As costs ballooned and public opinion soured, the Obama Administration has delayed the roll out of a major component of its health care plan to avert a political disaster in the mid-term elections. The decision was revealed by the Treasury Department with little fanfare to minimize news coverage.
President Obama, whose name has become synonymous with the legislation, was safely out of the country in Africa when the announcement was made. He obviously wanted to avoid the political backlash after his repeated promises to implement the health reforms on schedule.
The delay affects the law's provision mandating employers with 50 or more employees to offer health coverage or pay hefty fines of at least $2,000 per employee. It was scheduled to become effective in 2014, but has now been pushed back to January 2015 in light of withering criticism from businesses.
President Obama had insisted on the employer mandate, arguing that without it businesses would scrap health care plans, thus making a mockery of his oft repeated claim that Americans could keep their current coverage if they liked it.
In its low-key news release, the Treasury Department left intact the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase health care insurance beginning in October or face steep fines to be levied by those "non-partisan" folks at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
A few Washington insiders are predicting the employer mandate may be ultimately repealed by Congress. This likely would prompt most companies to abolish their health plans and force individuals to purchase private insurance through government run exchanges.
The problem is the exchanges are a train wreck that threatens to derail the entire plan. Out of 50 states, only 17 and Washington, D.C. have been certified to create exchanges by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS). Open enrollment is less than four months away.
The exchanges are supposed to function as a single point of contact for consumers to shop and compare private insurance plans. Mushrooming cost overruns are plaguing the exchanges. HHS budgeted $2.2 billion this year for the plans. Costs are now expected to top $4.4 billion, according to the HHS.
Those bloated figures were not included in last year's revised price tag for Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the health plan will cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years, nearly double the original forecast of $940 billion when the law was approved in 2010.
Meanwhile, the White House quietly mentioned in April that it planned to reverse $500 million in cuts to the Medicaid program scheduled to start in 2013. These reductions were to be followed by more sharp decreases in 2022, effecting millions of seniors.
All these course corrections by the administration are nothing more than political recalculations. With the mid-term elections looming next year, Democrats fear a poorly implemented health care law could become an albatross around their collective necks.
People are beginning to notice Obamacare's obvious flaws. In a recent poll, 45 percent of Americans hold a negative view of the health care package. Only 29 percent support it. This does not bode well for Democrats, especially if there are further delays and missteps.
Virginian Republican Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, offered the best remedy for Obamacare.
Reacting to the Treasury Department's announcement, Cantor remarked: "The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one."
He's right. Now it is up to Congress to fulfill Cantor's prescription for the health care law.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Today's Graduates: Unemployed and Underemployed
Few groups have been as loyal to President Obama as college students and recent graduates. They have turned out in record numbers the last two presidential elections to propel Obama to victory. However, the administration has not rewarded their loyalty by improving job prospects.
Federal government data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sheds a light on the bleak employment prospects for graduates.
The latest BLS numbers for May show that 13.2 percent of 20-24 year olds are without jobs, compared to 7.6 percent for the overall population. Unemployment among this demographic was 6.5 percent in January of 2008 when Obama assumed the presidency.
The bad news doesn't end there for the 1.7 million young people expected to graduate in 2013.
There were 284,000 college graduates working in minimum wage jobs at the end of last year. That is double the number of grads taking home minimum pay in 2007. It represents a 70 percent increase from a decade earlier.
The unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds is worse. Unemployment for this demographic stood at 24.5 percent in the most recent BLS survey. That compares with a rate of 17.8 percent in January of 2008 when George W. Bush turned over the reigns to Obama.
Employment isn't the only crisis facing newly graduated young people. An average graduate leaves college with $27,000 in loans used to finance their education. The average starting salary for a graduate is $44,928, according to a survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
In 2009, the average starting salary for a college graduate was $49,307. Young people burdened with college debt have counted on rising salaries to help them pay off their student loans. Instead they are losing ground.
A Department of Labor survey found that employers expect to hire 2.1 percent more new graduating college seniors than they did last year. That might sound like good news, but it is 13 percentage points lower than projections made in the fall of 2012.
