An investigation of the Justice Department’s witness protection program uncovered glaring security problems that allowed terrorists who had been given new identities after cooperating with U.S. prosecutors to board commercial flights in the United States.
In some cases, suspects whose nameswere on federal watch lists that were meant to keep them off commercial aircraft were nevertheless able to board flights because the Justice Department had failed to add their new, government-issued identities to counterterrorism databases.
The Justice Dept.’s inspector general says it didn’t give names to the center that maintains no-fly list.
Overall, the Justice Department inspector general concluded that there were “significant deficiencies in the handling of known or suspected terrorists who were admitted into the [Witness Security] Program,” according to a summary of the report made public Thursday.
The Justice Department issued a response saying that the security breaches identified in the report had been fixed and that “no terrorism-linked witness has ever committed an act of terrorism after entering the program.”
Still, the report identified a security vulnerability that had apparently been in place for years and exposed the Justice Department to new criticism of the way it handles information on terrorism suspects and threats, just weeks after similar concerns were raised in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing.
“This is gross mismanagement — pure and simple — that jeopardizes American lives and cannot be tolerated,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “This lack of interagency information sharing appears to be systemic. We witnessed similar interagency sharing problems leading up to last month’s bombings in Boston.”
The report was completed last year but kept secret until the Justice Department could act to eliminate security gaps. All but one of the inspector general’s 16 recommendations have been addressed, according to the report, and the Justice Department was “in the process” of implementing the remaining recommendation.
The investigation focused on a program created in 1971 to help the FBI crack organized crime cases by protecting key witnesses from intimidation or retaliation. But the program has also been used to safeguard individuals with links to terrorist organizations who agreed to cooperate with the U.S. government.
The report said that 18,000 witnesses and their families have been admitted to the program over the past 40 years, and that there were “700 active participants” in May 2012.
The Justice Department said the number of suspected terrorists in the program “represents a fraction of one percent of the total,” including just two individuals over the past six years.
In exchange for their cooperation, the witnesses are relocated and given new identities. But the department failed to notify other counterterrorism agencies of the arrangements or update the individuals’ entries on a database maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center.
That repository is used to generate other counterterrorism databases across the government, including the “no-fly list” maintained by the Transportation Security Administration.
“Therefore, it was possible for known or suspected terrorists to fly on commercial airplanes in or over the United States and evade one of the government’s primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists’ movements and actions,” the report said.
Investigators cited cases in which that had happened, but did not provide details. The report said the Justice Department “did not definitively know how many” terrorism suspects had been admitted to the program and that the U.S. Marshals Service, which handles the relocation of witnesses, had lost track of at least two suspected terrorists last year.
Since then, the service had located one of those former witnesses and concluded that the other was “believed to be residing outside the United States,” the report said.
In a lengthy rebuttal submitted this month to Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department disputed some of the findings and argued that the report overstated the dangers posed by witnesses.
Officials said the program has been critical to aiding investigations of terrorism cases, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the 1994 attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City, as well as the prosecution of suspects in the 2009 New York City subway suicide-bomb plot.
Justice Department officials said those admitted to the program would be “more accurately described as former known or suspected terrorists,” emphasizing that all had been carefully vetted and were no longer considered a threat.
Horowitz’s office replied that there is no such thing as a “former” designation on terrorism watch lists.
The inspector general also said that “several” known or suspected terrorists in the witness protection program had been added to the U.S. no-fly list as a result of the investigation, but that others had been removed from watch lists because they no longer met the criteria.
Holder Isn't Sure How Often Reporters' Records Are Seized
Attorney General Eric Holder during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.
From 'Morning Edition': Attorney Gen. Eric Holder talks with NPR's Carrie Johnson
As his Justice Department faces bipartisan outrage for searching phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder says he is not sure how many times such information has been seized by government investigators in the four years he's led Justice.
During an interview with NPR's Carrie Johnson on Tuesday, Holder was asked how often his department has obtained such records of journalists' work.
"I'm not sure how many of those cases ... I have actually signed off on," Holder said. "I take them very seriously. I know that I have refused to sign a few [and] pushed a few back for modifications."
On Morning Edition, Carrie added that Holder declined to say whether there will be a review of the Justice Department's policy on searches of reporters' records.
— "Immediately return the telephone toll records obtained and destroy all copies, as requested by The Associated Press."
— "Announce whether it has served any other pending news media-related subpoenas that have not yet been disclosed."
At a news conference Tuesday, Holder said the AP records were seized as part of an investigation into leaks about a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an airliner bombing plot.
He will be asked about the search of the reporters' phone logs at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday afternoon. Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., says "Congress and the American people expect answers and accountability."
Holder will also be questioned about the Justice Department's plan to investigate whether IRS personnel broke any laws when they gave extra scrutiny to some conservative groups' applications for tax exempt status.
S.E.C. Gets Plea: Force Companies to Disclose Donations
A loose coalition of Democratic elected officials, shareholder activists and pension funds has flooded the Securities and Exchange Commission with calls to require publicly traded corporations to disclose to shareholders all of their political donations, a move that could transform the growing world of secret campaign spending.
S.E.C. officials have indicated that they could propose a new disclosure rule by the end of April, setting up a major battle with business groups that oppose the proposal and are preparing for a fierce counterattack if the agency’s staff moves ahead. Two S.E.C. commissioners have taken the unusual step of weighing in already, with Daniel Gallagher, a Republican, saying in a speech that the commission had been “led astray” by “politically charged issues.”
A petition to the S.E.C. asking it to issue the rule has already garnered close to half a million comments, far more than any petition or rule in the agency’s history, with the vast majority in favor of it. While relatively few petitions result in action by the S.E.C., the commission staff filed a notice late last year indicating that it was considering recommending a rule.
In response to the growing pressure, House Republicans introduced legislation last Thursday that would make it illegal for the commission to issue any political disclosure regulations applying to companies under its jurisdiction. Earlier this month, the leaders of three of Washington’s most powerful trade associations — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable — issued a rare joint letter to the chief executives of Fortune 200 companies, encouraging them to stand against proxy resolutions and other proposals from shareholder activists demanding more disclosure of political spending.
Tax-exempt groups and trade associations spent hundreds of millions of dollars on political advertising during 2012 elections, but they are not required to disclose their donors. Evidence has mounted that a significant portion of the money came from companies seeking to intervene in campaigns without fear of offending their customers, their shareholders — or the lawmakers they target for defeat.
The debate over disclosure poses an early test for Mary Jo White, who was confirmed as the S.E.C.’s chairwoman this month. A new rule would pull the commission into a fierce political battle just as Ms. White and her staff will be wrangling with lawmakers and lobbyists over carrying out legislation imposing new rules on financial institutions.
“We’re keeping an eye on her,” Steve Lonegan, an official with Americans for Prosperity, the conservative political organization founded by Charles and David Koch that has urged the S.E.C. to drop the issue. “My feeling is they are not going to want to deal with this,” Mr. Lonegan added. “The S.E.C. has to deal with its own problems, and with what they’re actually authorized to be doing.”
While campaign finance regulations are usually the province of the Federal Election Commission, advocates for the new proposal have pressured the S.E.C. to issue its own disclosure rule. They argue that shareholders should be able to evaluate business executives’ oversight of company resources and that S.E.C. regulations already require disclosure of similar information, like executive compensation.
“Shareholders have been demanding this information for some time” said Robert J. Jackson Jr. a law professor at Columbia University who helped write the original petition to the S.E.C. “It’s a basic precept of American securities law that shareholders should be given the information they need to evaluate their companies.” The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Bill de Blasio, the New York City public advocate, and others have lobbied the S.E.C. in support of the petition.
Opponents argue that the agency does not have the authority or expertise to issue regulations about political spending, and that a disclosure rule would infringe on companies’ free speech rights — and damage shareholder value — by exposing them to criticism and attack from political opponents.
“The Chamber believes that the funds expended by publicly traded companies for political and trade association engagement are immaterial to the company’s bottom line,” said Blair Holmes, a spokeswoman for the business group, who added that the advocates’ “apparent goal is to silence the business community by creating an atmosphere of intimidation under the cover of investor protection.”
Ms. White’s confirmation means the five-member commission now has three Democratic appointees and two Republicans. Observers on both sides expect Ms. White to have the deciding vote on any disclosure rule. Ms. White, a longtime federal prosecutor whose nomination drew some criticism because of her work as a lawyer for banks after the financial crisis, declined to be interviewed for this article.
