Government Executive - Authors - Arit John

Most Americans Believe in Obama's ISIS Plan, but Not in Him

Arit John, The Wire — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:00:00 -0400

Most Americans support President Obama's plan to attack the Islamic State, even though a majority of Americans don't think it will work.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 68 percent of Americans have "very little" (31 percent) or "just some" (37 percent) confidence in Obama's ability to degrade and destroy ISIS. According to the poll, Obama's foreign policy approval rating is 38 percent.

At the same time, 62 percent of Americans support the president's plan to act in Iraq and Syria. A separate WSJ/NBC poll asked people before and after Obama's speech is they supported action in Iraq and Syria — 65 percent did before his speech and 68 percent did afterwards. The WSJ/NBC poll was conducted before the Islamic statebeheaded British aid worker David Haines.

Aaron Blake at The Washington Post argues that there are two reasons for America's lack of optimism. First, between Afghanistan and Iraq, America's record in the Middle East isn't great. Second, the president has a history of being seen as not tough enough. That perception has grown throughout his presidency — according to polls by the Pew Research Center, 38 percent of Americans thought Obama's foreign policy wasn't tough enough in June 2009. Last month, that number had risen to 54 percent.

It's not clear how actions in Iraq and Syria will affect Obama's foreign policy approval rating, but it is clear that speeches have a minimal affect. Fifty-three percent of Americans said their opinion of the president was unchanged after last week's speech — 26 percent said they had a better impression of the president and 20 percent said they liked him less.

]]>

Rand Paul Doesn't Really Want To Repeal Every Executive Order Ever

Arit John, The Wire — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:07:30 -0400

For a brief moment Friday, many were under the impression that Republican Sen. Rand Paul would want to repeal all executive orders as president, probably because he said that he would repeal all executive orders if he was president. But as a Paul aide told The Huffington Post, the senator didn't mean to be taken at his word.

"Senator Paul's statement was meant to emphasize this president's overt and unconstitutional executive orders," aide Doug Stafford told The Huffington Post. "It was not meant to be taken literally."

During a talk with the New Hampshire chapter of Generation Opportunity (a millennial-focused group best known for using a creepy Uncle Sam mascot to convince people not to enroll in Obamacare) a young man asked Paul if he would repeal any executive orders. “I think the first executive order that I would issue would be to repeal all previous executive orders,” Paul said, according to Breitbart. He continued:

Democracy is messy, but you have to build consensus to pass things. But it’s also in some ways good, because a lot of laws take away your freedom. So it should be hard to pass a law. And it, frankly, when you do it the proper way, is.

In an interview with Breitbart after the talk, Paul said that he believed President Obama is "destroying the separation of powers." While he disagrees with the administration's policies, "the problem is is he’s doing it in an unconstitutional way."Accusing Obama of executive overreach is a common theme among Republicans. And while Obama has issued fewer orders than any president since FDR, Republicans argue it's the content of the orders that's the problem. That's why House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, are suing Obama over his order to delay Obamacare's employer mandate, even though Republicans don't actually like the employer mandate.

Still, to repeal all of the tens of thousands of executive orders would be a stretch.Some executive orders — like 2012's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order that allows people brought into the country illegally as children to work — are more controversial than others, but many would be more controversial to eliminate. There is an order that offers assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an order that ended employment discrimination by federal contractors, and an order that desegregated the armed forces.

(Image via Flickr user Talk Radio News Service)

]]>

Mitt Romney's Friends Keep Pushing Him to Run for President

Arit John, The Wire — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:00:00 -0400

Democrats have Hillary Clinton, but Republicans still lack a clear 2016 frontrunner to direct their speculation toward. It's that vacuum of power that is giving rise to the Romney 2016 buzz, an enlistment campaign being pushed most aggressively by his friends and admirers.

In a piece for Politico magazine Robert C. O'Brien and Hugh Hewitt, two self-proclaimed Romney allies — "both Romney supporters in 2012, with Hewitt openly supporting his election on the air and O’Brien as part of the campaign team" — made the case for a Romney threepeat in 2016. Their argument boils down to this:

Running a third time doesn't make him a loser — Ronald Reagan went through three GOP nomination cycles, "a fact that seems unknown to a younger generation of political pundits (as indeed, most of this history is)"
Netflix's Mitt documentary showed a different side of the former governor, "a caring father, an earnest patriot and a warm and funny person"
Romney has experience. The two reference Malcolm Gladwell's pseudoscientific 10,000 hours rule "and—whatever its scientific validity—Romney is a poster boy for it."
Hillary Clinton is probably afraid of him. "It is a good bet that Hillary fears a Romney three-peat more than she does the first-time national candidacy of any of the other potential GOP nominees."
He can handle the primary season better than other talented orators like Ted Cruz

While the case for Romney is shaky — Damon Winkler at The Week noted that he's one of the few people who would make Hillary Clinton's "dead broke" comments seem populist — there are valid reasons for Romney support. As Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post argued, "there's a strong narrative — particularly among Republicans — that Romney was right about much of what he said in 2012 about President Obama and the country."

And the rest of the GOP field — from Rand "I'm not an isolationist" Paul to Chris "Bridgegate" Christie — isn't looking too good in comparison. At least one poll showsRomney crushing the competition in a potential New Hampshire primary.

But Romney has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to run, even if he's been less convincing in recent weeks. In January, when The New York Times asked if he was considering a third run, he said "Oh, no, no, no," followed by, "No, no, no, no, no," and "No, no, no. People are always gracious and say, ‘Oh, you should run again.’ I’m not running again." Last month, that turned into "circumstances can change," but he's not running.

Still, that hasn't stopped a series of well-meaning friends from saying he should give it another shot. In July, the Draft Mitt campaign was launched by Utah Republican Party Chairman James Evans. A month later Romney's former national finance chairman Spencer Zwick called the group a "distraction" and asked people to avoid even signing up (the petition had more than 114,600 signatures), according to Deseret News. And in a cute joint appearance together last month, Romney and his former running mate Paul Ryan each said the other should run for office.

But ultimately, your friends can only do so much. "But limited or full-throttle, Romney would have to say “yes,” not “circumstances can change” to set the wheels in motion," O'Brien and Hewitt wrote. "It will be his choice."