Evan Feinberg is president of Generation Opportunity, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and research group that lobbies for more jobs for today's youth. He pulled no punches about the outlook for today's graduates.
"Young people are suffering disproportionately in this down economy," he said. "There are just no jobs out there."
As if to underscore his assessment, a New-York based public policy and advocacy group called Demos dug into the BLS numbers and found there are more than 5.6 million 18-34 year olds who are willing to work but can't find a job.
That group accounts for 45 percent of all unemployed Americans.
It is a sad tale. Yet young people 18-to-29 years old voted overwhelming for Obama in 2012. The president garnered 67 percent of their votes while challenger Mitt Romney carried only 30 percent. In key swing states, the youth vote tipped the scales for Obama.
So how do you explain the continuing loyalty of young people in the face of dire job prospects?
Today's graduates obviously don't vote their pocketbooks. Perhaps, when they are older, this will change. But for now they have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with the president who has presided over double-digit unemployment rates for young people during his tenure.
Federal government data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sheds a light on the bleak employment prospects for graduates.
The latest BLS numbers for May show that 13.2 percent of 20-24 year olds are without jobs, compared to 7.6 percent for the overall population. Unemployment among this demographic was 6.5 percent in January of 2008 when Obama assumed the presidency.
The bad news doesn't end there for the 1.7 million young people expected to graduate in 2013.
There were 284,000 college graduates working in minimum wage jobs at the end of last year. That is double the number of grads taking home minimum pay in 2007. It represents a 70 percent increase from a decade earlier.
The unemployment rate for 16-19 year olds is worse. Unemployment for this demographic stood at 24.5 percent in the most recent BLS survey. That compares with a rate of 17.8 percent in January of 2008 when George W. Bush turned over the reigns to Obama.
Employment isn't the only crisis facing newly graduated young people. An average graduate leaves college with $27,000 in loans used to finance their education. The average starting salary for a graduate is $44,928, according to a survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.
In 2009, the average starting salary for a college graduate was $49,307. Young people burdened with college debt have counted on rising salaries to help them pay off their student loans. Instead they are losing ground.
A Department of Labor survey found that employers expect to hire 2.1 percent more new graduating college seniors than they did last year. That might sound like good news, but it is 13 percentage points lower than projections made in the fall of 2012.
Evan Feinberg is president of Generation Opportunity, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and research group that lobbies for more jobs for today's youth. He pulled no punches about the outlook for today's graduates.
"Young people are suffering disproportionately in this down economy," he said. "There are just no jobs out there."
As if to underscore his assessment, a New-York based public policy and advocacy group called Demos dug into the BLS numbers and found there are more than 5.6 million 18-34 year olds who are willing to work but can't find a job.
That group accounts for 45 percent of all unemployed Americans.
It is a sad tale. Yet young people 18-to-29 years old voted overwhelming for Obama in 2012. The president garnered 67 percent of their votes while challenger Mitt Romney carried only 30 percent. In key swing states, the youth vote tipped the scales for Obama.
So how do you explain the continuing loyalty of young people in the face of dire job prospects?
Today's graduates obviously don't vote their pocketbooks. Perhaps, when they are older, this will change. But for now they have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with the president who has presided over double-digit unemployment rates for young people during his tenure.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Farm Bill: Porky The Pig
Both sides in the battle over the farm bill have tried to dupe Americans. Democrats claimed the legislation would gut the food stamp program. Republicans argued rural farmers would go bankrupt. The truth has been missing in action during the debate that concluded last week with the House rejecting the bill.
The bill's defeat came after defections by both parties. Support from Democrats and Republicans evaporated because there was not enough pork in it to satisfy either side. That's saying something considering the 629-page legislation was stuffed with a myriad of projects to reap political benefit.
The maneuvering over farm legislation began when Democrats insisted on calling the law the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013. In past years, it was simply referred to as the Farm Bill. The spiffy new moniker was supposed to fool uneducated and uniformed Americans.
Implementation of the legislation would have cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. The final price tag was $940 billion. Although both sides griped about cuts in food stamps and crop subsidies, actual expenditures would have topped the previous farm bill.
