Not exactly a stunner, you say? Well, you’d be right, but it’s probably worse than what Jones admits here, too. Not only did they pull their punches towards the President in 2010, they tried to shift the blame for the Deepwater Horizon spill to the Bush administration, even though Barack Obama and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had been on the job for more than a year — and the lack of quick response made the situation worse. Now, though, Van Jones expresses remorse for the lack of response from the environmental community:
I’m critical of myself, first, and the environmentalists. When the oil spill had happened in the spring of 2010, there was another moment to say, ‘Hold on a second, let’s relook at energy policy in America. Should we be subsidizing companies who are risking our health immediately and in the long-term?’” We didn’t do it. You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been President, with that oil spill, or George Bush had been President with that oil spill, I’d have been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the President was. Well, that’s a bad, uh, uh…that’s not good for the earth, it’s not good for the cause, it’s probably not good for the President. It’s certainly not the way we should conduct ourselves.
And so, I’m very tough on progressive movements and leaders, including myself, who did not stand on principle, based upon who we looked across and saw as President.
Uh-huh. The timing of this isn’t very good for Obama, but it’s not as if Jones will abandon Obama, or the rest of his enviro allies, either. This sounds more like a mild warning shot from Jones to get Obama focused once again on hammering oil companies and traditional energy producers on behalf of so-called “green tech” subsidies. Since the first name that gets associated with those efforts is “Solyndra,” Jones had better be prepared for even more disappointment in the future.
Earlier this week, the New York Post warned readers that the Obama administration planned to use an $8.3 billion in HHS appropriations as a “slush fund” to hide the impact of ObamaCare on choice options for seniors that would otherwise have hit just before the election in November. That same day, the General Accounting Office blasted the Obama administration for its attempt, and called on HHS to reverse itself. Today, Rep. John Kline, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, confronted HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the GAO report, but Sebelius remained defiant — and insisted that the Obama administration would proceed with its slush-fund plans:
Sebelius refuses to shut down “demonstration project” criticized by GAO posted at 5:21 pm on April 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Earlier this week, the New York Post warned readers that the Obama administration planned to use an $8.3 billion in HHS appropriations as a “slush fund” to hide the impact of ObamaCare on choice options for seniors that would otherwise have hit just before the election in November. That same day, the General Accounting Office blasted the Obama administration for its attempt, and called on HHS to reverse itself. Today, Rep. John Kline, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, confronted HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the GAO report, but Sebelius remained defiant — and insisted that the Obama administration would proceed with its slush-fund plans:
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today vowed to continue a controversial “demonstration project” that has come under fire recently by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The Democrats’ 2010 health care law cut $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, a program that currently serves 12 million seniors. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will result in 5 million fewer seniors participating in the popular program. The GAO recently criticized an $8 billion national demonstration project run by the administration that may have been intended to mask the impact of these cuts until 2013. The GAO reports the design of this project “precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness.”
The GAO has called on HHS to cancel this unprecedented multi-billion dollar program. However, when asked by Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) if the administration would follow the GAO’s recommendation, Secretary Sebelius stated she has “no intention of canceling the project.”
Here’s a reminder of what the GAO thinks of this “demonstration project”:
GAO, the investigative agency of Congress, did not address GOP allegations that the bonuses are politically motivated. But, its report found the program highly unusual. It “dwarfs” all other Medicare pilots undertaken in nearly 20 years, the GAO said.
Most of the bonus money is going to plans that receive three to three-and-half stars out of a possible five stars on Medicare’s quality rating scale, the report said.
Available through 2014, the bonuses will soften much of the initial impact of the Medicare Advantage cuts, acting like a temporary reprieve.
This year, for example, the bonus program offset about 70 percent of the cuts in the health care law. Indeed, Medicare Advantage enrollment is up by 10 percent and premiums have gone down on average.
But GAO questioned whether the bonus program will achieve its goal of finding better incentives to promote quality. “The design of the demonstration precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness in achieving (the administration’s) stated research goal.”
So Sebelius wants to spend over eight billion dollars on a “demonstration project” whose design makes it impossible to evaluate, which just coincidentally provides some political cover for the White House just before seniors go to the polls in the presidential election, and which won’t actually improve care. Did anyone expect anything different from Chicago-sur-le-Potomac?