(Image via Maria Dryfhout / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Here's What Congress Tweeted While Obama Was Asking for Their Support Against ISIL

Arit John, The Wire — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:05:58 -0400

As President Obama addressed the American people tonight on the administration's plans to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS, he repeatedly mentioned that he wants Congress's support for his plans. On Twitter, Congress's reaction during and immediately after the speech was either disparaging, supportive, or completely off-topic. Here's a classification of the most common congressional responses:

Benghazi

At one point, Obama noted that "tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked." But he didn't mention that tomorrow is also the anniversary of the Benghazi attack:

Mr. President, tomorrow also marks two years since we lost four brave Americans in #Benghazi.
— Randy Weber (@TXRandy14) September 11, 2014

Tomorrow is also a painful anniversary for the families of those lost on Sept. 11, 2001 and on Sept. 11, 2012.
— Rep. Steve Stockman (@SteveWorks4You) September 11, 2014

Quotes and observations related to the speech

Joe Biden is a good Vice President (and President of the Senate) in the way a good wingman talks you up to potential dates:

"We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are." —President Obama on #ISIL
— Vice President Biden (@VP) September 11, 2014

Rep. Steve Stockman noted that Christian charities are also assisting refugees:

Many great Christian charities are also assisting refugees victimized by ISIS terrorists.
— Rep. Steve Stockman (@SteveWorks4You) September 11, 2014

Criticisms of completely unrelated policy issues

Here we have the scheduled manual tweets that possibly should have been scheduled for another time. Or maybe this evening really was a good time to also talk about Obamacare:

Obamacare's bill for small businesses? Big bucks, fewer jobs http://t.co/BgaqXyGW5t
— RepKevinBrady (@RepKevinBrady) September 11, 2014

and Keystone:

Our energy independence would be farther along if the President would approve the #KXL pipeline. #Yes2Energy
— Randy Weber (@TXRandy14) September 11, 2014

Here is a statement on what Obama just said

As soon as the president finished speaking, Congressional offices released a massive wave of statements about the need for [insert vague description of a strategy here]. Many of these statements were filled with "but"s. For example, Rep. Linda Sanchez supports heightened aggression against ISIS, but "I have reservations about expanding airstrikes into Syria." Speaker John Boehner supports training and equipping Iraqi forces, "but I remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement at a time when ISIL’s momentum and territorial gains need to be immediately halted and reversed."

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy supports pretty much everything Obama wants to do, but... "But more must be done ... We must recognize ISIL is but a symptom of a broader terrorist threat that has been ignored for too long by this Administration."

What do you think?

Some members of Congress know that the best way to engage with your followers is to start a conversation:

Now that the President has addressed the country, what are your thoughts on his plan to take on ISIS?
— Rep. Bob Gibbs (@RepBobGibbs) September 11, 2014

What do you think about the chances of success of POTUS's plan for destroying ISIS? Yes or No?
— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 11, 2014

If you had to define the "Obama Doctrine" ..... What would you say? #tcot #ActOnISIS
— Rep. Jeff Duncan (@RepJeffDuncan) September 11, 2014

(Top image via Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com )

]]>

Two Government Agencies Are Feuding Over How Red States Should Expand Medicaid

Arit John, The Wire — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:00:00 -0400

When Arkansas asked the government for a waiver to expand Medicaid using the "private option" — taking money for Medicaid and using it to buy private health insurance for the poor — to provide insurance to 200,000 low-income residents, the state had to prove that its plan wouldn't cost more than a regular Medicaid expansion.

A new report from the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan government watchdog, argues that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services didn't get enough proof that Arkansas's private option would cost less than a normal Medicaid expansion when it granted the state a Medicaid waiver in September 2013. In fact, the GAO argues that the spending limit the government gave Arkansas based on the state's estimates should have been 24 percent lower, or about $778 million less.

The problem is that Arkansas used an untested theory to reach the conclusion that the private option is cheaper than normal Medicaid. David Ramsey at The Arkansas Times has a great explanation here, but basically Arkansas's argument went like this: If 200,000 people get Medicaid insurance, the state needs more doctors who take Medicaid. Doctors get reimbursed less by Medicaid, so they don't accept it. To get more Medicaid doctors, you have to raise the Medicaid reimbursement rate to what private insurance pays doctors. If you do that, private insurance and Medicaid cost the same thing.

The GAO is not impressed by theories, and criticized HHS for not getting adequate proof from states that their cost estimates are accurate. "It’s clear that the GAO and HHS have a disagreement over this process that dates back years, and that really has little to do with Arkansas," the Arkansas Department of Health said in a statement. The GAO office openly acknowledges it has "long-standing concerns with HHS’s policy, process, and criteria for reviewing and approving" Medicaid waivers in its report.

The GAO also argues that HHS is letting other states use unsubstantiated numbers. When the GAO provided this report to HHS, the Department of Health "disagreed with GAO’s conclusion that HHS continues to allow states to use questionable methods and assumptions when developing cost projections," according to the report. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Indiana are all in the process of launching their own private options.

Technically, the GAO is right — there's no hard data that proves that the private options is cheaper and, as The Incidental Economist notes, most people following news of the private option were skeptical. But even the GAO doesn't really know what information is wants, and doesn't offer any suggestions. At this point there's no way to tell if Arkansas's math was right.

More importantly, this was the only way Medicaid was going to pass in Arkansas and other states exploring the private option. The argument from red state governors is that Medicaid is a broken system that needs to reformed. The private option allows them to take federal money to insure low income people without selling out. Now Arkansas just has to prove that the private option really is cheaper.

(Image via Stephen Finn/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Rand Paul Will Have to Choose Between the Senate and the White House

Arit John, The Wire — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 17:28:15 -0400

If Sen. Rand Paul runs for president and loses, no one will be saving his Senate seat for him. Under Kentucky law, a candidate cannot appear on the ballot more than once, meaning that Paul can't seek reelection for his current job and run for president on the 2016 ballot. Paul's campaign has argued that he's only said he's running for the senate, but he did try to get the law changed.

As The Washington Examiner noted, Kentucky law only allows candidates to appear twice on a ballot under special circumstances that don't apply to Paul. Worse, the deadline to file for the senate race in Kentucky is before the first primary in Iowa. And while the Paul spokeswoman emphasized Wednesday that "the only position Senator Paul has said he is running for is re-election to the Senate," it doesn't seem that way. Throughout the summer Paul has been visiting Iowa, a necessity for possible presidential candidates, and repeatedly attacking his (as of now) likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The argument against a possible 2016 run is even less convincing when you consider that Paul has been worried about this ballot law for several months. In March, The Washington Times reported that Paul lobbied state officials to change the law, on the grounds that it was "unconstitutional." “The purpose of the bill will be to make clear that Rand Paul or anyone in a similar situation in Kentucky can run for both offices in the same year,” Kentucky Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer told The Times.

The bill didn't succeed, and Kentucky residents are more than okay with that.According to a recent poll, 66 percent of Kentuckians are against changing the law, including 54 percent of Paul's fellow Republicans. In fact, 24 percent think he should just run for the senate, 22 percent think he should run for president but only 15 percent think he should run for both. Meanwhile 33 percent think he shouldn't run for anything at all.

(Image via Flickr user Talk Radio News Service)

]]>

Police Departments Keep Losing Their Military Humvees and Assault Rifles

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:08:09 -0400

One thing worse than a police department misusing a military Humvee is a joyrider misusing a military Humvee he stole from the cops. Police in Palestine, Arkansas, a small town of 700, found that out the hard way when a resident stole the vehicle, went for a spin and crashed into a tree. Now the force uses it as spare parts for its other Humvee.