There were sweetheart subsidies and crop insurance for the sugar, dairy, peanut and cotton industries. One subsidy would guarantee farmers of Japonica rice protection against falling market prices. This particular sticky rice is used in making sushi rolls.
Subsidizing farmers seemed like a good idea when it began in the 1930's. But today taxpayer dollars are often wasted on large companies and urbanites turned farmers, such as millionaire performers Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi, both beneficiaries of huge subsidies.
There were scores of research programs included in the bill, investigating everything from biomass feedstock development to speciality crops. Millions of dollars were earmarked for pilot programs to deal with a variety of issues, including feral swine and famine in the Horn of Africa.
Major expenditures for things that had nothing to do with farming or nutrition were crammed into the bill. For instance, millions of dollars were designated for distance learning, rural energy savings programs, broadband access and business loan support.
It is laughable to call this a "farm" bill when very little in the legislation involved actual production of crops.
The 800-pound gorilla in the legislation was food stamps, which accounts for 80 percent of the bill's expenditures. Democrats whined about taking food out of the mouths of babes. Yet the legislation would have maintained the historically high levels of spending on the program.
In President Bush's last budget, the federal government spent $39 billion on food stamps. Costs have more than doubled under Obama. Last year, the food stamp program gobbled up $85 billion in taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.
Today nearly 48 million people in the nation receive food stamps, known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That is almost one out of every six Americans. The Obama Administration has orchestrated historic growth by relaxing standards and recruiting beneficiaries.
The result has been record waste and fraud. Hard working Americans are picking up the annual $2.2 billion tab.
The farm bill deserved to be rejected. However, in all likelihood Democrats and Republicans will craft a back room deal to resurrect the legislation. That is the kind of bipartisanship that will bankrupt the nation unless it is stopped.
The bill's defeat came after defections by both parties. Support from Democrats and Republicans evaporated because there was not enough pork in it to satisfy either side. That's saying something considering the 629-page legislation was stuffed with a myriad of projects to reap political benefit.
The maneuvering over farm legislation began when Democrats insisted on calling the law the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013. In past years, it was simply referred to as the Farm Bill. The spiffy new moniker was supposed to fool uneducated and uniformed Americans.
Implementation of the legislation would have cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. The final price tag was $940 billion. Although both sides griped about cuts in food stamps and crop subsidies, actual expenditures would have topped the previous farm bill.
There were sweetheart subsidies and crop insurance for the sugar, dairy, peanut and cotton industries. One subsidy would guarantee farmers of Japonica rice protection against falling market prices. This particular sticky rice is used in making sushi rolls.
Subsidizing farmers seemed like a good idea when it began in the 1930's. But today taxpayer dollars are often wasted on large companies and urbanites turned farmers, such as millionaire performers Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi, both beneficiaries of huge subsidies.
There were scores of research programs included in the bill, investigating everything from biomass feedstock development to speciality crops. Millions of dollars were earmarked for pilot programs to deal with a variety of issues, including feral swine and famine in the Horn of Africa.
Major expenditures for things that had nothing to do with farming or nutrition were crammed into the bill. For instance, millions of dollars were designated for distance learning, rural energy savings programs, broadband access and business loan support.
It is laughable to call this a "farm" bill when very little in the legislation involved actual production of crops.
The 800-pound gorilla in the legislation was food stamps, which accounts for 80 percent of the bill's expenditures. Democrats whined about taking food out of the mouths of babes. Yet the legislation would have maintained the historically high levels of spending on the program.
In President Bush's last budget, the federal government spent $39 billion on food stamps. Costs have more than doubled under Obama. Last year, the food stamp program gobbled up $85 billion in taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.
Today nearly 48 million people in the nation receive food stamps, known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That is almost one out of every six Americans. The Obama Administration has orchestrated historic growth by relaxing standards and recruiting beneficiaries.
The result has been record waste and fraud. Hard working Americans are picking up the annual $2.2 billion tab.
The farm bill deserved to be rejected. However, in all likelihood Democrats and Republicans will craft a back room deal to resurrect the legislation. That is the kind of bipartisanship that will bankrupt the nation unless it is stopped.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Unintelligent Intelligence Bureaucracy
Public disclosure of the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance of telephone records has sparked a national debate over the right of privacy versus the need for security. While an important issue, it ignores the larger question of cataclysmic U.S. intelligence failures despite vast troves of data.