Earlier this week, the New York Post warned readers that the Obama administration planned to use an $8.3 billion in HHS appropriations as a “slush fund” to hide the impact of ObamaCare on choice options for seniors that would otherwise have hit just before the election in November. That same day, the General Accounting Office blasted the Obama administration for its attempt, and called on HHS to reverse itself. Today, Rep. John Kline, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, confronted HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the GAO report, but Sebelius remained defiant — and insisted that the Obama administration would proceed with its slush-fund plans:
Sebelius refuses to shut down “demonstration project” criticized by GAO posted at 5:21 pm on April 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Earlier this week, the New York Post warned readers that the Obama administration planned to use an $8.3 billion in HHS appropriations as a “slush fund” to hide the impact of ObamaCare on choice options for seniors that would otherwise have hit just before the election in November. That same day, the General Accounting Office blasted the Obama administration for its attempt, and called on HHS to reverse itself. Today, Rep. John Kline, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, confronted HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the GAO report, but Sebelius remained defiant — and insisted that the Obama administration would proceed with its slush-fund plans:
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today vowed to continue a controversial “demonstration project” that has come under fire recently by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The Democrats’ 2010 health care law cut $200 billion from Medicare Advantage, a program that currently serves 12 million seniors. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will result in 5 million fewer seniors participating in the popular program. The GAO recently criticized an $8 billion national demonstration project run by the administration that may have been intended to mask the impact of these cuts until 2013. The GAO reports the design of this project “precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness.”
The GAO has called on HHS to cancel this unprecedented multi-billion dollar program. However, when asked by Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) if the administration would follow the GAO’s recommendation, Secretary Sebelius stated she has “no intention of canceling the project.”
Here’s a reminder of what the GAO thinks of this “demonstration project”:
GAO, the investigative agency of Congress, did not address GOP allegations that the bonuses are politically motivated. But, its report found the program highly unusual. It “dwarfs” all other Medicare pilots undertaken in nearly 20 years, the GAO said.
Most of the bonus money is going to plans that receive three to three-and-half stars out of a possible five stars on Medicare’s quality rating scale, the report said.
Available through 2014, the bonuses will soften much of the initial impact of the Medicare Advantage cuts, acting like a temporary reprieve.
This year, for example, the bonus program offset about 70 percent of the cuts in the health care law. Indeed, Medicare Advantage enrollment is up by 10 percent and premiums have gone down on average.
But GAO questioned whether the bonus program will achieve its goal of finding better incentives to promote quality. “The design of the demonstration precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness in achieving (the administration’s) stated research goal.”
So Sebelius wants to spend over eight billion dollars on a “demonstration project” whose design makes it impossible to evaluate, which just coincidentally provides some political cover for the White House just before seniors go to the polls in the presidential election, and which won’t actually improve care. Did anyone expect anything different from Chicago-sur-le-Potomac?
Well it’s not new exactly, just new to the intertubes, but it certainly explains a lot. From the Foundry via Weasel Zippers:
This clip actually originated from Sen. James Inhofe’s office so thankfully the GOP is already on this. A little more background from the Senator’s press release:
Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.
Probably the most offensive thing about this clip, aside from the crucifixion analogy, is the implication that the EPA singles out potential offenders to make an example of on a random basis. To be sure, fostering fear through arbitrary, and unduly punitive enforcement actions can be an effective means of ensuring broad compliance. But it’s not exactly in line with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Well it’s not new exactly, just new to the intertubes, but it certainly explains a lot. From the Foundry via Weasel Zippers:
This clip actually originated from Sen. James Inhofe’s office so thankfully the GOP is already on this. A little more background from the Senator’s press release:
Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.
Probably the most offensive thing about this clip, aside from the crucifixion analogy, is the implication that the EPA singles out potential offenders to make an example of on a random basis. To be sure, fostering fear through arbitrary, and unduly punitive enforcement actions can be an effective means of ensuring broad compliance. But it’s not exactly in line with the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
To cleanse the palate, via the Examiner, a reminder that size matters in foreign policy too. I saw the headline on this hours ago and glowed with pride on the thought that it’s now fair game in modern campaigns for the vice president of the United States to deploy puns about the size of the president’s schwanz. Then I watched the clip. Guys, I … don’t know if he planned the joke. I think he did — the audience obviously gets it — but when he gets to the big payoff he almost seems to pull up short, as if the double meaning is only dawning on him at that moment. Am I wrong about that? If it were anyone else in the administration I’d say there’s no doubt, but look who it is we’re talking about here. I’d prefer to believe that his childlike naivete led him to an inadvertent punchline than that he and his speechwriters are deliberately adding jokes about Obama’s junk to his foreign policy addresses to liven them up.