Palestine Police Chief Stanley Barnes told Yahoo News “it never crossed my mind” that someone might try to steal the vehicle, which is maybe why it took the force a week to realize the Humvee was missing (stolen Humvees should be reported to the Pentagon within 24 hours). This has been a particularly good year for Humvee thieves — in July, Missouri officials apprehended a man they believed stole the vehicle from the St. Francois County police to rob convenience stores.

Yahoo found that at least four police departments have had their Pentagon issued Humvees stolen in the last five years. And a recent Fusion report found that 184 state and local police departments across the country have been suspended from the Pentagon's 1033 program for losing equipment, mostly assault rifles, pistols, shotguns, and Humvees.

But suspension from the 1033 program takes more than a stolen Humvee. St. Francois County reported its missing vehicle within 24 hours and avoided suspension. Even police forces that do get suspended still get to keep the equipment they already have. Fusion found that it's only after repeated "accountability of weapons" issues that some departments have been forced to return all of their weapons.

These are the issues Congress and the White House will have to examine when they review the 1033 program later this month. As The New York Times reported last month, the White House will determine whether police departments have the training to use the weapons, whether the program was a good idea in the first place and whether the government is keeping a close enough eye on its inventory. Recent evidence seems to suggest it doesn't.

In addition to lost weapons, poor record keeping, corruption and fraud also play into the mismanagement of the 1033 program. Tim Lynch, the director of the Cato Institute's criminal justice program told Fusion that 1033 is "obviously very sloppy (and) we don't know where these weapons are going, whether they are really lost, or whether there is corruption involved." In an interview with The Wire earlier this month Lynch called for the program to be shut down, adding that police departments are more reasonable when they have to spend their own money. "They have to decide whether they need a new police car or a new officer or an armored vehicle from the Pentagon," Lynch said.

]]>

National Guard Turns to Food Banks Because Rick Perry Hasn't Paid Them

Arit John, The Wire — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:00:00 -0400

The National Guard troops Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered to the U.S. Mexico border last month are using food and gas aid from a local food bank because they haven't been paid in weeks, according to the KGBT. Members of the National Guard reach out for assistance for 50 troops who were deployed around August 11 visited the food banks, and members of the group told KGBT that they won't be paid until September 5.

(Update 3:30pm: In a statement to The Wire, Gov. Perry's press office challenged the account given by the RGV food bank, and said the Texas National Guard only has a record of two troops receiving aid.)

Last month, Perry announced he was sending 1,000 National Guard troops to defend the border in the wake of inaction from the federal government. The move was met with skepticism, especially from border town sheriffs who wanted the resources to go towards police officers, since National Guard troops aren't allowed to arrest or detain undocumented immigrants. Others balked at the price — it will cost an estimated $12 million a month to sustain the troops, and as of last month the state wasn't sure how it would pay that price.

Now it seems that the troops arrived before the funds did. Democratic state Rep. Rene Olivera, who earlier condemned the "militarization" of the border, said "it's embarrassing that our troops have to stand in a food pantry line. This is the fault of the state."

Here's the full statement from Perry's office:

First, the suggestion that Guardsmen aren’t getting paid is false. They are getting paid on a regular schedule with their first pay day on Sept. 5, then every two weeks after that. Second, based on information provided by the Texas National Guard, two soldiers sought and received assistance through the Family Assistance Coordinator. Family Assistance Coordinators routinely help Guardsmen all across the state with needs they may have, regardless of deployment or duty status. Also, based on information provided by the Guard, they currently have no indication that any Guardsmen received any assistance from the Rio Grande Valley Food Bank.

Governor Perry is confident the Guard stands ready to assist to any Soldier who may need it, regardless of deployment or duty status so they can meet the needs of their family, or the mission they are performing.

]]>

The GOP Made an 8-Bit Style Video Game to Win the Senate

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:00:00 -0400

Have you ever wondered what Super Mario would be like if the game was less well designed and more patriotic? The National Republican Senatorial Committee has you covered with "Giopi: 2014 Mission Majority," a game featuring a well named elephant (Giopi — get it?) dressed like a frat boy on the Fourth of July.

Giopi's life is in your hands. You have four lives and two and a half hours (per round) to battle the liberal obstacles and villains separating you from total domination of the Senate, or at least 51 percent domination of the Senate.

Via NRSC

As a video game, Mission Majority isn't that great. Depending on how good you are at video games (I am not good), your game experience will either be straightforward and frustrating, or you'll get stuck in level 3 and have to ask one of your co-workers what happens in level 4 so you can finish writing your article.

The Wire's Kevin O'Keeffe thought the game's physics were off. "The art design is as bad as the physics – it's all like a cheap Mario knockoff, but without any of the fun," he said. "I can't imagine any conservative voters loving this, either, because beyond the easy chuckles of the weird anti-Democrat soundbites, it's just a frustrating experience."

The Wire's David Sims was equally unimpressed. "Running and jumping on things stopped being fun in 1981! And why have two villains (the tax guys and the...guy throwing stuff?) when they both do basically the same thing? Where's the political theater, GOP? Where's the gamesmanship?"

It turns out Mission Majority is a subtle game with little room for much theater. The jokes — famous to obscure quotes from Democrats and partisan quips — aren't laugh out loud funny so much as "oh, yes, I remember Bill O'Reilly discussing that on Fox News last fall." As for gamesmanship, the GOP has a very straightforward plan to unlock the Senate.

Each round has three keys, and you have four lives to retrieve them. You can die by falling into bottomless pits — possibly a metaphor for the kind of "legitimate rape" comments that can derail a campaign — or bumping into one the game's liberal villains. What kinds of villains? Well, there's the Mudslingers:

The "empty rhetoric" the Mudslinger hurls is The Washington Post 's Chris Cillizza making a point Republicans have made over and over — that Obama has a competency problem. While discussing an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that showed a growing number of Americans didn't think the president was up for the job, Cillizza said :

...the reality is there's a Democrat in the White House. And I think he does struggle under that sort of broad competency umbrella...

Unlike other Republican strategists, the NRSC h asn't been afraid to make Obama's competence a midterm talking point . What the game leaves out is what Cillizza said right before — if a Republican was in the White House he or she would be dealing with the same problem.

And there's the "job-destroying" Taxer:

Taxers shout out Democrats' greatest gaffes when you land on them. For example:

"If you like you doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor." (Also, " if you like your health plan you can keep your health plan ."
" You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate ."
" You didn't build that ."
" What difference at this point does it make? "
" There's no towel service ."

And that brings us to the real problem with the game. The "towel service" gaffe is from Bruce Braley, the Democratic senate candidate in what The Daily Beast called "Iowa's ugliest senate campaign ever" and definitely it's most bizarre. The fact that a moderately well known candidate's embarrassing remarks are being presented along side Republican's favorite screw ups (including a Politifact lie of the year ) shows who the main audience is for the game. The problem is, the same people who will find that joke funny and care whether Joni Ernst beats Braley are either 1) Iowans or 2) Republicans. That latter group is probably too old to spend the afternoon playing video games.