Lost in the firestorm over government snooping has been the continuing intelligence breakdowns since the nation's worst catastrophe on September 11, 2001. Recent reminders of bungling by intelligence agencies are almost too numerous to list.
For starters, military intelligence failed to make the connection between the alleged Fort Hood shooter and known terrorists. Foreign intelligence analysts were caught off guard by the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia. Despite warnings from the Russians, the intelligence community failed to act against two men accused of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Don't blame these fiascoes on the men and women who gather intelligence. In every instance, including the infamous attack of September 11, the country's intelligence community had picked up signals and information that were either ignored, discounted or lost in the unwieldily bureaucracy.
The nation should be focused on a broader debate about systemic problems that dog the more than 1,271 government agencies that work on counterterrorism intelligence. An alphabet soup of organizations are involved, including the FBI, NSA, CIA and DOD.
The problem is the gigantic government bureaucracy that has been constructed to oversee the nation's intelligence programs. For example, the Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, added another layer to an estimated 854,000 government and private sector employees engaged in intelligence work.
Like all government bureaucracies, the result has been delay and distortion of information as it is filtered through the sprawling intelligence apparatus. There is redundancy, waste and duplication on a massive scale that costs taxpayers an estimated $75 billion annually, more than double intelligence spending pre-9/11,
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was supposed to fix the colossal bureaucracy. The law was designed to enhance information sharing, promote cooperation between agency directors and improve the nation's ability to thwart acts of terror on U.S. soil.
However, adding a bunch of boxes on organizational charts only exacerbated the complexity. U.S. intelligence remains discombobulated by overlapping responsibilities, bureaucratic rivalry, high turnover and muddled understanding of how each agency fits into the overall mission.
Ushering in a new intelligence director won't solve the problem. Changing the cultures of huge organizations requires more than a new face at the top. The problems are embedded in the vast agencies staffed by longtime government employees whose allegiance is first to their boss.
Americans like to think of their national intelligence agencies in almost mythic terms, thanks to television and movies that celebrate their victories. A more valid comparison might be the U.S. Post Office, a bureaucratic nightmare that strangles innovation.
The crux of the problem is not too little information and data. As recent revelations have documented, the United States mines massive amounts of data from a plethora of sources. But what good is all that information if it never reaches the right person at the right time?
Mountains of data won't keep the next terrorist attack from happening. America must untangle the organizational octopus clutching its throat and streamline intelligence gathering to facilitate quick decision making and faster response to threats.
Lost in the firestorm over government snooping has been the continuing intelligence breakdowns since the nation's worst catastrophe on September 11, 2001. Recent reminders of bungling by intelligence agencies are almost too numerous to list.
For starters, military intelligence failed to make the connection between the alleged Fort Hood shooter and known terrorists. Foreign intelligence analysts were caught off guard by the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia. Despite warnings from the Russians, the intelligence community failed to act against two men accused of the Boston Marathon bombings.
Don't blame these fiascoes on the men and women who gather intelligence. In every instance, including the infamous attack of September 11, the country's intelligence community had picked up signals and information that were either ignored, discounted or lost in the unwieldily bureaucracy.
The nation should be focused on a broader debate about systemic problems that dog the more than 1,271 government agencies that work on counterterrorism intelligence. An alphabet soup of organizations are involved, including the FBI, NSA, CIA and DOD.
The problem is the gigantic government bureaucracy that has been constructed to oversee the nation's intelligence programs. For example, the Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, added another layer to an estimated 854,000 government and private sector employees engaged in intelligence work.
Like all government bureaucracies, the result has been delay and distortion of information as it is filtered through the sprawling intelligence apparatus. There is redundancy, waste and duplication on a massive scale that costs taxpayers an estimated $75 billion annually, more than double intelligence spending pre-9/11,
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was supposed to fix the colossal bureaucracy. The law was designed to enhance information sharing, promote cooperation between agency directors and improve the nation's ability to thwart acts of terror on U.S. soil.