Incidentally, when it comes to government, superior size does not necessarily mean superior performance:
Independents’ view of the federal government is actually less favorable now at 27 percent than it was in the final year of Bush’s second term, when it was 33 percent. Interestingly, though, it rose to 39 percent in Febhttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8265345694772230791ruary 2010, when Congress was on the brink of passing ObamaCare. Does that mean indies have soured on Hopenchange or have they just soured on congressional gridlock?
To cleanse the palate, via the Examiner, a reminder that size matters in foreign policy too. I saw the headline on this hours ago and glowed with pride on the thought that it’s now fair game in modern campaigns for the vice president of the United States to deploy puns about the size of the president’s schwanz. Then I watched the clip. Guys, I … don’t know if he planned the joke. I think he did — the audience obviously gets it — but when he gets to the big payoff he almost seems to pull up short, as if the double meaning is only dawning on him at that moment. Am I wrong about that? If it were anyone else in the administration I’d say there’s no doubt, but look who it is we’re talking about here. I’d prefer to believe that his childlike naivete led him to an inadvertent punchline than that he and his speechwriters are deliberately adding jokes about Obama’s junk to his foreign policy addresses to liven them up.
Incidentally, when it comes to government, superior size does not necessarily mean superior performance:
Independents’ view of the federal government is actually less favorable now at 27 percent than it was in the final year of Bush’s second term, when it was 33 percent. Interestingly, though, it rose to 39 percent in Febhttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8265345694772230791ruary 2010, when Congress was on the brink of passing ObamaCare. Does that mean indies have soured on Hopenchange or have they just soured on congressional gridlock?
The EPA has scrambled to contain the damage from the clip highlighted by Morgen Richmond this morning, which went viral yesterday, showing an EPA administrator bragging about crucifixion as a means to impose the EPA’s will on American subjects, er, citizens. The EPA’s Richard Armendariz apologized late last night for his remarks, and the EPA rushed to assure people that they are all about “ethical enforcement”:
The Obama-appointed Environmental Protection Agency official who explained that the agency uses a “crucify them” enforcement philosophy against oil and gas companies apologized for his comments on Wednesday night.
“I apologize to those I have offended and regret my poor choice of words,” Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “It was an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws. I am and have always been committed to fair and vigorous enforcement of those laws. …
While Armendariz apologized, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles asserted that the agency is still committed to ethical enforcement of the law.
“Strong, fair and effective enforcement of the environmental laws passed by Congress is critical to protecting public health and ensuring that all companies, regardless of industry, are playing by the same rules,” she said in comments provided to TheDC. “Enforcement is essential to the effectiveness of our environmental laws, ensuring that public health is protected and that companies that play by the rules are not at a disadvantage. The same holds true for companies involved in responsible and safe development of our nation’s domestic energy resources.”
Sure they are. Why, just ask the Sacketts about the EPA’s idea of “ethical enforcement.” They ruled that the land that the Sacketts bought were wetlands after the Sacketts starting building a house on residential-zoned land even though it had not been classified as such beforehand, and then refused to allow them to access the court system without paying tens of thousands of dollars each day that they delayed the EPA’s mandated abatement. The Supreme Court hit the EPA with a unanimous smackdown on a process which could only be called a financial crucifixion of the Sacketts, and a lesson to everyone else — just as Armendariz described in the video.
Don’t count Senator James Inhofe among the easily impressed with this apology and endorsement of the EPA’s approach to enforcement:
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe is not buying the mea culpa offered by the EPA official who bragged about the agency’s “crucify them” enforcement philosophy against oil and gas companies.
“His apology was meaningless,” Inhofe told The Daily Caller in a Thursday morning interview.
“You’re going to treat people like the Romans crucified the church? Get real,” he said.
According to Inhoffe, Obama-appointed Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz’s claim in his apology that the agency is focused on “fair and vigorous enforcement” isn’t supported by the facts.