]]>

Eric Holder Almost Gives the Ferguson Race Speech Obama Couldn't

Arit John, The Wire — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:00:00 -0400

The same supporters of President Obama who were frustrated with the president's failure to say something meaningful about race in Ferguson will likely find solace in Attorney General Eric Holder's comments Wednesday. While meeting with Ferguson residents at a community college, Holder discussed his personal experiences with the police. "I understand that mistrust," Holder said. "I am the Attorney General of the United States. But I am also a black man."

Leading up to Holder's visit, commenters noted that he'd have to juggle his reputation for being frank on race with the delicate nature of an ongoing investigation. During his comments, Holder focused on the work the Civil Rights Division and the need for action, not just dialogue, in Ferguson. On the subject of the relationship between communities and law enforcement, he recounted his own experiences with racial profiling:

We have seen a great deal of progress over the years. But we also see problems and these problems stem from mistrust and mutual suspicion ... I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over.... 'Let me search your car'... Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

Compare that to the president's less personal commentary from Monday:

In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear. And through initiatives like My Brother’s Keeper, I’m personally committed to changing both perception and reality.

This is what people expected from Holder. Author and Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson explained it to The New York Times this way: Obama's speech on Monday was a “stunning epic failure” but Holder is “an up and down race man who understands the moral consequences of the law on the lives of black people.” A June Politico profile summed it up more succinctly: "Holder has been willing to say the things Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t say about race."

(Image via Flickr user northcharleston)

]]>

A Brief History of President Obama Not Having Any Friends

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:00:00 -0400

Once again, we're reminded that President Obama is aloof and hasn't made friends in Congress, even with his fellow Democrats, thanks to a new story from The New York Times. The Times story interviews several Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid's chief of staff, Sen. Joe Manchin and others, most of whom grumbled about not wishing Obama would try harder to help them out.

Obama's aversion to schmoozing isn't new, something The Times admits, writing "grumbling by lawmakers about a president is nothing unusual." But!:

What is striking now is the way prominent Democrats’ views of Mr. Obama’s shortcomings are spilling out into public, and how resigned many seem that the relationship will never improve.

Reid's discontent, voiced by his staffer, is pretty high profile complaining, but there's never been a shortage of politicians, including Democrats, ready to decry Obama's aloofness. Over the years dozens of stories have described the relationship between a president who wants to be "above it all" and members of Congress who want the president to pose for photos they can hang on their walls:

7/26/14: Democrats And Republicans Complain Obama Is Too Aloof With Congress

After the president requested $3.7 million to deal with the border crisis, several Congress members complained about "ad hoc approach that shuns appeals to opponents and doesn't reward allies," according to the Associated Press. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat, said "I try never to negotiate against myself, that's all I can tell you," in reference to the way the White House handled things. Congress has yet to pass a border bill.

7/9/14: Dem. Rep. Rips Obama: 'Aloof,' 'Bizarre,' and 'Detached'

Rep. Henry Cuellar told MSNBC that it was "bizarre" that the president didn't visit the border during his trips to Colorado and Texas last month. "He either can roll up his sleeves and go down to the border, or he can just look aloof and detached and not go to the border, send surrogates down there, and say that he's got everything under control," Cuellar said. "It Just floored me, because if he's saying he's too busy to go to the border but you have time to drink beer, play pool." Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, is up for re-election.

6/1/2014: "The Obama Paradox"

Politico dived deep into the president's new state of mind at the end of his presidency — he's looking to his future but also doing things he wants to do, like socializing with celebrities. But his new social stance didn't extend to catching up with lawmakers. "When Democratic lawmakers gather in private, their complaints about Obama’s perennial lack of outreach to them are frequent and sustained," Politico noted.

Fall 2012: Schmooze or Lose

Before the 2012 election, there was speculation that the president's inability to schmooze with wealthy Democratic donors might cost him the presidency. Obama failed to schedule a high profile meeting with billionaire George Soros, he "found this back-door treatment confounding. 'He feels hurt,' a Democratic donor," told The New Yorker that August. A September New York Times profile of white House advisor Valerie Jarrett blamed the snub on her and noted that "Soros, who has spent tens of millions of dollars on Democratic candidates and causes, is largely sitting on the sidelines this presidential election."

Another Times piece from September 2012 summed it up with: "His relationship with most Democratic members of Congress lies somewhere between correct and cold. They believe that personal political loyalties are not an Obama priority."Obama countered by saying he'd rather spend time with his kids than with donors.

1/9/2012: "...One of the criticisms people make about your style of diplomacy is that it’s very cool, it’s aloof"

In 2012, Obama started pushing back against the idea that bad personal relationships were at the root of Congressional gridlock. "You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships," he told Fareed Zakaria at Time. "My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties." That's why, he argued, the D.C. press corps paint him as aloof, but really he's just spending time with his kids.

10/7/11: "Obama, the Loner President"

Writing for The Washington Post, Scott Wilson argued that Obama had a people problem that would factor into his re-election campaign. "His relationship with Democrats on Capitol Hill is frosty, to be generous," Wilson wrote. "Personal lobbying on behalf of legislation? He prefers to leave that to Vice President Biden, an old-school political charmer."

December 2010: "$#!% Joe Biden Says"

Vice President Joe Biden offered a Bidenesuq explanation for the president's aloofness during a GQ interview: "There's nothing aloof about him ... I think what it is, is he's so brilliant. He is an intellectual."

8/2/10: "Obama vs Congressional Black Caucus"

Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post noted that the CBC was upset with the president over his criticism of Rep. Charlie Rangel (engaged in an ethics scandal), and "much of politics is about relationships, and the simple fact is that Obama does not have long ties with many of the CBC members outside of the Illinois delegation, according to a source familiar with the caucus."

10/2/08: "Barack Obama is 'aloof' says British ambassador to US"

Back when Obama was just the frontrunner in the upcoming election, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador, argued that the future president was "maybe aloof, insensitive," The Telegraph reported. He also called him "decidedly liberal," but praised his star quality and oratory skills.

]]>

Congress Members Can't Have the Same Obamacare As Everyone Else

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:00:00 -0400

Democratic Rep. Ron Barber joined the list of patriotic lawmakers who want you to know they're living with Obamacare just like you on Monday, when he announced his plans to donate the thousands of dollars he receives from his employer (the government) to subsidize his health insurance to a local charity.

In other words, Rep. Barber joins a long list of politicians who have forgotten that lawmakers exempted themselves from that part of the health care law when they wrote it.

Barber, who sponsored a bill to end the government's contribution to lawmakers' health care plans, will donate the government's contribution to his insurance to charity for the rest of this year. “Members of Congress must play by the same rules as other Americans,” Barber said, according to The Hill. “So I have pledged to donate the full amount of the Affordable Care Act government subsidy to southern Arizona charities each month during 2014.”

The thing is the estimated 150 million Americans who receive employer-sponsored health insurance aren't eligible for Obamacare. But, as Politifact explained, Obamacare passed with amendment from Sen. Chuck Grassley that required Congress to apply for insurance through the exchanges. The amendment didn't, however, say whether the government's contribution to those plans would follow. Last August the U.S. Office of Personnel Management decided that Congress could receive their employer contribution.