However, adding a bunch of boxes on organizational charts only exacerbated the complexity. U.S. intelligence remains discombobulated by overlapping responsibilities, bureaucratic rivalry, high turnover and muddled understanding of how each agency fits into the overall mission.
Ushering in a new intelligence director won't solve the problem. Changing the cultures of huge organizations requires more than a new face at the top. The problems are embedded in the vast agencies staffed by longtime government employees whose allegiance is first to their boss.
Americans like to think of their national intelligence agencies in almost mythic terms, thanks to television and movies that celebrate their victories. A more valid comparison might be the U.S. Post Office, a bureaucratic nightmare that strangles innovation.
The crux of the problem is not too little information and data. As recent revelations have documented, the United States mines massive amounts of data from a plethora of sources. But what good is all that information if it never reaches the right person at the right time?
Mountains of data won't keep the next terrorist attack from happening. America must untangle the organizational octopus clutching its throat and streamline intelligence gathering to facilitate quick decision making and faster response to threats.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The IRS: The Worst Is Yet To Come
Americans worried by recent revelations of Internal Revenue Service abuses have even more to fear when the federal government launches Obama Care on October 1. The potent agency will assume the role of chief enforcer for the president's health care mandate.
Surly IRS agents will have blanket power to snoop into Americans' medical records, impose hefty fines and penalties, award tax credits, collect taxes and distribute millions of dollars to people who require subsidies to pay for health coverage.
When Democrats designed and passed into law Obama Care, they handed over extraordinary control to the embattled IRS to strong arm citizens into acquiring health care coverage under the threat of monetary penalties.
In light of IRS scandals making daily headlines, Americans need to worry about the unprecedented opportunities for the arbitrary abuse of power. Texas Senator John Cornyn isn't waiting for the inevitable corruption likely to accompany enactment of the law.
The senator has introduced a bill, entitled "Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013," which would prevent the Secretary of Treasury or any agent, including the IRS, from enforcing Obama Care. The legislation deserves bi-partisan support and passage before the October 1 deadline.
Meanwhile, the IRS is building an evil empire. The agency has been hiring staff faster than Congress can keep track of the bodies. The IRS already has 700 employees working full time on Obama Care. Even that cadre of agents is not enough. The agency wants another 1,954 employees.
At the end of 2012, the agency had one of the largest payrolls in the federal government with 97,717 employees.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the IRS will spend $881 million of taxpayer's money to implement the law. However, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman begged Congress last year for another $13.1 billion for next year. No decision has been made on the additional funding.
Spending might be the least concern for Americans.
Leading the IRS enforcement effort will be Sarah Hall Ingram. If her name sounds familiar, it should. Ms. Ingram once served as commissioner of the IRS organization charged with overseeing tax exempt organizations. During her tenure, conservative groups were targeted for harassment.
Imagine Ms. Ingram at the head of a policing organization with the power to selectively levy penalties against groups and individuals. That should have a chilling effect on every American, Republican or Democrat.
It should be clear the IRS cannot be trusted to have any role in Obama Care. The agency should be stripped of its broad current powers, instead of being given new authority to extend its reach into medical care for Americans.
Democrats are sure to balk at any move to eviscerate the agency. But Americans have the right and the duty to send elected officials a strong message that they will not tolerate the IRS' heavy handed role in their lives any longer.
Surly IRS agents will have blanket power to snoop into Americans' medical records, impose hefty fines and penalties, award tax credits, collect taxes and distribute millions of dollars to people who require subsidies to pay for health coverage.
When Democrats designed and passed into law Obama Care, they handed over extraordinary control to the embattled IRS to strong arm citizens into acquiring health care coverage under the threat of monetary penalties.
In light of IRS scandals making daily headlines, Americans need to worry about the unprecedented opportunities for the arbitrary abuse of power. Texas Senator John Cornyn isn't waiting for the inevitable corruption likely to accompany enactment of the law.
The senator has introduced a bill, entitled "Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013," which would prevent the Secretary of Treasury or any agent, including the IRS, from enforcing Obama Care. The legislation deserves bi-partisan support and passage before the October 1 deadline.