While both liberal and conservative tax-exempt groups were active during the 2012 election — spending at least $300 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group — the biggest and best-financed groups have tended to back Republicans.
Reaction to the S.E.C. petition has broken down accordingly. Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, have urged the S.E.C. to move forward, while Republicans and conservative groups have denounced the petition as an invitation to regulatory overreach.
Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican who leads the House government oversight committee, has demanded copies of any correspondence between the commission and outside parties relating to the proposed rule, along with details on how many hours commission staff had spent working on it.
On Thursday, in a bid to block any new rule, House Republicans introduced legislation that would make it illegal for the agency to issue any political disclosure regulations applying to companies under its jurisdiction.
Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the S.E.C., said he had moved to co-sponsor the new legislation after hearing complaints about the proposed disclosure rule from trade groups and businesses in his district.
“The role of the S.E.C. is investor protection, not to engage in a political foray,” he said.
Any rule issued by the S.E.C. would not touch on political contributions by individuals or from privately held companies, which are the chief sources of contributions to “super PACs,” registered political committees that can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns. But few public corporations contribute to super PACs, in part because political action committees are regulated by the Federal Election Commission and subject to stringent disclosure rules.
Virtually no public corporations have spent their own money directly in political campaigns, a practice now permitted under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. And corporations remain banned from giving money directly to federal candidates.
Instead, some large companies donate money to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, founded by Karl Rove, which in turn mount huge advertising campaigns on businesses’ behalf. Because those groups assert their spending to be educational in nature, they are exempt from most of the donor disclosure requirements that apply to super PACs, political parties and candidates.
The trade associations lining up in opposition to the rule amount to a roll call of the most politically influential — and highly regulated — industries in the country. They include the American Gaming Association, the National Retail Federation and the National Mining Association.
Opponents said they believed the main purpose of the petition was not to protect shareholders, but to dry up sources of money for pro-business political groups.
“It’s about outing donors and scaring them into not giving to political groups that they’re opposed to,” said Phil Kerpen of American Commitment, a tax-exempt group that spent more than $3 million last year on advertisements criticizing Democratic candidates for Senate.
Legislation in Congress to expand federal election laws to require more disclosure of tax-exempt groups has met with little success. And the Internal Revenue Service has largely remained silent on demands from Democrats and watchdog groups to examine whether any of the organizations are violating tax laws that limit their election spending. Advocates for more disclosure have also waged scores of shareholder proxy fights seeking to force companies to provide information on political disclosure, almost all of which have failed.
So the advocates have sought to advance their cause through state regulatory actions, lawsuits and public pressure to persuade companies to disclose their political spending voluntarily.
In seeking greater disclosure to shareholders, many of the advocates are citing an unlikely source: the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. In clearing the way for unlimited corporate expenditures in campaigns, Justice Kennedy suggested that “shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy” could provide accountability for the new political powers.
“I think the S.E.C. staff is very sympathetic to the petition itself, and a lot of the comments have referenced Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United,” said Karl J. Sandstrom, counsel to the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates transparency in corporate political spending. “But they have so much on their plate, they have to decide what’s going to come first,” he added.
Rifts in Both Parties Complicate Odds for Gun Measure
WASHINGTON — Deep divisions within both parties over a bipartisan measure to extend background checks for gun buyers are threatening its chances as the Senate this week begins debating the first broad gun control legislation in nearly 20 years.
Inspite of a vote last Thursday in favor of debating new gun measures, some Democrats who are facing re-election next year in conservative states have already said they will not vote for the background check measure offered by Senators Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, forcing Democrats to look desperately across the aisle to fill the gaps.
Republicans, in the meantime, are bitterly torn between moderates who feel pressure to respond to polls showing a majority of Americans in support of some new gun regulations and conservatives who are deeply opposed to them.
Further, an impending immigration bill may force Republicans to choose between softening their stance on either immigration or guns, but not both.
Sixty-eight senators, pressured by the families of those killed in gun violence, came together last week to overcome a filibuster threat that would have quashed the debate on a broader gun bill. But many of those votes are clearly not translating into yes votes for the only background check measure that has attracted bipartisan support.
“We’ve got some work to do,” Mr. Manchin said in an interview Sunday. “You’ve got some very close Democratic colleagues who are having some difficulties, and our Republican colleagues are trying to get comfortable.”
On Sunday, a small gun rights group, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, came out in favor of the Toomey-Manchin amendment, prompting Mr. Manchin to say he hoped the endorsement would help win more yes votes. Also on Sunday, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he was inclined to support the measure; his vote, should it be yes, could bring along others and push the bill toward the 60 votes needed for final passage. .
And supporters of gun safety legislation, including President Obama, plan to campaign all week to win over some lawmakers who have expressed misgivings. Public pressure to pass gun legislation is also intensifying, with the families of the people killed in the Newtown, Conn., school massacre last year waging a highly public, and potent, campaign to win over lawmakers.
But an accounting of likely votes shows how difficult it could be to pass new gun legislation.
Senator Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, says he will vote against the measure, and at least three other Democrats are expected to join him in trying to defeat it, including Heidi Heitkamp, a freshman senator from North Dakota. Some left-leaning Democrats may also balk because of the gun-rights provisions that have been added to the bill to entice Republicans.
Among the 16 Republicans who joined 50 Democrats and two independents in voting last week to proceed to consideration of gun legislation, roughly seven have already decided not to support the measure. Another half-dozen Republicans who voted to proceed on the bill remain ambivalent.
The Republican Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bob Corker of Tennessee, all of whom voted to proceed on the bill, are no votes right now, and several others are expected to also vote down the amendment on Tuesday, the expected day of the vote.
It is also unclear whether Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, a likely yes vote who has been largely absent in the 113th Congress, would show up for the crucial vote this week.
Mr. Manchin, who spent much of last week buttonholing colleagues at the Senate gym and giving out handwritten pleas for support on the Senate floor, said he felt certain that people who read the bill would find their objections quelled. “The thing is, the easiest vote for me or any senator to make is ‘no,’ ” he said.
The Republican conflict came to the fore last week during a closed-door luncheon for Senate Republicans, when Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, eyes blazing, stood up and complained about a series of attack ads that she was facing back home from a gun-rights group with deep ties to Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky.
Ms. Collins, who faces re-election next year, said the gun ads were an example of the kind of internal Republican warfare that has hindered the party in Senate races the last two elections. She supports the amendments and other components of the new gun regulations legislation, and she released a lengthy statement on Sunday explaining her thinking.
Her comments, according to several Republican aides, ignited a tense debate, similar to many the party has faced since its loss in the race for the White House last year. Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, stood to say he had been raising money for Ms. Collins’ re-election, only to watch her have to spend it to defend herself against the attack from the gun group, which has been directed at other members as well.
Ms. Collins warned her colleagues that if she loses a primary to a strong opponent with gun-rights credentials, it could well cost the party her seat.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a freshman ally of Mr. Paul’s, jumped in to promise he had nothing to do with the group, according to officials briefed on the event. Then Mr. Paul, feeling attacked, stormed out. (A spokeswoman for Mr. Paul did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)
The Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, is facing his own re-election race and appears to have ceded leadership on the gun issue to more junior senators, Mr. Cruz, on the pro-gun group side of the debate, and Senator Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois, who supports new regulations.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell, said the senator had encouraged the search for compromise. “Senator McConnell’s views on the Second Amendment have been consistent throughout his career,” he said. “He encourages his members to be involved and actually believes in broader member involvement, not less.”
Should the background check amendment fail, a broader package of new gun legislation would continue to the Senate floor, but wounded. It would increase penalties for illegal gun sales, stop some trafficking and improve mental health reporting.
This amendment was set to replace the background check provision of the original legislation, which would also create harsher penalties for the so-called straw purchasing of guns, in which people buy guns for others who are not able to do so legally. Subsequent amendments, dealing with mental health, a ban on assault weapons and other issues, are expected in the days ahead before a vote on the overall measure.
Both Mr. Manchin and Mr. Toomey spent much of the weekend pleading with their colleagues for support. Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was critically wounded in a mass shooting, will be in the Capitol this week pressing members on their votes.
Mr. McCain, who is involved in potential new immigration legislation, offered Mr. Manchin and Mr. Toomey their best hope on Sunday. “Eighty percent of the American people want to see a better background checks procedure,” he said on the CNN program “State of the Union.” “I am very favorably disposed.”
Many Republicans who are considering supporting changes to the immigration system may see little upside to supporting the gun legislation as well.