That led to Sen. David Vitter's amendment to rescind the contribution (or, in his words, Congress' "Obamacare exemption"). House Speaker John Boehner reportedly worked with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make sure staffers could keep their contribution, which Congress still receives. And that leads us to the present, where leaders like Rep. Barber continue to perpetuate the myth that enrolling in an unsubsidized Obamacare plan is the option most Americans face. Regardless of one's opinion of the health care law that just isn't true.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2012 48 percent of American had employer plans, 30 percent were enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare, 15 percent were uninsured, and 6 percent were insured through "other" private or public options, basically the individual market. Thanks in part to Obamacare, the number of uninsured has since gone down, but the basic idea is clear: when Barber, who is up for re-election, says he wants to be just like the rest of Americans, he means he wants to be like the small fraction enrolled in Obamacare.

(Image via Flickr user itif)

]]>

300,000 People Could Lose Their Obamacare If They Don't Prove Their Residency

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:00:00 -0400

More than 300,000 Obamacare enrollees have yet to provide information on their legal residency or citizenship, according to the government . Those individuals have until September 5 to send complete information to the government before losing coverage on September 30.

Where residency information is still needed. (Note: the data only includes federal exchange states.) Via HHS

According the data provided by the government, in May 970,000 people had citizenship data errors in their Obamacare applications. As of August, 450,000 of those cases have been resolved, 210,000 are in progress and 60,000 new documents arrive every day. The 310,000 remaining applicants will receive two more phone calls and one more email.

In June the Associated Press reported that 2 million enrollees were missing information on immigration, citizenship and income that could jeopardize their subsidies and insurance plans. At the time the Department of Health and Human Services expected that most the of inconsistencies would be cleared up by the end of the summer.

Critics of the health care law have noted that the government doesn't have a system in place to verify information it receives from consumers. Last month the Government Accountability Office was able to gain subsidized health insurance for 11 out of 18 fake accounts . The government has argued that a data inconsistency doesn't mean there's a problem with the application. As The New York Times noted earlier this summer, consumers often run into problems uploading files to Healthcare.gov, or are asked to send in files they've already sent.

]]>

An Awkward Party With President Obama Is the Least of Hillary Clinton's Problems

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:00:00 -0400

Since Hillary Clinton made it perfectly clear what she thinks of President Obama's "don't do stupid stuff" foreign policy, the question now is how awkward things will be between them. As far as in-person encounters go, we'll likely reach peak discomfort when the two cross paths at a birthday party Wednesday. But for Clinton, the real battle will be withstanding the wave of criticism her comments have brought on.

Mike Allen at Politico reports that Clinton and Obama will likely see each other for the first time tomorrow night, when they attend the same Martha's Vineyard birthday party. As Allen put it, "This could be awkward." Of course, the only way to make a situation like that more awkward is to ignore it — a White House official told CNN that “the President and First Lady are very much looking forward to the occasion and seeing Former Secretary Clinton.”

Over the weekend Clinton and Obama gave rival interviews on the question of whether the U.S. government should have armed moderate Syrian rebels to prevent extremists groups like ISIL from gaining power. Speaking with Thomas Friedman at The New York Times , Obama said the idea has “always been a fantasy." During an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic , published two days later, Clinton said "the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled."

In reference to the president's "Don't do stupid stuff" mantra, she said: "Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

But while the big wigs at Martha's Vineyard will be waiting for that moment when the two have to make eye contact and pretend not to see one another, the real question is whether Clinton's unfiltered foreign policy strategy will make things awkward for her. As CBS News noted , liberals are remembering that they thought she was too hawkish in 2008, and conservatives are skeptical of her attempts to distance herself from the president's policies. The liberal advocacy group MoveOn released this statement, saying that it would "continue to stand with elected officials who oppose military escalation":

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod tweeted this dig:

Just to clarify: "Don't do stupid stuff" means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) August 12, 2014

( Clinton voted for the Iraq War .) John Cassidy at The New Yorker wrote that "what really stands from the interviews is the strident tone that Clinton adopted in her comments on Gaza and radical Islam. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones wrote that Clinton doesn't really have an organizing principle, and "it so happens that I think 'don't do stupid stuff' is a pretty good approach to foreign policy at the moment."

The Washington Post 's conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote that the interview was "the worst sort of political opportunism for which she is infamous," while the Republican National Committee sent out this cheeky memo:

Clinton is probably more worried about the backlash from her comments than whether or not Obama will say "hi" to her tomorrow.

]]>

The Obamacare Skyrocketing Premiums That Never Were

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 12:00:00 -0400

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the federal exchange's disastrous launch, we're reminded of the Obamacare nightmares that weren't. A recent report shows that, nationwide, Obamacare premiums aren't skyrocketing as many predicted.

The Health Research Institute (HRI) at PricewaterhouseCoopers analyzed premium data for 27 states and the District of Columbia and found that, on average, premiums will rise by about 7.5 percent. That's "well below the double-digit increases many feared," HRI Managing Director Ceci Connolly told The Hill on Monday.

It's important to note that national and even state-wide averages are useless to the average consumer for a number of reasons. Florida is seeing an average 13 percent increase and Oregon is seeing an overall decrease in premiums. For consumers premiums vary on the local level, but as a premature political marker of the law's success, a modest national increase is not the crisis detractors predicted.

That's not to say that everything about the health care law has gone according to plan. The next potential PR crisis for the health care law is higher premiums from insurance auto-renewals. As Sam Baker at the National Journal explained, subsidies are based on a benchmark plan. If cheaper plans pop up in your neighborhood, subsidies will be based off of that plan, not your more expensive plan. That could cost consumers who don't know they should shop around before auto enrolling.

But while that's a real concern for Obamacare, it's not definitive proof that the law has failed and needs to be repealed, like skyrocketing premiums. We're still waiting on that.

<(Image via txking / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Edward Snowden Can Stay In Russia for Three More Years

Arit John, The Wire — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:00:00 -0400

Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor turned whistleblower, has been granted permission to stay in Russia for three more years, his lawyerAnatoly G. Kucherena said Thursday.

Kucherena said during a news conference that Snowden will stay on a residency permit, not another asylum permit, and is now free to move across the country freely for up to three months, according to Russian news agency Itar-TASS. Permanent political asylum is not currently being discussed. “The case in hand is his temporary residence in the territory of the Russian Federation,” his lawyer said.

Snowden has been in legal limbo for the last week, ever since his initial political asylum grant expired on August 1. Amnesty International called on countries around the world to let Snowden travel freely and seek asylum in the country of his choice, according to the Los Angeles Times.

In June 2013 the U.S. government filed formal spying charges against snowden for leaking documents on the NSA's spying programs. Snowden was then stranded in a Moscow airport for over a month when the United States revoked his passport, until Russia granted him temporary asylum. Since then his specific whereabouts have been unknown, though he has done several media appearances, most memorably an interview with Brian Williams in May when he said he wanted to go home.