Inhofe appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to talk about his intent to investigate the EPA, and to tie Armendariz’ comments to Barack Obama’s war on domestic oil and gas production, especially gas:
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Thursday blasted an Environmental Protection Agency official’s claim that the agency was using a “crucify them” strategy against oil and gas companies, calling it a part of President Barack Obama’s “war on domestic energy.” “Let’s keep in mind, this is all a part of Obama’s war on domestic energy,” Inhofe said on “Fox & Friends.” “He’s the one who said that we have good natural gas and it’s plentiful and all of that but we’ve got to stop hydraulic fracturing. This is the war on hydraulic fracturing.”
It’s more than a war on hydraulic fracturing, or on energy production. It’s a war on liberty, waged by bureaucrats who want to crucify people like the Sacketts in order to pacify the rest of us. The apology won’t fool anyone. \
The EPA has scrambled to contain the damage from the clip highlighted by Morgen Richmond this morning, which went viral yesterday, showing an EPA administrator bragging about crucifixion as a means to impose the EPA’s will on American subjects, er, citizens. The EPA’s Richard Armendariz apologized late last night for his remarks, and the EPA rushed to assure people that they are all about “ethical enforcement”:
The Obama-appointed Environmental Protection Agency official who explained that the agency uses a “crucify them” enforcement philosophy against oil and gas companies apologized for his comments on Wednesday night.
“I apologize to those I have offended and regret my poor choice of words,” Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “It was an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws. I am and have always been committed to fair and vigorous enforcement of those laws. …
While Armendariz apologized, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles asserted that the agency is still committed to ethical enforcement of the law.
“Strong, fair and effective enforcement of the environmental laws passed by Congress is critical to protecting public health and ensuring that all companies, regardless of industry, are playing by the same rules,” she said in comments provided to TheDC. “Enforcement is essential to the effectiveness of our environmental laws, ensuring that public health is protected and that companies that play by the rules are not at a disadvantage. The same holds true for companies involved in responsible and safe development of our nation’s domestic energy resources.”
Sure they are. Why, just ask the Sacketts about the EPA’s idea of “ethical enforcement.” They ruled that the land that the Sacketts bought were wetlands after the Sacketts starting building a house on residential-zoned land even though it had not been classified as such beforehand, and then refused to allow them to access the court system without paying tens of thousands of dollars each day that they delayed the EPA’s mandated abatement. The Supreme Court hit the EPA with a unanimous smackdown on a process which could only be called a financial crucifixion of the Sacketts, and a lesson to everyone else — just as Armendariz described in the video.
Don’t count Senator James Inhofe among the easily impressed with this apology and endorsement of the EPA’s approach to enforcement:
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe is not buying the mea culpa offered by the EPA official who bragged about the agency’s “crucify them” enforcement philosophy against oil and gas companies.
“His apology was meaningless,” Inhofe told The Daily Caller in a Thursday morning interview.
“You’re going to treat people like the Romans crucified the church? Get real,” he said.
According to Inhoffe, Obama-appointed Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz’s claim in his apology that the agency is focused on “fair and vigorous enforcement” isn’t supported by the facts.
Inhofe appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to talk about his intent to investigate the EPA, and to tie Armendariz’ comments to Barack Obama’s war on domestic oil and gas production, especially gas:
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Thursday blasted an Environmental Protection Agency official’s claim that the agency was using a “crucify them” strategy against oil and gas companies, calling it a part of President Barack Obama’s “war on domestic energy.” “Let’s keep in mind, this is all a part of Obama’s war on domestic energy,” Inhofe said on “Fox & Friends.” “He’s the one who said that we have good natural gas and it’s plentiful and all of that but we’ve got to stop hydraulic fracturing. This is the war on hydraulic fracturing.”
It’s more than a war on hydraulic fracturing, or on energy production. It’s a war on liberty, waged by bureaucrats who want to crucify people like the Sacketts in order to pacify the rest of us. The apology won’t fool anyone. \
“House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) poured cold water Thursday on efforts by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to advance immigration reform by suggesting that such a plan would not be able to pass the GOP-led House this year.
“Asked by a reporter whether he thought the House could pass an immigration measure this year that focused on more than just border security, Boehner said: ‘There’s always hope,’
“The speaker said he has spoken to Rubio about his plan. ‘I found it of interest, but the problem with this issue is that we’re operating in a very hostile political environment. To deal with a very difficult issue like this, I think it would be difficult at best.’”
***
“Gaby Pacheco, a vocal immigrant activist, accepted a tantalizing invitation last week from an unlikely source: Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wanted her to help craft a bill that could legalize the children of some illegal immigrants.