“One of the reasons Republicans don’t have a governing majority is that we often pick the wrong fights,” Mr. Alexander said in speech in Lewisburg, Tenn., on Friday night. “Voting to prevent a debate on gun rights is an argument Republicans will lose with the American people. Defending Second Amendment rights is an argument Republicans will win with the American people.”
Mr. Manchin said he would continue to try to persuade his colleagues. “If you believe in something you have to work for it,” he said. “If you don’t you have to question why we are here.”
Benjamin Carson on 2016: If Called, He'd Run
Thursday, 21 Mar 2013 10:50 AM
By Lisa Barron
In one speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, pediatric neurosurgeon Benjamin Carson went from political unknown to conservative darling, and now he's talking about a possible presidential bid in 2016.
At least he's not ruling it out, according to an interview he gave to The New York Times.
“Certainly if a year-and-a-half went by and there was no one on the scene and people are still clamoring, I would have to take that into consideration,” the 61-year-old, world-renowned physician told the newspaper, adding: “I would never turn my back on my fellow citizens.”
Carson’s speech at the Feb. 7 prayer breakfast, in which he denounced President Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms along with moves to increase taxes on the rich, went viral on YouTube and led to TV appearances on Fox News. His instant celebrity status has helped sales of his latest book, “America the Beautiful: Rediscovering What Made This Nation Great,” to skyrocket.
Carson, director of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, revealed to the Times that he has long been told he could have a career in politics based on his personal story.
He was born into poverty in Detroit and raised by a single mother, who encouraged him to excel academically. Carson went on to graduate from Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School before finding fame through his pioneering work separating conjoined twins.
In 2008, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States, by President George W. Bush.
Report: Obamacare Pushes Premiums Up 200% Carson, a registered independent, said he became conservative through his own struggle to succeed.
“One thing I always believed strongly in was personal responsibility and hard work,” he told the Times, adding that he found the Democratic Party “leaving me behind on that particular issue.”
As for his views on the issue of healthcare, Carson told the newspaper he advocates an alternative to Obamacare that would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, and provide for the poor through government contributions to health savings accounts.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Carson drew cheers when he said he would retire this year because “there are so many more things to be done.”
He told the Times that his immediate plans include more public speaking and promoting his education foundation, the Carson Scholars Fund, which helps college students.
Arizona could soon approve gold, silver as legal tender
After being rejected by three state legislatures this year, a measure to recognize U.S. Government-minted gold and silver coins as legal tender may find a second home in Arizona.
Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Wednesday , 20 Mar 2013
RENO (Mineweb)-
Arizona could soon become the second U.S. state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender if the Arizona House approves SB 1439.
The bill has already won the approval of Arizona’s State Senate and the Arizona House Financial Institutions Committee which voted the legislation out of committee on a 4-2 vote Monday. The measure now goes to a vote of the Arizona House.
Thus far, only the State of Utah has officially recognized gold and silver as legal tender, although the issue has been under consideration this year in four states including Arizona. The Arizona bill defines legal tender as a mode of paying debts and taxes.
The measure also states that any coin or bullion that has gold or silver content and is issued by the United States Government can be defined as legal tender. However, no one can be compelled to accept coin or bullion containing gold or silver. The measure would also mandate that coin or bullion containing gold or silver issued by the U.S. Government cannot be taxed as property since it is to be considered money.
If the Arizona Legislature enacts SC 1439 and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signs the measure into law, gold and silver would go into effect as legal tender in the state in 2014.
However, House Joint Resolution No. 590 --which would have established a joint subcommittee to study whether the Commonwealth of Virginia should adopt a rule recognizing gold or silver billion or gold or silver coin authorized by the U.S. Government as legal currency—died in the Virginia General Assembly’s State Senate last month.
In January the South Dakota Legislature rejected House Bill 1100 which would have made U.S. Government-minted gold and silver coins legal tender that could be used to pay state taxes at their market value.
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 99, Indiana’s version of recognizing U.S.-issued gold and silver coins as legal tender, appears to be buried in the Indiana State Senate Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy.
The organizations, the Gold Standard Institute and American Principles in Action, have both championed state efforts to rule gold and silver legal tender.
House committee votes to fire federal workers who owe back taxes
Published March 21, 2013
FoxNews.com
March 2, 2013: This photo shows the Internal Revenue Service building at the Federal Triangle complex in Washington. (AP)
Federal workers with tax liens may be fired under legislation approved by a House committee Wednesday.
The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in January, was advanced with a voice vote by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
This legislation would not only result in the termination of current tax delinquent federal employees, but would prohibit the future hiring of federal employees with tax liens.
"The very least an individual on the federal payroll can do is pay their taxes," Chaffetz said in a news release. "If you are thumbing your nose up at the American taxpayer by not paying your taxes, you should be fired or not awarded a federal contract."
The bill would require individuals applying for federal employment to "submit certification that such person does not have any seriously delinquent tax debt."
The legislation also requires federal agencies to conduct reviews of public records to determine if tax liens have been filed against current employees or applicants.
The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2012 passed the House 263-114 but was never voted on in the Senate.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, the number of federal workers and retirees who owed delinquent income taxes jumped by nearly 12 percent in 2011.
Nearly 312,000 federal workers and retirees owed more than $3.5 billion in back taxes as of Sept. 30, 2011, the agency reported earlier this month. The year before, about 279,000 workers and retirees owed $3.4 billion.
Overall, the 9.8 million workers included in the data had a delinquency rate of 3.2 percent. That's better than the general public. The IRS says the delinquency rate for the general public was 8.2 percent.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development had the highest delinquency rate, at 4.4 percent. The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, had the lowest, at 1.1 percent.
Among independent agencies with more than 1,000 workers, the Government Printing Office had the highest delinquency rate, at 7.6 percent. The National Credit Union Administration had the lowest, at 1 percent.
House employees had a higher delinquency rate than workers for the Senate, but not by much. House workers had a delinquency rate of 3.7 percent, while Senate workers had a delinquency rate of 3.3 percent. Federal court employees had a delinquency rate of 2.7 percent.
The IRS says most residents who owe back income taxes file returns but cannot pay the full amount at tax time. Others have their tax bills increased through audits and cannot pay the higher bill.
The statistics on federal employees do not include those who are on payment plans. The IRS doesn't publicize the data but makes it available upon request.
Hatch: New Office Established by Obamacare Blows Taxpayer Money
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2013 03:41 PM
By Dan Weil
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), a new entity created by the Affordable Care Act to increase efficiency, is instead frittering away money, says Sen. Orrin Hatch.
The wasted money is going to high salaries and fancy perks, the Utah Republican said Wednesday during a Finance Committee hearing, The Hill reports. Hatch said he has "heard that . . . staffers have state-of-the-art workspaces, including very expensive treadmill desks."
The CMMI has a $10 billion budget to study new methods for increasing the efficiency of the healthcare system. Much of its money goes to exploratory projects and outside research that don’t progress quickly.
But Hatch said the projects take an excessive amount of time and duplicate the work of the Medicare and Medicaid agencies.
"I hope that CMMI takes the time to really study the impact of initiatives both while they are going on and at the end of demonstrations, so that we know if they work — and how well they work — before the initiatives are offered to more providers and patients," he said.
Second term brings out a more relaxed Obama
No longer facing voter polls, the president can show some emotion, go off-script, take the first lady to a lavish Valentine's Day dinner, even go golfing with Tiger Woods. Historians warn against overconfidence.
President Obama appears readier to show emotion and go off-script as his second term gets underway. (Paul Beaty, Associated Press / February 15, 2013)
By Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau
February 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — Finally unburdened by worries about running for another election, President Obama is acting different these days.
Second-term Obama is noticeably quicker to speak his mind and get personal on subjects he once avoided. His schedule at times ignores concerns about "optics," Washington-speak for what voters might perceive.
On Friday, for example, the president delivered an unexpectedly personal, and at times off-the-cuff, speech in Chicago about the root causes of urban violence. The famously reserved president spoke bluntly about the Kenyan-born father whom he barely knew, and his wayward high school days in Hawaii.
"I wish I had had a father who was around and involved," he said.
In the past, Obama typically wove the uplifting version of his personal narrative — raised by a single mother, loved by doting grandparents — into his campaign message. He rarely admitted to having "issues," as he did in Chicago.
Then, over the Presidents Day weekend, Obama headed to Florida for a golf outing with the guys. The president stayed in an exclusive resort near West Palm Beach, Fla., and hit the course with several friends and high-power donors, plus Tiger Woods. The president's wife and two daughters, meanwhile, jetted west to ski in Aspen, Colo.