Meanwhile, the IRS is building an evil empire. The agency has been hiring staff faster than Congress can keep track of the bodies. The IRS already has 700 employees working full time on Obama Care. Even that cadre of agents is not enough. The agency wants another 1,954 employees.
At the end of 2012, the agency had one of the largest payrolls in the federal government with 97,717 employees.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the IRS will spend $881 million of taxpayer's money to implement the law. However, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman begged Congress last year for another $13.1 billion for next year. No decision has been made on the additional funding.
Spending might be the least concern for Americans.
Leading the IRS enforcement effort will be Sarah Hall Ingram. If her name sounds familiar, it should. Ms. Ingram once served as commissioner of the IRS organization charged with overseeing tax exempt organizations. During her tenure, conservative groups were targeted for harassment.
Imagine Ms. Ingram at the head of a policing organization with the power to selectively levy penalties against groups and individuals. That should have a chilling effect on every American, Republican or Democrat.
It should be clear the IRS cannot be trusted to have any role in Obama Care. The agency should be stripped of its broad current powers, instead of being given new authority to extend its reach into medical care for Americans.
Democrats are sure to balk at any move to eviscerate the agency. But Americans have the right and the duty to send elected officials a strong message that they will not tolerate the IRS' heavy handed role in their lives any longer.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Holder: The Albatross Around Obama's Neck
Eric Holder is the 82nd person to hold the job of U.S. Attorney General. He is turning out to be the worst. The attorney general has only one equal: John Mitchell, who was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury in 1975. He served 19 months in prison for his crimes.
Holder hangs by a thread to his job despite revelations that the attorney general sought to criminalize the news media's pursuit of information leaked by government sources. The widening scandal threatens to engulf his boss, President Obama, whose ratings have nosedived.
In the latest survey conducted by Quinnipiac University, fewer than half (49%) of Americans believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy." That figure was 58 percent in the last poll on the same question in 2011.
For now, Obama stubbornly supports Holder in the face of growing news media outrage over the attorney general's heavy handedness in spying on journalists. As a result, Obama's bromance with the media has been strained after a four-year honeymoon marked by the absence of journalistic scrutiny.
In an attempt to restore media trust, Holder offered to meet with reporters about the controversy but declared the session "off the record." The New York Times, a staunch Obama advocate, demurred. The Associated Press, an Obama shill, declined to participate. Fox News and others followed suit.
This nose thumbing of an Obama confidant would have been unthinkable a year ago. But even the liberal media organizations are feeling jilted after Holder's witch hunt to suppress news coverage and intimidate journalistic enterprise.
Under Holder, the Justice Department has prosecuted six former or current government officials for leaks. That is twice as many as all previous administrations combined. Holder's unbridled attempt to stalk journalists recalls the Nixon Administration's notorious hunt for those who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
Like Nixon's former AG Mitchell, Holder also struggles with the truth. He is the master of parsing his words to obfuscate. In a recent appearance before a House committee, Holder claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press.
Later, it was learned that Holder personally signed an affidavit accusing Fox News reporter James Rosen of the criminal charge of being a "co-conspirator" in the leaking of sensitive material involving North Korea. The House Judiciary chairman pointed out the "contradiction" in a letter to Holder.
Contradiction is just Washington-speak for perjury. Holder lied. The Justice Department is now arguing that Holder was not referring specifically to the Rosen case. It is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. Even for this administration Holder has stooped to new lows in opacity.
His leader President Obama decided the best way to get to the bottom of this rancid scandal is to ask Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder. This is classic Obama. The appearance of openness passes for the real transparency Obama promised. His duplicity is beginning to rile Americans.
The president's job approval rating numbers are underwater. The Quinnipiac poll found more people have a negative view of Obama's performance than positive. Just one month ago his approval-to-disapproval percentage was 48-45. Now 49 percent of voters have a negative view of Obama.
The narcissistic Obama can take solace in the fact that Holder's numbers are even stinkier. Only 29 percent of Americans approve of the way the attorney general is handling his job. A New York Times columnist rated Holder a "weak" attorney general.