(Image via Flickr user taedc)

]]>

Washington D.C. Is Forbes' Coolest City — Here's What Went Wrong

Arit John, The Wire — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 16:14:44 -0400

Something went horribly, horribly wrong with Forbes' "America's Coolest Cities" list: it named Washington, D.C. the coolest city in America. It then went on to name other decidedly uncool cities in its top 20, including Riverside and Sacramento, Calif. As Laura J. Nelson at the Los Angeles Times put it, "If naming DC the coolest city in the US didn't sound any alarm bells, ranking Riverside the (8)th-coolest should have."

To be fair, the list just ranks how great a city is to live in. "And by 'cool,' we mean cool to live in," Forbes' writes. Still, this is a deeply unserious ranking of geographical coolness, and Forbes' flawed methodology is to blame. Forbes' ranking is based on these criteria:

Size of the City

"We sought to quantify it in terms of cities, partnering with Sperling’s BestPlaces to rank the 60 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Divisions," writes Forbes. Orlando, Fla., doesn't count because its data is messed up, but Orlando isn't cool so that's alright. The problem is the list also includes metro areas. "New York is not a top 10 'coolest city' because New York includes Wayne, NJ, and White Plains now, apparently," Philip Bump at The Washington Post noted.

Population

The list favors cities with a lot of 20-34 year olds and recent transplants. People moving to the city (the 2010 - 2013 Net Migration) implies people want to live there — or, in D.C.'s case, most of the federal government jobs are there. Diversity was also considered, which is the only thing this list gets right.

We can't deny that Washington, D.C., had the highest influx of 25-34 year olds last year — an analysis of Census data by the Brookings Institute last year showed as much. But that move was prompted by a thriving economy, and while having a job is nice, working 9-5 for The Man is not cool.

Entertainment Options

Here is where everything went so very, very wrong. The list relies too heavily on population statistics and not enough on entertainment factors. The availability of activities like "college sports events, zoos and aquariums, golf courses, ski areas, and National parks, among others," made up each city's Recreation Index, and the availability of theaters, "musical performances" and museums make up the Art & Culture Index. The availability of non-chain restaurants and bars gives the Local Eats percentage.

Even though most of the "cool" activities aren't cool (millennials don't like golf), actually cool cities score much higher in these entertainment categories. In those three categories, D.C. scores a 99, a 93 and a 68.9 percent, respectively. Riverside (8th) scores 88/93/72.2 percent.

Meanwhile, New York (11th!), a city that is subjectively cool, scores 100/100/89.9 percent. Los Angeles (16th!!) scores 99/100/78.6 percent. San Francisco (5th) scores 98/99/92.2 percent.

While most people, particularly people from New York and D.C., will question the placement of the latter city anywhere on this list, the California ranking is equally bad. (As someone who grew up more or less in the Riverside metro area, I can personally that the very essence of the area is uncool.)

]]>

Army Major General Killed in 'Inside' Attack at Afghan Military Academy

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:48:56 -0400

Update: A U.S. Army major general was killed in the Afghan insider attack. A coalition official told Afghan media the officer, the highest-ranking member of the American military to die in hostilities surrounding the Afghanistan war, was shot at close range.

Original story:

A U.S. official has told the Associated Press "about a dozen" victims of an Afghan insider attack on Tuesday were Americans, with at least one killed.

The official said the details of the attack remain unclear, however, and the number of casualties and injured victims could change. So far, the A.P. has reported that a man dressed in an Afghan army uniform opened fire on the NATO-led coalition at Camp Qargha, a base west of the capital of Kabul, wounding both Afghan and NATO troops.

"We are investigating, but it appears that an Afghan army officer opened fire," General Mohammad Afzal Aman, the chief-of-staff for operations at the Afghan Defense Ministry, told The Guardian. "Three of our officers have been injured, some [NATO] troops have also suffered casualties."

Defense Ministry Director of Operations Gen. Afzal Aman told CBS News the three senior Afghan officers included the Camp's commander Gen. Gulam Sakhi.

Camp Qargha, funded by Britain, is modeled after the renowned Sandhurst British military academy and plays a major part in training Afghanistan's 350,000 security forces. The U.S.-led coalition plans to hand over combat operations by the end of 2014.

According to The New York Times, Tuesday's shooting at the military academy was the first insider attack of its kind in Afghanistan in months. Attacks like these, in which Afghan troops would open fire on unsuspecting coalition forces, occurred frequently in 2012, with up to a dozen attacks over the course of the year.

Though little details have been released and the number of casualties remains unconfirmed, the U.K. Ministry of Defense said the incident is under investigation. Still, "it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time," it said in a statement.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan's eastern Paktia province, a guard committed a similar attack Tuesday by opening fire on NATO soldiers close to the governor's compound,Paktia police chief Zulmai Oryakhail told CBS News. The guard who opened fire died of wounds, while an ISAF soldier was taken to the hospital.

]]>

Five Gifts Obama Isn't Getting For His 53rd Birthday

Arit John, The Wire — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:36:59 -0400

It's President Obama's 53rd birthday on Monday and he started celebrating over the weekend by doing the thing he loves most: Playing golf.

He may have a powerful military and a money factory at his disposal, but just like the rest of us, he'd appreciate a few presents to make up for his disappearing youth. (And we're not talking about a Russian CD holder, a "Witcher" swag bag, or any of the other 245 gifts he's received from foreign countries since he took office.)

But also just like the rest of us, he's probably going to be disappointed.

Here, then, are five gifts that the president is not getting for his birthday.

Immigration Reform

What began as Obama's top domestic priority following his re-election has become the bane of his second term. House Republicans have ignored a comprehensive Senate bill and done nothing on their own, while some of Obama's allies on the leftturned on him over his administration's deportation policies.

Now, a migrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border has given the president a new immigration headache and made a once-winning political issue for him a loser.

Obama may act on his own to try to stem the border crisis and grant temporary worker permits to undocumented immigrants, but barring a major political turnaround, comprehensive immigration reform is likely dead for the duration of his presidency.

World Peace

Foreign policy had been considered a strength for Obama throughout his first term. Now, the world is falling apart on his watch. Efforts to forge a Middle East peace deal have exploded into a war between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has reversed U.S. military gains in key areas of Iraq, and after an attempted reset with Russia, tensions with the former superpower are at their highest since the Cold War.

Yes, Osama Bin Laden is still dead, but Ebola is back.

Obama would surely like at least a few of these crises to calm down, but as he wearily noted on Friday, the U.S. can only do so much.

Apparently people have forgotten that America, as the most powerful country on Earth, still does not control everything around the world. And so our diplomatic efforts often take time. They often will see progress and then a step backwards. That’s been true in the Middle East. That’s been true in Europe. That’s been true in Asia. That’s the nature of world affairs. It’s not neat, and it’s not smooth."

Just a Little Bit of Credit

Five-and-a-half years into Obama's presidency, the economy is finally, at long last, turning a corner. The G.D.P. jumped by an annual rate of 4 percent in the second quarter, jobless claims are near an eight-year low, the unemployment rate of 6.2 percent is almost respectable, and the six-month streak of employers adding more than 200,000 jobs a month hasn't happened in 17 years.