“Two hours later, Pacheco and other activists got a different pitch from their more familiar White House allies. Be wary of Rubio and his plan, two of President Obama’s top advisers told them in a meeting. It wouldn’t go far enough and wasn’t likely to succeed…
“The plan puts Obama in a box. Democrats are reluctant to see Rubio’s efforts as anything other than a political gambit to repair his party’s tarnished image with Hispanics and boost his own profile as a potential vice-presidential pick or future White House contender.
“But if Obama does not at least try to work with Rubio, he could risk losing a centerpiece of his appeal to Hispanic voters — that he is their fiercest ally in Washington and that the GOP is to blame for lack of action on fixing the country’s immigration ills.”
***
“Despite the hype that the GOP moved to the hard right in the primary, immigration was the main issue where Romney himself did so, sounding a hard conservative line to position himself to the right of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. If there was one issue where he would “flip-flop” back to the center, it’s likely to be immigration.
“Now Rubio is offering both Romney and the GOP a second chance to court Hispanic voters, and putting the White House in a tough spot. The freshman senator may not become Romney’s running mate, but he could be giving him a bigger political gift with his immigration advocacy.”
***
“Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has thrust himself into the raging illegal immigration debate, proposing a plan that would create a path to legal status for children of illegal immigrants — putting him at odds with an immoveable wing of the Republican Party on this issue.
“It’s a risky move for a potential vice presidential candidate, and it puts presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in a pickle as he may have to decide whether to back an immigration plan rolled out by one of the party’s rising Hispanic stars, or stick to the strident anti-illegal immigrant positions he staked out during the Republican primary…
“Asked if Romney needed to lighten up his rhetoric, Rubio said the GOP has to better communicate it’s the pro-immigration party.
“‘Not just Gov. Romney — but in general, over the last five years that [the] Republican Party has come to be viewed as the anti-illegal immigration party.’”
***
“In an interview at his Tucson campaign office earlier this month, [Democrat Richard] Carmona, who is running in the race to succeed retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R), had some blunt criticism for Republicans on the topic of illegal immigration.
“‘Why do you think they’re reworking their initial vitriolic, far-right, ‘deport everybody’ (message)?’ he asked. ‘Why? Do you think that all of a sudden there’s an epiphany and their hearts have opened up to people who are struggling? I don’t think so. I think it’s a political calculation – that they recognized they cannot win their races and stay in office unless they embrace the Hispanic community. So, I really feel it’s very disingenuous.’…
“‘Look, look,’ Carmona said. ‘Do you think it just popped up at this time – six, seven months before the election – and everybody goes, ‘Oh gee, let’s embrace these people now’? … So, it’s crazy. The fact of the matter is these are political calculations and the public is fed up with it.’”
***
“So to sum up-
“We’re going to grant the [premise] the Democrats have been running on that this is something we have to act on (separate from border security/enforcement)
“We’re going to do this to try and win votes of voters who will simply say, ‘Um, why should I support your half-assed measure when the other guys are offering me the whole thing?’
“We’d also offer the Democrats a new and exciting line of attack… ‘Republicans think you’re good enough to work for them and fight and die for this country but not to vote’. Some enterprising liberal will no doubt find a way to equate that with slavery. Fun times!
“And while we’re getting no credit or votes from this, we’ll also be doing the Democrats job for them by driving a wedge between members of our party.”
***
“Rubio said the White House has also been ‘actively trying to torpedo my efforts’ by calling in immigration advocates and urging them not to back Rubio’s bill.
“‘I think Speaker Boehner was acknowledging how difficult it is going to be given the highly politicized climate the president is contributing to, and I agree it’s going to be hard to pass,’ Rubio said. ‘But I am hopeful that we are going to come up with an idea [that] makes sense, that calls to Americans’ spirit of humanitarianism, that recognizes that these kids do not have legal right to be here, but that appeals to our conscience.’…
“Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who heads the Senate Democrats’ policy and communication shop, said Boehner’s comments ‘show how far Sen. Rubio has to go in trying to gain Republican support for any proposal to help immigrant students.’” \
“House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) poured cold water Thursday on efforts by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to advance immigration reform by suggesting that such a plan would not be able to pass the GOP-led House this year.
“Asked by a reporter whether he thought the House could pass an immigration measure this year that focused on more than just border security, Boehner said: ‘There’s always hope,’
“The speaker said he has spoken to Rubio about his plan. ‘I found it of interest, but the problem with this issue is that we’re operating in a very hostile political environment. To deal with a very difficult issue like this, I think it would be difficult at best.’”