With calls for Holder's resignation echoing even among Democrats, Obama is faced with a term-defining choice. Should he force Holder to resign or continue to allow his friendship with the attorney general to cloud his judgment?
If Holder clings to his job, the president risks further alienating news organizations and journalists. That could result in more damaging media coverage. However, a worse scenario for Obama would be watching Holder end up like John Mitchell, disgraced and imprisoned.
If that happens, Americans may be treated to the spectacle of an embarrassed president shuffling into the White House press room and declaring, "I am not a crook!"
Holder hangs by a thread to his job despite revelations that the attorney general sought to criminalize the news media's pursuit of information leaked by government sources. The widening scandal threatens to engulf his boss, President Obama, whose ratings have nosedived.
In the latest survey conducted by Quinnipiac University, fewer than half (49%) of Americans believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy." That figure was 58 percent in the last poll on the same question in 2011.
For now, Obama stubbornly supports Holder in the face of growing news media outrage over the attorney general's heavy handedness in spying on journalists. As a result, Obama's bromance with the media has been strained after a four-year honeymoon marked by the absence of journalistic scrutiny.
In an attempt to restore media trust, Holder offered to meet with reporters about the controversy but declared the session "off the record." The New York Times, a staunch Obama advocate, demurred. The Associated Press, an Obama shill, declined to participate. Fox News and others followed suit.
This nose thumbing of an Obama confidant would have been unthinkable a year ago. But even the liberal media organizations are feeling jilted after Holder's witch hunt to suppress news coverage and intimidate journalistic enterprise.
Under Holder, the Justice Department has prosecuted six former or current government officials for leaks. That is twice as many as all previous administrations combined. Holder's unbridled attempt to stalk journalists recalls the Nixon Administration's notorious hunt for those who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
Like Nixon's former AG Mitchell, Holder also struggles with the truth. He is the master of parsing his words to obfuscate. In a recent appearance before a House committee, Holder claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press.
Later, it was learned that Holder personally signed an affidavit accusing Fox News reporter James Rosen of the criminal charge of being a "co-conspirator" in the leaking of sensitive material involving North Korea. The House Judiciary chairman pointed out the "contradiction" in a letter to Holder.
Contradiction is just Washington-speak for perjury. Holder lied. The Justice Department is now arguing that Holder was not referring specifically to the Rosen case. It is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. Even for this administration Holder has stooped to new lows in opacity.
His leader President Obama decided the best way to get to the bottom of this rancid scandal is to ask Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder. This is classic Obama. The appearance of openness passes for the real transparency Obama promised. His duplicity is beginning to rile Americans.
The president's job approval rating numbers are underwater. The Quinnipiac poll found more people have a negative view of Obama's performance than positive. Just one month ago his approval-to-disapproval percentage was 48-45. Now 49 percent of voters have a negative view of Obama.
The narcissistic Obama can take solace in the fact that Holder's numbers are even stinkier. Only 29 percent of Americans approve of the way the attorney general is handling his job. A New York Times columnist rated Holder a "weak" attorney general.
With calls for Holder's resignation echoing even among Democrats, Obama is faced with a term-defining choice. Should he force Holder to resign or continue to allow his friendship with the attorney general to cloud his judgment?
If Holder clings to his job, the president risks further alienating news organizations and journalists. That could result in more damaging media coverage. However, a worse scenario for Obama would be watching Holder end up like John Mitchell, disgraced and imprisoned.
If that happens, Americans may be treated to the spectacle of an embarrassed president shuffling into the White House press room and declaring, "I am not a crook!"
Monday, May 27, 2013
Buying Votes With Taxpayer Bail Outs
Even the shackles of sequestration haven't stopped the Obama Administration from dreaming up new schemes for government handouts.
In the latest hustle, those twin mortgage misfits, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have created an insidious subterfuge to reward irresponsible behavior at the expense of taxpayers who bailed out the agencies five years ago.
In a little noticed move, the mortgage giants have announced they will offer lower payments to borrowers who become 90 days or more past due without requiring any proof of hardship. Fannie and Freddie bragged the plan would reduce monthly mortgage payments 30 percent. Repayment terms would be extended to 40 years under the plan.