Obama's vacations have been rare, brief and regularly interrupted by crises at home and overseas. Most recently, he suspended his Christmas holiday in Hawaii to rush back to Washington for a few days to deal with congressional negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff.
The White House stressed that the president took his work to the Floridian Yacht and Golf Club.
"The president traveled to Florida for the weekend to spend some time with friends on the golf course, but the military aides, White House staffers and Secret Service agents who traveled with him are a reminder that he's never far from the responsibilities of his job," said spokesman Josh Earnest.
Still, it is hard to imagine Obama taking that sort of getaway before the election, particularly after a week when he delivered his State of the Union speech and unveiled an economic plan aimed at fighting poverty and providing relief for the middle class. It's harder still to imagine him golfing with Woods — who saw his marriage, endorsement contracts and career tank in 2009 amid disclosures of sexual infidelities — while trying to woo female voters.
Obama's Valentine's Day date with First Lady Michelle Obama almost certainly would have become campaign fodder a few months ago. The first couple went to minibar, a Washington restaurant so avant-garde it doesn't use capital letters, where the nightly prix fixe dinner for two runs $450, not including drinks, taxes and tips, according to its website. That's more than a week's pay at the $9-per-hour minimum wage Obama is advocating (and which is unlikely to go anywhere in Congress).
Presidential historians typically focus on the so-called second-term curse, the seemingly inevitable and usually self-created calamity that befalls many a president after reelection. But historian Gil Troy says a less-discussed phenomenon is the "second-term blessing."
"In a lot of presidential biographies and memoirs, they talk about the night before the second reelection campaign ends. There's always a touch of nostalgia, but far more than nostalgia, there's a tremendous sense of relief when you get a sense that you don't have to justify yourself anymore in that way and you're not under that kind of scrutiny," said Troy, a presidential historian at McGill University. "And that's the basis of the second-term blessing."
Troy says presidents tend to ease up, stop living by the polls and start thinking about their legacy.
There's no doubt Obama has loosened up. He shed tears at his final campaign rally, a show of emotion that was rare in his first term but has happened several times since.
Long a stickler for adhering to his prepared remarks, Obama now sometimes goes off-script. As he announced his new public preschool program last week, he cracked himself up with an ad-libbed joke at Congress' expense.
"That whole playing well with others, by the way, is a trait we could use more in Washington," Obama said. "So maybe we need to bring the teachers up every once in a while, have some quiet time. Time out."
"He definitely appears to be a lot more relaxed in his comments and seems more freewheeling in the way he addresses issues," said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman during President George W. Bush's second term. "I feel like that has been a change we've seen since election day. There's no question about that."
Obama may be buoyed by his polls, which show his public approval rating has inched up since his reelection, his battles with House Republicans over taxes, and his efforts to reduce gun violence since the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Still, historians say overconfidence can quickly turn the second-term blessing into the presidential curse.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed attempt to pack the Supreme Court with extra justices in 1936 is the most often cited example, along with Bill Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998.
"Sometimes it has led to hubris and overreach," Troy said.
Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional
By By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press–16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a setback for President Barack Obama, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that he violated the Constitution in making recess appointments last year, a decision that could severely curtail the president's ability to bypass the Senate to fill administration vacancies.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the Senate was officially in session — and not in recess — at the time. If the decision stands, it could invalidate hundreds of board decisions made over the past year.
The court also ruled that the president could only make recess appointments if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official recess, which it defined as the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration strongly disagrees with the decision and that the NLRB would continue to conduct business as usual, despite calls by some Republicans for the board members to resign.
"The decision is novel and unprecedented," Carney said. "It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations."
The Justice Department hinted that the administration would likely appeal the decision by three conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents to the U.S. Supreme Court. "We disagree with the court's ruling and believe that the president's recess appointments are constitutionally sound," the statement said.
The court's decision acknowledges that it conflicts with what other federal appeals courts have held about when recess appointments are valid, which only added to the likelihood of an appeal to the high court.
The ruling also threw into question the legitimacy of Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray's appointment, also made on Jan. 4, 2012, has been challenged in a separate case.
Carney insisted the court's ruling affected only one case before the labor board and would have no bearing on Cordray's appointment. Obama on Thursday renominated Cordray for the job.
The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.
Obama made the recess appointments after Senate Republicans blocked his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions. Obama claims he acted properly because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress is in recess.
But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called pro forma sessions.
GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past — specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install members to the labor board and the consumer board. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.
The three-judge panel, all appointed by Republican presidents, flatly rejected arguments from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which claimed the president has discretion to decide that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advice and consent function.
"Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution's separation of powers," Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the 46-page ruling. He was appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
The court ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan. 3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Sentelle's opinion was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith, appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
"With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama administration's flimsy interpretation of the law, and (it) will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
GOP House Speaker John Boehner welcomed the ruling as "a victory for accountability in government."
If the ruling stands, it means that hundreds of decisions issued by the board over more than a year would be invalid. It also would leave the five-member labor board with just one validly appointed member, effectively shutting it down. The board is allowed to issue decisions only when it has at least three sitting members.
Obama used the recess appointment to install Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the labor board, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from the board last year.
"I think this is a very important decision about the separation of powers," said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the Virginia's University of Richmond. "The court's reading has limited the president's ability to counter the obstruction of appointments by a minority in the Senate that has been pretty egregious in the Obama administration."
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged the NLRB to continue conducting business until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.
"Today's circuit court decision is not only a radical departure from precedent, it ignores the fact that President Obama had no choice but to act," Harkin said. "Throughout his presidency, Republicans have employed unprecedented partisan delay tactics and filibusters to prevent confirmation of nominees to lead the NLRB, thus crippling the board's legal authority to act."
If Obama's recess appointment of Cordray to the newly created consumer board is eventually ruledinvalid, it could nullify all the regulations the consumer board has issued, many of which affect the mortgage business.
North Korea directs nuke threat at US
AP
Seoul, January 24, 2013
North Korea’s top governing body warned Thursday that the regime will conduct its third nuclear test in defiance of UN punishment, and made clear that its long-range rockets are designed to carry not only satellites but also warheads aimed at striking the US.
Commission, headed by the country’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, rejected Tuesday’s UN Security Council resolution condemning North Korea’s long-range rocket launch in December as a banned missile activity and expanding sanctions against the regime. The commission reaffirmed in its declaration that the launch was a peaceful bid to send a satellite into space, but also said the country’s rocket launches have a military purpose: to strike and attack the United States.
The commission pledged to keep launching satellites and rockets and to conduct a nuclear test as part of a “new phase” of combat with the US, which it blames for leading the UN bid to punish Pyongyang. It said a nuclear test was part of “upcoming” action but did not say exactly when or where it would take place.
“We do not hide that a variety of satellites and long-range rockets which will be launched by the DPRK one after another and a nuclear test of higher level which will be carried out by it in the upcoming all-out action, a new phase of the anti-US struggle that has lasted century after century, will target against the US, the sworn enemy of the Korean people,” the commission said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“Settling accounts with the US needs to be done with force, not with words, as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival,” the commission said.
It was a rare declaration by the powerful military commission once led by late leader Kim Jong Il and now commanded by his son, Kim Jong Un.
Sen. Feinstein: Passing new assault weapons ban will be 'uphill road'
By Daniel Strauss - 12/18/12 10:34 AM ET
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday described her push to pass an assault-weapons ban in the next Congress as an "uphill road."
In the wake of a shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed the lives of 27, including 20 children, Feinstein has vowed to introduce legislation reinstating a federal ban on assault weapons. Feinstein was a major proponent of similar legislation in 1994.
"Well, I have every sense that it's an uphill road, it was in the past when we did it in the past," Feinstein said Monday in an interview with "PBS Newshour." "I wrote that bill. My office wrote that bill. It went through, it was not amended. It went through the Senate, the House, it was signed by the president and it was the law for ten years."
Since the Sandy Hook shooting, a number of lawmakers, including a few Senate Democrats with "A" ratings from the National Rifle Association, have called for action to strengthen gun laws to prevent massacres similar to Sandy Hook. Feinstein said that the recent shooting was a tipping point for pushing new gun legislation.
"I think this is the straw that broke the camel's back," Feinstein said. "I don't see how Americans can want a situation where a 20-year-old gets a gun from his mother, kills his mother."