Yet no one seems to be paying attention, and Obama is a little miffed.

I think it’s useful for me to end by just reminding folks that, in my first term, if I had a press conference like this, typically, everybody would want to ask about the economy and how come jobs weren’t being created, and how come the housing market is still bad, and why isn’t it working. Well, you know what, what we did worked. And the economy is better. And when I say that we’ve just had six months of more than 200,000 jobs that hasn’t happened in 17 years that shows you the power of persistence. It shows you that if you stay at it, eventually we make some progress. All right?"

Impeachment

No, really. There are few things that Obama would like more than for House Republicans to move toward impeaching him. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has taken the somewhat more cautious step of trying to sue him for circumventing Congress, and even that provocative action has been a boon for Democratic fundraising efforts ahead of the November midterm elections. With the G.O.P. likely headed for gains in Congress, Democrats need something to motivate, or outright, scare, their base into turning out to vote this fall.

Nothing would do the trick better than impeachment. While Boehner swears it's not happening, Democrats won't stop talking about it.

This weekend,Steve King predicts impeachment: http://t.co/d2kui3RsrC
— Eric Schultz (@Schultz44) July 28, 2014

3rd highest ranking Repub in House refusing to rule out pres impeachment proves how far House GOP will go to push reckless partisan agenda
— Steve Israel (@IsraelDCCC) July 27, 2014

Hey, it worked for Bill Clinton.

A Republican Alternative for Obamacare

It might not jazz up the Democratic base quite as much as impeachment, but a long-promised and long-delayed legislative proposal from Republicans to replace the Affordable Care Act would give Democrats a target to rally their voters against in the fall. While conservatives are demanding a vote on a Republican health care plan, they aren't likely to get one before the election. Boehner knows the Democrats are itching to attack it, and he's going to play it safe.

]]>

Obama Asks the GOP to 'Stop Hating All the Time'

Arit John, The Wire — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:00:00 -0400

President Obama had a clear message for House Republicans as they prepare to vote Wednesday on a bill authorizing a lawsuit against him: "Stop hating." During a speech in Kansas City, Missouri Wednesday, Obama criticized Republicans for focusing on the lawsuit instead of the economy, and said the country would be more productive if Congress did more, according to The Hill.

On the subject of the economy, the president said that the unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since 2008 and the economy grew 4 percent during the second quarter of 2014. The president argued that “we could do so much more if Congress would come on and help out a little bit ... Stop being mad all the time. Stop. Stop just hating all the time.”

Meanwhile, several protesters stood outside holding signs. “This is the first time I’ve ever protested in my life,” Clayton Ernsbarger told WDAF. “But I’ve had it up to here with the executive orders, with what’s going on at the border, and I think average Americans need to stand up and be counted and send a message.”

Later today the House will send its own message. The House is expected to pass a bill authorizing a lawsuit against the president's employer mandate delay Wednesday, largely along party lines. In Kansas City, the president pointed out that the lawsuit will be taxpayer funded. "By the way, do you know who is paying for this suit they're going to file? You," he said.

(Image via 1000 Words / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Republicans Have Lost Control of the Impeachment Plot They Hatched

Arit John, The Wire — Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:06:57 -0400

The impeachment debate is another example of fringe conservative ideology hurting the establishment's election chances. House Speaker John Boehner knows that, which is why he said Tuesday that impeachment is a "scam" created by Democrats to motivate their base to vote and donate ahead of the midterm elections, according to the Associated Press. That's half true. Democrats are fundraising off impeachment, but this conversation was started by Sarah Palin and her fans.

Democrats are capitalizing off the idea that House Republicans will try to impeach the president, and even fundraising off comments made by White House officials — last week senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said they take the impeachment threat "very seriously," and soon after the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent this email:

Now Democrats aren't even pegging their fundraising appeals on Republican threats to impeach Obama. pic.twitter.com/V1wstT2neY
— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) July 27, 2014

Between last Thursday, when the House Rules Committee voted to move forward with the lawsuit against President Obama, and Sunday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $2.1 million, making that the best four day period of the election cycle, according to The Washington Post. That was fueled by impeachment talk — the group sent nine emails mentioning it.

Byron York at the right-leaning Washington Examiner noted that while there was talk of impeaching President Bush when Democrats won the House in 2006, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was off the table. "But Boehner has not made a far-reaching, definitive statement comparable to declaring impeachment 'off the table,'" he added. (House Whip Steve Scalise also declined to say impeachment if off the table.)

That's because impeachment is popular among conservatives. It's so popular that Boehner had to explicitly state that his lawsuit "is not about impeachment ... This is about his faithfully executing the laws of our country," as he said last month. A few days later Sarah Palin (who Republicans once chose as their nominee for vice president of the United States of America) was the first major Republican to directly call for President Obama's impeachment earlier this month. All the DCCC emails in the world can't change that fact.

And a recent CNN poll found that 57 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of conservatives support impeachment. The problem is, while the GOP's base supports impeachment, the general public — aka moderate and independent voters —doesn't. As Aaron Blake at The Washington Post argued, that leaves Republicans with three options: oppose impeachment and have your seat challenged by a Tea Partier; support impeachment, though it won't pass, and prove that the GOP is run by its radical wing; or just dodge the question. But now there's a fourth option: blame Democrats for a conservative thought experiment that got out of hand.

(Image via Flickr user Gage Skidmore)

]]>

Obama Finally Floats a Refugee Plan As Support for Deportation Grows

Arit John, The Wire — Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:07:42 -0400

Obama administration officials are considering a plan that would allow Hondurans under 21 to apply for refugee status from their home country, without having to make the dangerous trek to America. Meanwhile, a new CNN poll shows that a slim majority of Americans now believe the U.S. should focus on deportations over legalization.

According to The New York Times , the proposal is just one of many being discussed, but would likely see 5,000 children applying for 1,750 spots, costing the U.S. $47 million over two years. If they program was successful it would be expanded to El Salvador and Guatemala. Officials added that the plan could be enacted through executive action, as long as it doesn't increase the number of refugees admitted into the country each year.

Guatemalan President Otto Perez, one of the three Central American presidents meeting with President Obama Friday to discuss the child migrant crisis, said Thursday that he hadn't yet heard the plan but expected a solution for all three countries. "We expect that the solution to this problem also is equal for the three countries," he told the Associated Press .

Critics of the plan argue that it changes the legal definition of a refugee — typically refugees are targeted for their religious or cultural affiliations, not general violence. At the same time, the administration's draft of the plan noted that 64.7 percent of unaccompanied migrant minors were granted asylum by immigration courts. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argued that illegal immigration would increase by an "order of magnitude" if applying for a refugee visa involved "nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”

And the recent spotlight on the child migrant crisis may be shifting America's views. In February, the Pew Research Center found that Americans were evenly split — 45 percent to 45 percent — on where increased deportations were good or bad. In July, however, 53 percent of Americans thought we should deal with the recent influx of Central American kids by "speed(ing up the) process, even if some who are eligible for asylum are deported. Another 39 percent thought we should follow the current process.