***
“Gaby Pacheco, a vocal immigrant activist, accepted a tantalizing invitation last week from an unlikely source: Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wanted her to help craft a bill that could legalize the children of some illegal immigrants.
“Two hours later, Pacheco and other activists got a different pitch from their more familiar White House allies. Be wary of Rubio and his plan, two of President Obama’s top advisers told them in a meeting. It wouldn’t go far enough and wasn’t likely to succeed…
“The plan puts Obama in a box. Democrats are reluctant to see Rubio’s efforts as anything other than a political gambit to repair his party’s tarnished image with Hispanics and boost his own profile as a potential vice-presidential pick or future White House contender.
“But if Obama does not at least try to work with Rubio, he could risk losing a centerpiece of his appeal to Hispanic voters — that he is their fiercest ally in Washington and that the GOP is to blame for lack of action on fixing the country’s immigration ills.”
***
“Despite the hype that the GOP moved to the hard right in the primary, immigration was the main issue where Romney himself did so, sounding a hard conservative line to position himself to the right of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. If there was one issue where he would “flip-flop” back to the center, it’s likely to be immigration.
“Now Rubio is offering both Romney and the GOP a second chance to court Hispanic voters, and putting the White House in a tough spot. The freshman senator may not become Romney’s running mate, but he could be giving him a bigger political gift with his immigration advocacy.”
***
“Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has thrust himself into the raging illegal immigration debate, proposing a plan that would create a path to legal status for children of illegal immigrants — putting him at odds with an immoveable wing of the Republican Party on this issue.
“It’s a risky move for a potential vice presidential candidate, and it puts presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in a pickle as he may have to decide whether to back an immigration plan rolled out by one of the party’s rising Hispanic stars, or stick to the strident anti-illegal immigrant positions he staked out during the Republican primary…
“Asked if Romney needed to lighten up his rhetoric, Rubio said the GOP has to better communicate it’s the pro-immigration party.
“‘Not just Gov. Romney — but in general, over the last five years that [the] Republican Party has come to be viewed as the anti-illegal immigration party.’”
***
“In an interview at his Tucson campaign office earlier this month, [Democrat Richard] Carmona, who is running in the race to succeed retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R), had some blunt criticism for Republicans on the topic of illegal immigration.
“‘Why do you think they’re reworking their initial vitriolic, far-right, ‘deport everybody’ (message)?’ he asked. ‘Why? Do you think that all of a sudden there’s an epiphany and their hearts have opened up to people who are struggling? I don’t think so. I think it’s a political calculation – that they recognized they cannot win their races and stay in office unless they embrace the Hispanic community. So, I really feel it’s very disingenuous.’…
“‘Look, look,’ Carmona said. ‘Do you think it just popped up at this time – six, seven months before the election – and everybody goes, ‘Oh gee, let’s embrace these people now’? … So, it’s crazy. The fact of the matter is these are political calculations and the public is fed up with it.’”
***
“So to sum up-
“We’re going to grant the [premise] the Democrats have been running on that this is something we have to act on (separate from border security/enforcement)
“We’re going to do this to try and win votes of voters who will simply say, ‘Um, why should I support your half-assed measure when the other guys are offering me the whole thing?’
“We’d also offer the Democrats a new and exciting line of attack… ‘Republicans think you’re good enough to work for them and fight and die for this country but not to vote’. Some enterprising liberal will no doubt find a way to equate that with slavery. Fun times!
“And while we’re getting no credit or votes from this, we’ll also be doing the Democrats job for them by driving a wedge between members of our party.”
***
“Rubio said the White House has also been ‘actively trying to torpedo my efforts’ by calling in immigration advocates and urging them not to back Rubio’s bill.