The California Democrat said she plans to talk with Republicans about passing the legislation and has also been trying to reach President Obama by phone. She said Obama has not returned her call and she is now hoping to get in touch with Obama through Chief of Staff Jack Lew.
Report: Fast and Furious Gun Found at Mexico Shootout Site
Another weapon from the Justice Department’s bungled gunrunning Operation Fast and Furious has turned up — this one at a crime scene in Mexico where a shootout killed a Mexican beauty queen and four people.
Congressional investigators told CBS News that the weapon, a Romanian AK-47-type WASR-10 rifle, was found at a crime scene on Nov. 23 in Ciudad Guamuchil, Sinaloa, Mexico.
The site was likely where a shootout occurred between reported Sinaloa drug cartel members and the Mexican military. The Sinaloa beauty queen, Maria Susana Flores Gamez, and four others were killed, CBS reports.
Iowa GOP Sen. Charles Grassley told CBS that the Justice Department did not disclose the finding to Congress in November, even though Grassley requested an accounting of all weapons that have surfaced from the case.
Fast and Furious was run out of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Under the bungled operation, more than 2,000 weapons — including giant .50-caliber guns — fell into the hands of Mexican drug cartels and other criminals, CBS reports.
Most of the weapons have never been recovered.
A trace report on the latest finding showed that the rifle was purchased by Uriel Patino, the Fast and Furious suspect who allegedly bought more than 700 weapons while under ATF's watch, CBS reports.
Patino bought the rifle and nine other semi-automatic rifles at an Arizona gun shop on March 16, 2010, records show.
Grassley has requested more information from the Justice Department. He also asked in a letter whether officials were planning to notify Congress "that a Fast and Furious weapon had been recovered," CBS reports.
The Justice Department has not responded to a CBS request for comment.
South Carolina Lawmakers Propose 5-Year Jail Sentence for 'Obamacare' Implementation
Federal officials could face fines and jail terms under proposed legislation
Nullification is yet again picking up steam in Dixie.
Pursuing an archaic legal theory that punctuated pre-Civil War disputes between the federal government and states, South Carolina state Rep. Bill Chumley last week pre-filed a bill for the upcoming legislative session that would criminalize implementation of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law.
If his bill becomes law, any state official caught enforcing the healthcare law would be guilty of a misdemeanor and "must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Federal officials caught enforcing the law, however, would be given stiffer punishment under the proposal.
Any federal employee or contractor enforcing the law "is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both," the bill proposes.
"I think we're within our rights to do this," Chumley explained to U.S. News. "It's an obligation, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect the people."
The bill was drafted after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the healthcare law in June, a decision that Chumley strongly disagrees with. In response, says Chumley, "we put a little study committee together to look at the possibility of nullification."
The study group included local lawyers, retired political science professors, and medical doctors, Chumley says. Another attendee was state Sen. Lee Bright, who is proposing similar legislation in the legislature's upper chamber.
"If we don't do something now, when do we?" says Chumley. "It's a sad situation that the government put us in... an unpleasant task you have to do from time to time."
"I feel very, very good about support," he adds. "I don't think it'll be a really hard sell."
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, also a Republican, has made no public statement on the bill. Chumley said he has seen Haley just once since setting up his study group and "didn't want to bother her with this."
Among the items in the healthcare law that irk Chumley are the individual health insurance mandate, "the establishment of 150 or so more agencies," "the addition of many thousand new IRS agents," and "home visits to come out and see how you're living."
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, however, told U.S. News the proposed law "would be clearly un-enforceable, because the federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – trumps state law."
"But I assume it's meant to make a political statement, not to have a direct legal effect," adds Volokh.
Obamacare Gets Stunning Rebuke from 25 States
Sunday, 16 Dec 2012 06:41 PM
By John O. Edwards
December 14 has come and gone — and President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — better known as Obamacare — has received a stunning blow.
State governments had until December 14, 2012 to decide whether or not they would build their own health insurance exchange, an online service that would allow individuals to purchase private health insurance if it wasn't provided for by their employees.
That date has now passed and the exchange has been rebuked by half the states — with 25 state governments refusing to participate in this critical component of Obamacare.
Their refusal won't stop exchanges in their states. Under the law, states that don't create the exchange can opt to have the federal government deal with this expensive task.
Only 18 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to build and manage their own exchange, while 7 other states have taken a middle course and will partner with the federal government to create their exchange.
Why have so many states opted out when it comes to the exchanges? Part of the reason is undoubtedly political. Most of the states carried by Mitt Romney in the recent presidential election also happen to be those that are refusing to build their own exchange. That is no coincidence. These are states with populations that, generally speaking, would vote by clear majorities to repeal Obamacare if they were permitted to do so.
The elected governments in these states were plainly listening to their citizens when they decided to say no to a state-run health insurance exchange.
But there’s more to the story. A number of states that voted for President Obama in the recent election have also said no to an exchange (notably Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio and New Hampshire). While politics may have played a role in the decision these states made, other factors came into play.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey explained to Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show," why he vetoed an exchange that would have been run by his state: “Here’s the issue, and why I vetoed it. I’m asking [the Obama administration] a bunch of questions about how much this is going to cost and everything else, and they won’t answer my questions… I’m not going to do this now… The law permits you always to change back to a state exchange if you want to. And what I’ve said to them is… if you can’t give me all the information, you run it.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who also nixed his state creating an exchange, echoed a similar sentiment earlier this month.
"The idea that you’ve got a state instituted exchange, but it has to be federally approved. So the fact is the federal government’s going to have to run these," Perry said. "And they don’t have the expertise, nor do they have the money."
Perry predicted the implementation of Obamacare is "going to be a disaster."
Whatever the reason behind the decision of 25 states to opt out of building and managing an exchange within their borders, a large challenge now confronts the Obama administration.
The authors of Obamacare did not anticipate this level of non-participation by the states (as shown by the absence of specific language in the law to address the possibility), but now the federal government will be forced to build and manage exchanges for half the states in the country.
If the White House is unable to rise to this unexpected challenge, it could mean that some of the states which opted out will not have an exchange operating by October 1, 2012 — the date all exchanges in the country are supposed to open for business. While the federal government has the financial means to build out the exchange infrastructure where it needs to, it may have difficulties managing the health insurance landscape in individual states, given the labyrinth of different mandates and regulations that separate one state from another.
Another potential problem looms on the horizon thanks to a mistake in how the Obamacare law was written by Congress. The specific language of the law says that a health insurance exchange run by a state is eligible to receive subsidies from the federal government, but it does not explicitly say that an exchange run by the Department of Health and Human Services is eligible to receive the same money.
Right now, the Internal Revenue Service is ignoring this inconsistency, but someone may eventually mount a legal challenge over the issue, leaving the matter for the courts to decide.
But the uncertainty of the exchanges will inevitably raise the question of whether Obamacare can be fully implemented, especially by 2014 when the individual mandate requires every citizens to have private health insurance or pay a fine.
Since Obama's signed the sweeping legislation on March 23, 2010, it's sustainability has experienced a rollercoaster of ups and downs.
With a little more than half of Americans consistently opposed to it since then, President Obama’s greatest legislative achievement has nonetheless endured, surviving a controversial Supreme Court decision that could have cut the legs out from under it and a national election that could have elevated Mitt Romney to the White House along with his promise to block the law’s full implementation.
With these large judicial and electoral hurdles overcome, ObamaCareis now moving full steam ahead towards January 1, 2014, when most of its most important provisions become operational.
All, however, is not smooth sailing, as resistance to the new law remains strong, especially within numerous individual states within the country. The controversy surrounding the creation and management of the new health insurance exchanges highlights like nothing else does this persistent opposition.
Health insurance exchanges represent the vital central nervous system of Obamacare. Once they are up and running, Americans will be able to go to a web site and select an insurance plan that meets their individual needs from a menu of coverage options.
The plans will be regulated, with each one required to provide so-called “Essential Health Benefits.” The exchanges are by definition online marketplaces for health insurance, but they also are structural magnets that will help integrate the many different components of ObamaCare together.
Dec 13, 2012 2:47pm
Sandy Aid Package Includes Millions for Smithsonian, Space Center, Forests
A man walks past destroyed homes on the Rockaway Peninsula in the Queens borough of New York, Nov. 27, 2012. A proposal in Congress would provide $60 billion in relief. (Seth Wenig/AP Photo)
The Obama administration’s $60-billion emergency aid package for victims of superstorm Sandy is now caught in the crossfire over the “fiscal cliff,” with some critics questioning why millions of dollars are directed to areas far from the epicenter of the storm.
