afghan troops harbor extremist tendencies and quiet allegiance to the Taliban.

Allen also laid out, more expansively, the likely American shift of troops and resources from southern Afghanistan to the east. The commander said he hadn’t made a final decision of the number or mix of troops to be reallocated to the east, but made clear that he saw the east as a source of growing concern to the overall war effort.

Senior U.S. generals like Allen have long argued that the east contains the main transit routes for the militants seeking to cross into Afghanistan from their havens inside Pakistan, as well as their preferred paths for reaching Kabul to mount new attacks there.

Allen also tried to bat down a Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday that the U.S. was weighing various options for giving Afghans greater say over the night raids — typically conducted by Navy SEALs and other special operations forces — which are a great source of public fury in Afghanistan.

Allen said the reports were premature. He said he hadn’t personally taken part in any negotiations over whether it was required that Afghans be given advance word of such missions or that Afghan warrants were needed before new ones are launched.

Taken together, those types of comments were a vivid reminder of the differences between the substantive war on the ground in Afghanistan and the political war over the conflict here at home. Army commanders routinely argue that wars can only be fought as long as political support remains. The hearing illustrated how completely Afghanistan has flipped that on its head. Support for the war has been steadily evaporating, but the war itself will grind on all the same.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Friday that he is “at the end of the rope” because of what he says is a lack of U.S. cooperation in the investigation of a U.S. serviceman suspected of killing of 16 Afghan civilians, the Associated Press reported.

On Friday, Karzai met with the families of the 16 Afghan civilians killed on Sunday, and told them that a team of Afghan investigators he dispatched did not receive the cooperation he was anticipating. “This has been going on for too long. This is by all means the end of the rope here,” he told reporters at the end of the meeting.

“This form of activity, this behavior, cannot be tolerated. It’s past, past, past the time,” Karzai said.

Republican lawmakers on Thursday proposed replacing Medicare with the health care plan currently offered to federal and congressional employees.

“Medicare as we know it is a false promise. It is unsustainable,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters. “Why don’t we take a program that’s worked for years in a fashion that people can relate to? If it’s good enough for your senator, it ought to be good enough for you.”

Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; and Mike Lee, R-Utah; co-sponsored the legislation and introduced it Thursday.

The Congressional Health Care for Seniors Act would allow seniors to choose from plans currently offered under the Federal Employee Health Benefit program, beginning in 2014.

The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association said the bill raised an automatic red flag.

“For more than four decades, the FEHBP has provided a stable, though not overly generous health insurance benefit to federal civilian employees, retirees and their dependents,” NARFE President Joseph Beaudoin said in a statement. “To throw open the doors of the plan to absorb the flood of seniors currently enrolled in Medicare poses certain risks and must be examined closely.”

Paul conceded the plan was not beneficial to federal employees in his synopsis of the bill.

“Federal employees are the one group of people who may have a legitimate argument with the Congressional Health Care Plan for Seniors,” he wrote. “Asking them to share their health care with the elderly will cause their premiums to increase.”

Powered by WordPress and Motion by 85ideas.