“‘I think Speaker Boehner was acknowledging how difficult it is going to be given the highly politicized climate the president is contributing to, and I agree it’s going to be hard to pass,’ Rubio said. ‘But I am hopeful that we are going to come up with an idea [that] makes sense, that calls to Americans’ spirit of humanitarianism, that recognizes that these kids do not have legal right to be here, but that appeals to our conscience.’…
“Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who heads the Senate Democrats’ policy and communication shop, said Boehner’s comments ‘show how far Sen. Rubio has to go in trying to gain Republican support for any proposal to help immigrant students.’” \
President Obama’s 2008 campaign is remembered mostly for vague platitudes about hope and change, but in an unscripted moment in May 2008 he was put on the spot to list some sacrifices he expected Americans to make if he were elected. Oops:Obama has largely delivered on the benefits he promised to students in this clip, but funny, he doesn’t seem to be talking much about “sacrifice” on the college tour he is currently in the middle of. Since 2009 Pell grant spending has increased substantially, and while his promised tuition credit fell a little short, the stimulus bill included a $2500 tax credit which has been renewed annually ever since. And of course maintaining subsidized student loans at below market-level interest rates is the Obama campaign priority of the week. Which, take note, Obama promised to pay for in this clip by cutting private financial institutions out of the student loan business. A promise he delivered on, but alas, much of the savings realized from this maneuver went to help pay for ObamaCare instead. Really. Although President Obama is no longer pitching the idea of mandatory national service, he is at least still “trying to lead” something: his re-election effort. Thus his team has been busy recruiting an army of unpaid volunteers from college campuses around the country to staff his campaign. Maybe this is the national service he was really talking about. Hey, nothing is free…except your time, apparently, if you want to be a soldier for more hope and change. Update: Double-oops. Recall that the other example Obama gave of a “sacrifice” he expected Americans to make, was dealing with the impact of higher gas and electricity costs as a result of his energy policies. Count this as another promise fulfilled!
President Obama’s 2008 campaign is remembered mostly for vague platitudes about hope and change, but in an unscripted moment in May 2008 he was put on the spot to list some sacrifices he expected Americans to make if he were elected. Oops:Obama has largely delivered on the benefits he promised to students in this clip, but funny, he doesn’t seem to be talking much about “sacrifice” on the college tour he is currently in the middle of. Since 2009 Pell grant spending has increased substantially, and while his promised tuition credit fell a little short, the stimulus bill included a $2500 tax credit which has been renewed annually ever since. And of course maintaining subsidized student loans at below market-level interest rates is the Obama campaign priority of the week. Which, take note, Obama promised to pay for in this clip by cutting private financial institutions out of the student loan business. A promise he delivered on, but alas, much of the savings realized from this maneuver went to help pay for ObamaCare instead. Really. Although President Obama is no longer pitching the idea of mandatory national service, he is at least still “trying to lead” something: his re-election effort. Thus his team has been busy recruiting an army of unpaid volunteers from college campuses around the country to staff his campaign. Maybe this is the national service he was really talking about. Hey, nothing is free…except your time, apparently, if you want to be a soldier for more hope and change. Update: Double-oops. Recall that the other example Obama gave of a “sacrifice” he expected Americans to make, was dealing with the impact of higher gas and electricity costs as a result of his energy policies. Count this as another promise fulfilled!
Well you know what, when [unintelligible] said at camp, you can’t get any money because one guy blocked it. That’s bollocks, that’s not f–king democracy. You can’t have one guy block a democratic f–king vote. That’s not democracy… Or…or beat the c–t up that just said I’m not going to give the camp any money. [Evil laugh] Bash him, just bash him up… It’s a peaceful protest…but it’s not a peaceful camp. And it’s not. And there is violence here, and I’ve had to deal with it…and I’m not enjoying having to deal with all these violent f–kers.
You know Monty Python has made a fortune here in the U.S. because just about everything sounds funnier with an English accent…but there isn’t much to laugh about here. (Except maybe the latest in occupy fashion.) These defenders of democracy are actually right about one thing though: consensus-based decision making where one objector can block an entire motion is bollocks, a recipe for anarchy in fact. But then I suppose that’s the whole point isn’t it?
Well you know what, when [unintelligible] said at camp, you can’t get any money because one guy blocked it. That’s bollocks, that’s not f–king democracy. You can’t have one guy block a democratic f–king vote. That’s not democracy… Or…or beat the c–t up that just said I’m not going to give the camp any money. [Evil laugh] Bash him, just bash him up… It’s a peaceful protest…but it’s not a peaceful camp. And it’s not. And there is violence here, and I’ve had to deal with it…and I’m not enjoying having to deal with all these violent f–kers.
You know Monty Python has made a fortune here in the U.S. because just about everything sounds funnier with an English accent…but there isn’t much to laugh about here. (Except maybe the latest in occupy fashion.) These defenders of democracy are actually right about one thing though: consensus-based decision making where one objector can block an entire motion is bollocks, a recipe for anarchy in fact. But then I suppose that’s the whole point isn’t it?