The request, which still needs the approval of Congress, includes billions in urgently needed aide. But it also features some surprising items: $23 million for tree plantings to “help reduce flood effects, protect water sources, decrease soil erosion and improve wildlife habitat” in forested areas touched by Sandy; $2 million to repair roof damage at Smithsonian buildings in Washington that pre-dates the storm; $4 million to repair sand berms and dunes at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and $41 million for clean-up and repairs at eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The FBI is seeking $4 million to replace “vehicles, laboratory and office equipment and furniture,” while Customs and Border Protection wants $2.4 million to replace “destroyed or damaged vehicles, including mobile X-Ray machines.”
The Small Business Administration is seeking a $50 million slice of the pie for its post-storm response efforts, including “Small Business Development Centers and Women’s Business Development Centers.”
The relief package also includes a whopping $13 billion request for “mitigation projects” to prepare for future storms.
These line items, and dozens more like them, have some Republicans balking at the size of the relief request and calling for more time to review the deal. The $60 billion price tag, they say, represents nearly the entire amount of additional revenue the government would collect next year by raising rates on the top 2 percent of taxpayers, as Democrats desire.
They also point out that FEMA still has $5 billion in its Disaster Relief Fund — enough to last until March. Therefore, they see no reason to rush through a bill so large with no hearings or negotiations on the size of the bill or how to pay for it.
Democrats defend the entire package — including the funds for federal agencies, which only amount to two-tenths of one percent of the $60 billion price tag — saying it addresses costs incurred by Sandy.
“The White House and Governors Cuomo and Christie have documented extensively the severe need resulting from Sandy,” said Rep. Nita Lowey of New York. “Foot-dragging in Congress only delays state and local governments from beginning the rebuilding process and prevents families, homeowners, and small businesses from getting back on their feet.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the mitigation efforts an essential part of the rebuilding effort.
“It doesn’t make sense to pay to fix subway stations, rebuild a dune or repair a home if we don’t protect it from the next storm,” he said.
A White House official also dismissed criticism of the size of the overall request and the specific amounts sought by federal agencies. The vast majority of the money would go to the affected region.
“The aid to federal agencies is a very small percentage of the entire package,” the official told ABC News. “On the federal items, we know what the damage is because we are the federal government. The storm damage has to be paid for at some point.”
“On other things — larger state-level infrastructure items, like hospitals — in many cases it still hasn’t been determined whether it’s cheaper to repair them or replace them,” the official said, noting that the less-specific “pots” of funds for states were intended to provide greater flexibility during allocation.
Governors of the states that bore the brunt of Sandy’s impact – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy – had pressed the White House for an $80 billion package. But the administration decided a smaller amount was appropriate in light of deficit concerns.
“Private insurers must fulfill their commitment to the region; public assistance must be targeted for public benefit; resources must be directed to those in greatest need; and impacted States and localities must contribute, as appropriate, to the costs of rebuilding,” OMB director Jeff Zients wrote to Congress as part of the request.
In a joint op-ed in the Washington Post today, the governors pressed lawmakers “not to leave Washington” until they provide Sandy aid to the northeast.
Gov. Cuomo passes on supporting Hillary Clinton for 2016 presidential bid
By ERIK KRISS, Bureau Chief
Last Updated: 12:07 PM, December 10, 2012
Posted: 12:05 PM, December 10, 2012
ALBANY – Gov. Cuomo refused to jump on the Hillary for president bandwagon today.
Asked if he would support Hillary Clinton for a 2016 White House bid, Cuomo would only say, “It’s a long way away.”
Cuomo is himself a potential Democratic presidential contender in four years but trails badly in polls behind President Obama's secretary of state.
“There's no doubt that she is incredibly popular, she has great experience,” Cuomo told The Post’s Fredric U. Dicker on Albany’s Talk 1300 AM radio today about the former first lady and ex-U.S. senator from New York. “She’s the person who’s going to make the decision.”
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s finance team is offering corporations and other institutions that contribute $1 million exclusive access to an array of inaugural festivities, including tickets to a “benefactors reception,” a children’s concert, a candlelight celebration at the National Building Museum, two reserved parade bleacher seats and four tickets to the president’s official inaugural ball.
The offerings are detailed in an online inaugural fund-raising solicitation provided to The New York Times by an Obama fund-raiser. The document describes four packages that Mr. Obama’s finance team can sell, with differing levels of access depending on the level of contribution. Individuals who contribute $250,000 will receive the same package as million-dollar “institutional donors,” which could include corporations, philanthropies, foundations and unions.
While taxpayers pay for inaugural events at the Capitol — the swearing-in ceremony and inaugural luncheon — the president must raise money from private donors for everything else, including the inaugural parade, ball and concerts. In 2009, Mr. Obama raised $53 million.
The online solicitation, sent to donors by e-mail on Friday, described the different inaugural packages, each named for a president: Washington ($1 million from institutions and $250,000 from individuals); Adams ($500,000 from institutions and $150,000 from individuals); Jefferson ($250,000 from institutions and $75,000 from individuals); and Madison ($100,000 from institutions and $10,000 from individuals).
Financing arrangements like these are typical for presidential inaugurals. To help pay for President George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural, dozens of companies, including Home Depot and Bank of America, contributed $250,000 apiece.
But Mr. Obama’s decision has drawn criticism from good-government advocates, who accuse him of abandoning his pledge to keep big money out of politics.
John Wonderlich, policy director of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for openness in government, wrote on the group’s blog that the decision “prioritizes a lavish celebration over the integrity of the office,” and that Mr. Obama was “turning away from a principled approach to money in politics.”
The president’s inaugural planners, however, have defended the decision, saying that museums, philanthropic organizations and service groups, like the Red Cross, all accept corporate money. And with Democratic donors feeling tapped out from an expensive presidential campaign, the planners concluded they needed to expand their fund-raising methods.
The 2013 inaugural festivities will be smaller in scope than the huge celebration of 2009, which drew an estimated 1.8 million people to the capital. The inaugural committee has not announced a schedule for the 2013 events, and a committee aide said that no final decision had been made about the number of inaugural balls to be held.
However, donors were told on a conference call on Friday that this time there would be only three official inaugural balls that the president and his wife would attend, according to one person who listened. In 2009, they attended 10 of them.
And because Jan. 20, the constitutionally mandated date for the presidential swearing-in, falls on a Sunday this year, Mr. Obama will take his oath in private at the White House, and the public swearing-in ceremony and other events will be held on Jan. 21.
McCain To Kerry: ‘Thank You Very Much, Mr. Secretary’
December 3, 2012 2:27 PM
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., share a laugh while participating in a news conference with persons with disabilities on Capitol Hill, on Dec. 3, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry, the next secretary of state?
Republican Sen. John McCain had some fun Monday at the expense of his friend and Democratic colleague. Responding to a Kerry introduction at a news conference on a disabilities treaty, McCain said, “thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.”
It was a clear reference to the recent talk that Kerry is a top candidate to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was also a nod to McCain’s opposition to the current front-runner, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.
Kerry gave it back with his own quip, one that pained McCain.
“Thank you very much Mr. President,” Kerry said when he returned to the microphone. McCain unsuccessfully sought the presidency in 2000 and 2008
Why the White House kept Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair
“Many of Obama’s advisers have quietly begun questioning whether they should have picked Wasserman Schultz, an outspoken Florida congresswoman, as his DNC chairwoman. She has clashed with Chicago over her choice of staff and air-time on national TV shows — and they think she comes across as too partisan over the airwaves.”
The White House, at the time, denied any rift but privately aides acknowledged that those strains existed. And yet, Wasserman Schultz is back for a second term. Why?
There’s no single answer to that question, according to aides familiar with the decision, but there are a few reasons to explain it. Here’s three.
First, Wasserman Schultz was the definition of a good soldier. In the press release announcing the plan to re-nominate her, it was noted that she has participated in 885 events in 31 states. Those close to the process repeatedly noted that Wasserman Schultz went wherever she was asked to go in the campaign — a critical (and overlooked) trait in a surrogate. That Obama carried Florida — against the predictions of almost everyone outside of the president’s campaign team — also accrued to Wasserman Schultz’s benefit as a credible surrogate.