With implementation scheduled in July, Democrats also are pushing behind the scenes for even more aggressive loan modifications, including reductions in the principal owed by distressed borrowers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 1.2 million borrowers would be eligible under the arrangement.
These maneuvers are more about politics than economic reality.
Housing prices have rebounded in most markets. Sales are on the upswing. The share of homeowners behind in their payments is shrinking. The latest figures reveal that borrower delinquencies have dipped to their lowest level since 2008, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
When the need was greatest during 2008, the Obama Administration rolled out flawed programs aimed at struggling homeowners. The arrangements were roundly criticized by academics and policymakers. The programs, designed to reach 3 million borrowers, only had 900,000 takers.
Past failures have been swept under the rug in the mad rush to dole out government favors before the mid-term elections.
With the latest gimmick, Fannie and Freddie are eliminating most paperwork used to establish a genuine hardship. Instead, they will aggressively court borrowers with letters containing the loan modification offer. Lower payment terms will be offered to borrowers without having to document their finances.
Once a homeowners inks the offer, the reduced remittances automatically become permanent after three payments are made. Like magic, poof, the homeowner gets to pay less money while occupying a home he couldn't afford. Homeowners who kept up their payments get nothing.
In case you have forgotten, Fannie and Freddie went belly up in 2008. Taxpayers shelled out $137 billion to bail out the firms, which were taken over by the Treasury Department. Although the government backed companies have begun repaying Treasury, taxpayers are out $127 billion.
A bi-partisan policy group, which includes former Democrat Sen. George Mitchell and ex-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is calling for replacing Freddie and Fannie with a public guarantor to oversee the mortgage market.
One proposal by the group would wind down Fannie and Freddie. The suggestion is long overdue. The mortgage behemoths deserve to be scrapped before their risky lending behavior leads to another plea for a taxpayer bailout.
In the latest hustle, those twin mortgage misfits, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have created an insidious subterfuge to reward irresponsible behavior at the expense of taxpayers who bailed out the agencies five years ago.
In a little noticed move, the mortgage giants have announced they will offer lower payments to borrowers who become 90 days or more past due without requiring any proof of hardship. Fannie and Freddie bragged the plan would reduce monthly mortgage payments 30 percent. Repayment terms would be extended to 40 years under the plan.
With implementation scheduled in July, Democrats also are pushing behind the scenes for even more aggressive loan modifications, including reductions in the principal owed by distressed borrowers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 1.2 million borrowers would be eligible under the arrangement.
These maneuvers are more about politics than economic reality.
Housing prices have rebounded in most markets. Sales are on the upswing. The share of homeowners behind in their payments is shrinking. The latest figures reveal that borrower delinquencies have dipped to their lowest level since 2008, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
When the need was greatest during 2008, the Obama Administration rolled out flawed programs aimed at struggling homeowners. The arrangements were roundly criticized by academics and policymakers. The programs, designed to reach 3 million borrowers, only had 900,000 takers.
Past failures have been swept under the rug in the mad rush to dole out government favors before the mid-term elections.
With the latest gimmick, Fannie and Freddie are eliminating most paperwork used to establish a genuine hardship. Instead, they will aggressively court borrowers with letters containing the loan modification offer. Lower payment terms will be offered to borrowers without having to document their finances.
Once a homeowners inks the offer, the reduced remittances automatically become permanent after three payments are made. Like magic, poof, the homeowner gets to pay less money while occupying a home he couldn't afford. Homeowners who kept up their payments get nothing.
In case you have forgotten, Fannie and Freddie went belly up in 2008. Taxpayers shelled out $137 billion to bail out the firms, which were taken over by the Treasury Department. Although the government backed companies have begun repaying Treasury, taxpayers are out $127 billion.
A bi-partisan policy group, which includes former Democrat Sen. George Mitchell and ex-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, is calling for replacing Freddie and Fannie with a public guarantor to oversee the mortgage market.
One proposal by the group would wind down Fannie and Freddie. The suggestion is long overdue. The mortgage behemoths deserve to be scrapped before their risky lending behavior leads to another plea for a taxpayer bailout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)