A new CNN poll, released Thursday, shows a similar drop in support for legalization (this poll also asks the same question, unlike the Pew polls):

Congress is currently attempting to legislate on President Obama's request for $3.8 billion to increase resources at the border and expedite deportations. B oth the House and the Senate have slashed that request by over $1 billion , and House Republicans are demanding a change to a 2008 human trafficking law that prevents the immediate deportation of Central Americans.

]]>

Judge Uses Domino's Pizza to Explain Obamacare Exchanges

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:22:19 -0400

Buried in today's ruling in favor of Obamacare subsidies is the perfect way to explain the case to people who aren't riveted by health care policy: talk about pizza. Hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Obamacare subsidies from federal exchanges were illegal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the exact opposite, using a lunch-time appropriate Domino's and Pizza Hut analogy.

In Judge Gregory's opinion, he argued exactly what the federal government has argued — that the federal exchange is an acceptable substitute for a state-run exchange, the same way a Domino's pizza is a decent substitute for a Pizza Hut pizza. It's "common sense," as Gregory explains:

If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

In this analogy, state-run exchanges are Pizza Hut and the federal exchange is Domino's. And, just like in real life, we can all agree that in October some pizzas (like California's) were much better than others (the federal exchange).

Gregory goes on to argue that the fact that the bill uses state-run and federal exchange interchangeably doesn't mean anything. "Neither the canons of construction nor any empirical analysis suggests that congressional drafting is a perfectly harmonious, symmetrical, and elegant endeavor," he wrote. In other words, Congress isn't perfect.

]]>

Border Sheriffs Perplexed by Rick Perry's Plan to Send 1,000 Troops to Stare at Mexico

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:15:05 -0400

Why would you spend millions of dollars sending troops to the border who can't actually detain anyone? That's what some Texas sheriffs of border towns are asking in the wake of Gov. Rick Perry's plan to send 1,000 National Guards members to the Texas/Mexico border in the next month, according to the Dallas Morning News. For them, it would be more useful to spend the money on hiring more deputies and police, aka people who are allowed to detain migrants.

“I don’t know what good they can do,” Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio told theDallas Morning News. “You just can’t come out here and be a police officer.” Lucio and other sheriffs said they weren't consulted before Perry's announcement and, in Lucio's opinion, the police and Border Patrol agents were handling the small uptick in crime. "At this time, a lot of people do things for political reasons. I don’t know that it helps,” Lucio said.

This isn't the first time people have questioned the wisdom of sending National Guard troops to the border. In 2010, President Obama sent over 1,000 troops to the border. They weren't allowed to pursue or detain immigrants, "or investigate crimes, make arrests, stop and search vehicles, or seize drugs," The Washington Post reported in 2011. "Nor do they check Mexico-bound vehicles for bulk cash or smuggled weapons headed to the drug cartels." Basically, they keep watch and radio in any suspicious activity. Critics also argued that the National Guard's help cost an estimated $6,271 per person caught.

But defenders of sending the guard argue they are a deterrent. In the upcoming deployment, guard officials said they would have some medical training and be supplied with water. Still, the most immediate reward is political, and as The New York Times noted, Perry stands the most to gain for being tough on the border.

In 2012, one of his major gaffes was calling people "heartless" for panning his plan to give undocumented students in-state tuition. This time around he won't make the same mistake. “Drug cartels, human traffickers and individual criminals are exploiting this tragedy for their own criminal opportunities,” Perry said Monday. “I will not stand idly by while our citizens are under assault, and little children from Central America are detained in squalor.”

]]>

Americans Have Some Awful Ideas About Fixing Congress

Arit John, The Wire — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:31:09 -0400

How would you fix Congress? Gallup recently asked more than 1,000 Americans "What is the most important thing you would recommend be done to fix Congress?" Half their answers are published here.

If reading through the responses sounds depressing, don't worry: we went through the list so you don't have to, and picked out the good, the bad, and the painfully naïve. "Good" ideas are ones that should at least be considered. "Bad" ideas are of the "impeach Obama for turning America into a third world country" variety, and "Naïve" ideas are not actually ideas, but nice sounding sentiments.

The Good

"Term limits."

A lot of people seem to think this is a good idea. In the 1990s two dozen states passed laws limiting term limits before the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional. That's what elections are for.

"There should be independent commissions to set the district boundaries for the U.S. House."

Yes.

"Well, to get to being decent people, stop acting like two-year-olds. They are elected to represent us, so they ought to do that...they are elected to pass laws and they ought to pass laws. I don't like what they're doing."

Maturity is always a good thing.

"New elections, we need a new face in Congress."

Luckily, there will be a new election in November!

"If anybody could take care of our returning service men, I’d like that."

Like, say, passing legislation to improve service at Veterans' Affairs hospitals.

The Bad

"Clean the House of non-partisan people."

Pretty sure he means "partisan," in which case, that's the purpose of elections.

"Increase the benefits of social security."

Other than the fact that many members of Congress are old enough to collect on benefits, we don't see how this would help Congress.

"Get rid of the president. He should be impeached. He turned the U.S. into a third-world country. We have no more credibility in the U.S."

Regardless of how one feels about the president and impeachment, America isn't a third world country.

"Close the border and ship the illegals back home." & "The immigrant thing."

"The immigrant thing."

"I can't judge, because I’m not in Congress. I feel like it's an internal problem that they should fix themselves."

Congress works for you.

"Put Republicans as a majority in the Senate and House." & "Have a Democratic president and have the majority of the House and the Senate be Democrats."

Let's think long-term, people.

"Abide by the platform you ran on."

Unless.

"Lower their pay and make them live in the means of a normal (average) American salary."

The thought of lawmakers living on the minimum wage they've been reluctant to raise sounds good, but the reality is that those representatives would go on to become lobbyists, and possibly help out their future employers while they're in office.

"More vacation time."

Apparently Congress isn't excluded from responding.

"Firearms."

Firearm bills or firearms on the floor? Either, this won't help fix Congress.

"Well placed dynamite...I guess I have never seen so much upheaval in my life. More common sense."

A domestic terrorism event will not help.

"Put the Lord ahead of their agenda." &"I think if they would honestly repent and seek the Lord, I think the Lord would help."

Many Americans wish members of Congress would stop pushing their interpretation of the Lord's agenda.

The Naïve

"The need to get along and try to do right for the people."

That would be nice.

"Lock them in a room together until they get along."

Sure.

"I think they all need to get along. And I think there should not be parties."

That would be nice.

"They would get something done."

That would be nice.

"Just fix the situation with the economy."

That would be nice.

"Both sides work together and quit taking so many breaks when there is business to attend to."

Congress goes on recess to meet with their constituents.

"Honestly, probably get rid of all the people who aren't working for people, who are working for money, which is most of them in my opinion. Get a fresh start."

Again, that would be nice.

"Cheaper health insurance, legalize marijuana."

We can only think of one way legalized weed would help ease tensions in Congress.

(Image via Bildagentur Zoonar GmbH/Shutterstock.com)

]]>