Second, Wasserman Schultz has real connections among two key constituencies — women and Jewish voters — within the Democratic party. Not only do those ties mean that those groups feel as though they have a voice within the upper ranks of the party but they also ensure some backlash if Wasserman Schultz was viewed as being pushed out against her will. And, because she had made quite clear that she wanted the job again, any decision not to re-offer it to her would have almost certainly been cast as just that.
Third, Wasserman Schultz had no other obvious next step. With House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi staying on in her job — and renominating New York Rep. Steve Israel as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — there are few opportunities within Democratic leadership circles for Wasserman Schultz. Staying on as DNC Chair was, by far, the most high-profile position that the Florida Democrat could hope to have post-election.
(It’s also worth noting that there was no other obvious choice to replace Wasserman Schultz if she wanted to go or the White House wanted her to do so. Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm is pursuing a media career, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is still mulling another run for governor in 2014 and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is still mayor through 2013.)
What’s clear is that Wasserman Schultz — while she may not be the sort of beloved figure that Sen.-elect Tim Kaine was among the Obama braintrust — did more than enough to earn a second term. And, that’s what she got this morning.
Four Years Under Obama Wipes Away 30 Years of Black American Gains
Monday, 08 Oct 2012 01:19 PM
By Patrick Hobin
The economic downturn and long recession have hit the black middle class hard, wiping out gains made in the last 30 years, with plummets in wealth and high rates of foreclosures, the Chicago Tribune reported.
It’s projected that 68 percent of middle –class blacks will not do as well as the previous generation, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Mobility Project, and the National Urban League reported that most economic gains that the black middle class made during the last 30 years have been wiped out by the economic downturn, according to the Tribune.
"This is a very dire situation," Valerie Rawlston Wilson, an economist with the National Urban League Policy Institute, told the Tribune. "Even for blacks who have college degrees, we've seen a doubling of their unemployment (rate) between 2007 and 2010."
The nation’s unemployment rate is 7.8 percent. For blacks, it’s 13.4 percent. The average black household's wealth fell by more than half from 2005-2009 while white household wealth fell 16 percent to $113,149, according to the Tribune.
"For every $20 whites have in wealth, blacks have just $1," Paul Taylor, director of Pew's Social and Demographic Trends project, told the Tribune. "And in many cases, households get a boost because they inherit wealth from parents and grandparents. Blacks for most of history haven't been able to accumulate that type of wealth."
From 2009 to 2012, median household income for blacks has declined by 11.1 percent, compared to the decline for whites of 5.2 percent and for Hispanics of 4.1 percent.
"A generation of wealth and assets are evaporating, and the presidential candidates aren't making a peep about it," Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, 40, a doctoral candidate in African-American studies at Northwestern, told the Tribune. "We're talking about historic changes in manufacturing, and these are systemic changes in the economy and in the midst of this, people are being left behind."
Gallup Poll Finds Confidence In TV News Has Hit A New Low
The Huffington Post | By Jack MirkinsonPosted: 07/11/2012 8:16 am Updated: 07/11/2012 11:34 am
Confidence in television news has hit a new low, a new Gallup poll reported Tuesday.
The polling firm does an annual survey of the confidence that Americans have in their biggest institutions. Gallup noted that its survey took place before CNN and Fox News botched the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's health care law, presumably as a way to emphasize just how little faith people seem to have in their newscasts.
Just 21% of adults said they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in TV news. That's down a whopping 25% from 1993, when Gallup began the poll:
The survey showed an interesting political split. Overall, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to trust TV news (34 percent versus 17 percent.) But self-identified liberals were the most disenchanted of all groups, with just 19 percent expressing confidence in the medium.
Gallup said that it wasn't clear why exactly the numbers were so grim. But it wrote that "Americans' negativity likely reflects the continuation of a broader trend that appeared to enjoy only a brief respite last year. Americans have grown more negative about the media in recent years, as they have about many other U.S. institutions and the direction of the country in general."
As if to illustrate that point, American newspapers also fared very poorly in the survey, with only 25 percent of respondents expressing confidence.
How a Dedicated Group of Tea Party Activists Toppled Richard Lugar
By Sean Sullivan
Learning from the movement's stumbles in 2010, a grassroots collection laid the groundwork to defeat the six-term Indiana senator.
Richard Mourdock (left) and Richard Lugar at an April debate in Indianapolis. / Associated Press
The Tea Party, an unsteady movement that was beginning to resemble a wayward ship in 2012, found its north star in Indiana on Tuesday night.
State Treasurer Richard Mourdock defeated six-term Sen. Richard Lugar in the Republican primary, a victory owing to the incumbent's inept campaign, the outside groups that lashed him on the air, and a story about his out-of-state residency that would not go away. But well before those issues got a foothold, a grassroots-driven, local movement to unseat Lugar was well under way.
Sixteen months ago, a collection of Tea Party organizers met in the city of Tipton. Their goal was to address flaws in the movement that were exposed in 2010, when infighting and competing agendas largely driven by national groups and consultants hindered its ability to make lasting gains. What resulted was "Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate," a network of 60 Tea Party groups dedicated to retiring Lugar.
"We didn't have the unity [in 2010]. Once we built the foundation of unity, we went out and educated people about Lugar's voting record," said Monica Boyer, one of the group's cofounders.
The group endorsed Mourdock after a September straw poll showed that he was the preferred choice of conservative activists. National groups like the Tea Party Express that in 2010 were responsible for the rise of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska had yet to enter fray in a major way. The national group FreedomWorks had met with Boyer's organization, but it didn't jump in with full force until Mourdock emerged as the consensus candidate.
"None of the outside groups were in here at that time," Boyer said. "We actually asked FreedomWorks to get involved."
"It was at that point that we knew, OK, this is real, they've made a decision, and they came to us; and they said, 'OK, we're ready, we want some support now,' " said FreedomWorks Vice President Russ Walker.
After it was clear that no other Republicans were going to get into the race, the influential antitax Club for Growth decided to endorse Mourdock and spent huge sums of cash on ads blasting Lugar. Around the same time, the Lugar campaign's ineffective response to stories about his residency began to receive more attention from voters. Mourdock's fundraising began to ramp up. The resulting concoction was toxic for Lugar.
Mourdock's competence as a candidate helped his cause. He hasn't yet committed the kind of gaffes we saw from O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, or Miller in 2010. Notably, he doesn't refer to himself as a Tea Party candidate, either. But that doesn't bother activists. "I don't want him to be painted in a corner," Boyer said. "I think that's what happened in the other states" like Nevada, where Angle ran.
Democrats are already moving to paint Mourdock into a very familiar corner. Anticipating a win on Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee compared Mourdock to Ken Buck, the failed 2010 Senate nominee in Colorado.
While Mourdock has kept the Tea Party within arm's reach, Lugar thumbed his nose at the movement entirely.
"I've got to say, 'Get real,'" Lugar told a local Indiana TV station in 2011. "I hear Tea Party or other people talking about they were against START. I say, 'Well, now, hang on here.'"
Boyer said she met with Lugar for breakfast in 2010, but he wasn't receptive to her message.
"We told him of our grievances and he said to us, 'I vote this way because I feel it is best for Indiana,'" she said. "He just kept saying that over and over 'I know what is best.'"
Lugar's approach to the Right clashed dramatically with the strategies adopted by two of his colleagues who also faced conservative primary threats.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, faced a wave of tea party ire at the start of the cycle. After witnessing his colleague Robert Bennett fall victim to conservative challenger Mike Lee in 2010, Hatch extended an olive branch to the Right early and often, holding meetings with them and even hiring some organizers as paid staffers. He is now a heavy favorite over his Republican primary opponent.
Lugar's reluctance to go after Mourdock early in the contest went against the grain of another colleague's strategy. In 2010, when Sen. John McCain of Arizona ran against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the Republican primary, he quickly pivoted rightward. The onetime proponent of comprehensive immigration reform suddenly became a hard-liner who famously urged the government to "complete the danged fence" in one of 2010's most memorable TV ads.
National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn told reporters on Tuesday afternoon that all candidates must focus on "being prepared" and "making sure your constituents know who you are and know you are fighting the good fight." Although Cornyn did not comment directly on Lugar's campaign, his comments amounted to an implicit argument that a Lugar loss should be attributed to campaign missteps and the climate in the state. GOP campaign strategists privately advanced that view.
"After 2010 we knew that there were challenges for any incumbents running for reelection, and we saw some who handled that better than others in 2010 and 2012," Cornyn said. "So I think everybody knew it was coming."
It's not just incumbents who should take notice. Conservatives recruited a credible Senate contender in Texas in Ted Cruz, who stands a real chance of forcing a surprise GOP primary runoff in the open race against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. The open-seat race in Nebraska appears to be tightening, with Don Stenberg and Deb Fischer hoping to chase down front-running state Attorney General Jon Bruning. Even in Utah, where Hatch is in good shape, Dan Liljenquist has a fighting chance.
But most of these candidates owe much of their rise to national conservative groups. If the tea party is to have a lasting influence over Republican politics, it should look to Indiana as an example: Recruit a credible candidate and build a consensus before the army of national groups arrives.
"We have not gone away," Boyer added. "We are working behind the scenes, infiltrating the party."
If Being A Conservative Were Easy There Wouldn't Be Any Liberals
by Stephen Guy Hardin
On Sale Now
http://booklocker.com/books/6041.html
Obama administration denies any role in killing of Iranian nuclear scientist
By Associated Press,
Updated: Wednesday, January 11, 3:56 PM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration denied any role in Wednesday’s
killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, the latest in a series of
events that have exacerbated tensions with Iran.
The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was the latest in a year
that has already seen new U.S. economic sanctions, threats to bar
American ships from the Persian Gulf, an Iranian death sentence to a
jailed U.S. citizen and an escalation in Tehran’s uranium enrichment
program.
Iranian reports said two assailants on a motorcycle
attached a magnetic bomb to Roshan’s car of, killing him and his driver.
Roshan was a chemistry expert and director of the Natanz uranium
enrichment facility in central Iran, and the slaying suggested a
widening covert effort to set back the Islamic republic’s atomic
program.
But US officials said they had nothing to do with it.
“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind
of act of violence inside Iran,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton told reporters. “We believe there has to be an understanding
between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a
way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for
nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community and be a
productive member of it.”
Earlier, State Department spokeswoman
Victoria Nuland wouldn’t answer a question about whether Washington was
involved in the killing — or if the administration viewed Roshan as an
innocent victim. “I’m not going to speak to who may or may not have done
this,” she told reporters.
The attack also came one day after
Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz was quoted as telling a
parliamentary committee that 2012 would be critical for Iran — in part
because of “things that happen to it unnaturally.”
And other Israeli officials, hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement.
“Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period,”
said Mickey Segal, a former director of the Israeli military’s Iranian
intelligence department. “Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is
mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the
Iranian regime is facing.”
Iranian authorities blamed Israel.
One
former official said the magnetic-bomb attack does bear the hallmarks
of an Israeli hit. Current and former U.S. officials say Washington
prefers proxies like Israel to carry out operations inside Iran, and
that up until two years ago, the U.S. and Israel coordinated actions
against Iran closely. But the officials say the White House halted such
cooperation after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took power.
The officials, past and present, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.
In
the event that a military intervention might be needed to halt Iran’s
progress toward nuclear weapons capability, they said counterterrorist
officials had considered allowing Israel to use the U.S.-Afghan Shindand
Airbase, in western Afghanistan, to launch an air strike against
Iranian weapons facilities
The attack in Tehran bore a strong
resemblance to earlier killings of scientists working on the Iranian
nuclear program — which Iran has blamed on Israel’s Mossad, the CIA and
Britain’s spy agency. They point to at least three slayings since early
2010 and the release of a malicious computer virus known at Stuxnet in
2010 that temporarily disrupted controls of some centrifuges — a key
component in nuclear fuel production. But all three countries have
denied the Iranian accusations.
The U.S. and its allies are
pressuring Iran to halt uranium enrichment, fearful that Iran is trying
to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists the program is for peaceful
purposes only and geared toward generating electricity and producing
medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.
Natanz is Iran’s
main enrichment site, but officials claimed earlier this week that they
are expanding some operations to an underground site south of Tehran
with more advanced equipment.
Clinton condemned Iran in a
statement Tuesday for enriching uranium at the underground Fordo bunker
to a level that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon
than the main stockpile. She said Tehran was demonstrating a “blatant
disregard for its responsibilities” and that “’’there is no plausible
justification” for its decision to increase enrichment to 20 percent —
higher than the 3.5 percent being made at Iran’s main plant.
Speaking
beside Qatar’s visiting prime minister, Clinton expanded her criticism
of Iran on Wednesday and expressed concern about a series of
“provocative and dangerous” threats by Iranian officials to close off
the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the world to the oil-rich waters of
the Persian Gulf.
“This is an international waterway,” she told
reporters in Washington. “The United States and others are committed to
keeping it open. It’s part of the lifeline that keeps oil and gas moving
around the world.”
She said the U.S. and its partners were making it clear to Tehran that such threats were unacceptable.
Washington
and Tehran also are at odds over an Iranian court’s death sentence
Monday for Amir Hekmati, a 28-year-old former U.S. military translator
who was born in Arizona and raised in Michigan. Iran says he is a CIA
spy; the Obama administration flatly rejects the accusations.
It
is the first time Iran has handed down a death sentence to a U.S.
citizen since the Islamic Revolution 33 years ago. Hekmati’s family says
he was in Iran visiting his grandmothers.
Prime Minister Sheik
Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani of Qatar, a country with deep
economic ties to Iran and which exports its natural gas to the rest of
the world through the Strait of Hormuz, urged more negotiations among
Tehran, Washington and the rest of the international community.
“We need to find a way to live together, a peaceful way,” he said. “For
us, it’s very important that we don’t trigger any military tension in
the region.”
Israel preparing for nuclear Iran: report
(AFP)
– 1/9/12
LONDON — Israel is preparing for Iran to become a nuclear power and
has accepted it may happen within a year, the London Times reported on
Monday citing an Israeli security report.
The Institute for
National Security Studies (INSS) think-tank prepared scenarios for the
day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test at the request of former
Israeli ambassadors, intelligence officials and ex-military chiefs, the
paper reported.
Israel has so far maintained it will do all within
its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities, but has
shifted its position following recent United Nations' reports, according
to the Times.
The UN atomic agency said Monday that Iran is now
enriching uranium at a new site in a hard-to-bomb mountain bunker, in a
move set to stoke Western suspicions further that Tehran wants nuclear
weapons.
INSS specialists including a former head of Israel's
National Security Council and two former members of the prime minister's
office conducted the simulation study in Tel Aviv last week.
If Iran does test a nuclear weapon, INSS predicts a profound shift in the Middle East power balance.
According
to extracts of the report seen by the British publication, experts
believe the US would propose a defence pact with Israel, but would urge
it not to retaliate.
Russia would seek an alliance with the US to
prevent nuclear proliferation in the region, although Saudi Arabia would
likely pursue its own nuclear programme, the report concluded based on
current policies.
INSS specialists believe that an Iranian test in
January 2013 would follow increasingly provocative demands by President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, including the redrawing of its Iraqi
borders and action against the vessels of the US Fifth Fleet.
"The
simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, but will
attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that
will improve its position," said a passage of the report published by
the Times.
"The simulation showed that (the Israeli military
option), or the threat of using it, would also be relevant following an
Iranian nuclear test," it added.
Israel condemned intelligence chief Meir Dagan last June after he speculated that Iran may obtain nuclear weaponry.
Conclusions from the simulation have been sent to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Times reported.
Iran,
which insists its nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful
purposes, has repeatedly said it will not abandon uranium enrichment
despite four rounds of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran
to desist.
While nuclear energy plants need fuel enriched to 3.5
percent, Iran says the 20-percent enriched uranium is necessary for its
Tehran research reactor to make isotopes to treat cancers.
Palin: ‘It’s not too late’ to run for president
By Andrew Jones Tuesday, December 20, 2011
If you still had desires of seeing Sarah Palin run for president in 2012, Monday evening may have reinvigorated those hopes.
On the Fox Business Network’s Follow The Money, host Eric Bolling was tempted by his viewers to ask the former Alaska governor the top question on their minds.
“Can you please ask the Governor to run for president?” he mentioned.
“Look, it’s not too late. It’s not too late. Any chance we can see you
making a play, even after Iowa or New Hampshire? There is still plenty
of time, Governor.”
“You know, it’s not too late for folks to jump in and I don’t know,” she replied. “Who knows what will happen in the future?”
“After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I
will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United
States,” she wrote in a letter to her supporters.
Back in September, Palin’s PAC was still asking donors for money if she were to run, even though she told her family months earlier that she wouldn’t be running.
THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...
COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Huffington Post | By Jack Mirkinson Posted: 07/11/2012 8:16 am Updated: 07/11/2012 11:34 am