Yes, really. Believe it or not, those endless video clips of this guy droning on about the cheap gimmick you and I know as the Buffett Rule were technically “presidential events,” even though there’s no serious policy reason to spend more than five minutes talking about it. It’s a populist pander aimed at peeling working-class voters away from Romney by building class resentment. And yet, supposedly, it’s sufficiently important to justify using your tax dollars to fly O around the country to make the pitch. If that’s a “presidential event,” I can’t wait to see what the campaign events look like A telling detail from the NYT’s recent piece about presidents campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime:
Since Mr. Obama filed for re-election a year ago, he has taken 60 domestic trips, of which 26 included fund-raisers, according to Mark Knoller, a White House correspondent for CBS News who for years has compiled such data. Mr. Knoller’s count shows that since Mr. Obama took office, his most frequent destinations besides Maryland, Virginia and Illinois, his home state, have been fund-raising centers and swing states: New York (23 visits), Ohio (20), Florida (16), Pennsylvania (15), Michigan (11), California and North Carolina (10 each), Massachusetts (9), Wisconsin (8), Iowa and Nevada (7 each), and Colorado (6).
Even reporters don’t take this phony distinction seriously anymore. The Washington Free Beacon’s been compiling tweets from journalists scoffing openly at the idea that these visits to purple states and big blue piggy banks are anything more than campaign stops in the guise of Matters of National Importance. Presumably, by the White House’s logic, last night’s slow jam of the news wasn’t a dumb goof aimed at charming young voters but a “presidential forum on current events.” Time for the RNC to apply a little pressure by calling for a GAO investigation:
Today he will hold another similar event in Iowa. Ostensibly these campaign stops were meant to support student loan legislation (which ironically President Obama didn’t even take the time to vote on during his short tenure in the U.S. Senate). Please note that President Obama traveled to three states largely considered to be electoral battlegrounds to promote this legislation. One might imagine that if this were genuinely a government event he might have stopped in a non-battleground state like Texas or Vermont. The same can be said of the president’s trip to Florida two weeks ago. President Obama scheduled three fundraisers in the state and added one short “official event” on his Buffett Tax to his itinerary, once again allowing his reelection campaign to save on fuel for Air Force One. This speech was high on class warfare, slogans, and divisive campaign-style rhetoric. It was low on substance that would benefit the populace at large. One incident of this might be an error that is easily remedied. But it is a pattern of behavior that is worsening. In fact in three and a half years, President Obama has held dozens of events that benefitted OFA on the taxpayer dime.
Follow the link for the obligatory GSA reference. Question: When was the last time O spoke publicly about a policy matter and wasn’t obviously trying to score campaign points in doing so? It’s one small-ball matter after another: The Buffett Rule to position himself as the champion of blue-collar voters, regulations on oil speculators to show that he cares about gas prices, extending the student-loan interest rate to get young voters excited to volunteer for Generation O again, etc. Those are all campaign events, by and large, as of course was his speech tearing into Paul Ryan after his own phony budget went straight down the crapper in Congress. When was the last actual presidential address?
Yes, really. Believe it or not, those endless video clips of this guy droning on about the cheap gimmick you and I know as the Buffett Rule were technically “presidential events,” even though there’s no serious policy reason to spend more than five minutes talking about it. It’s a populist pander aimed at peeling working-class voters away from Romney by building class resentment. And yet, supposedly, it’s sufficiently important to justify using your tax dollars to fly O around the country to make the pitch. If that’s a “presidential event,” I can’t wait to see what the campaign events look like A telling detail from the NYT’s recent piece about presidents campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime:
Since Mr. Obama filed for re-election a year ago, he has taken 60 domestic trips, of which 26 included fund-raisers, according to Mark Knoller, a White House correspondent for CBS News who for years has compiled such data. Mr. Knoller’s count shows that since Mr. Obama took office, his most frequent destinations besides Maryland, Virginia and Illinois, his home state, have been fund-raising centers and swing states: New York (23 visits), Ohio (20), Florida (16), Pennsylvania (15), Michigan (11), California and North Carolina (10 each), Massachusetts (9), Wisconsin (8), Iowa and Nevada (7 each), and Colorado (6).
Even reporters don’t take this phony distinction seriously anymore. The Washington Free Beacon’s been compiling tweets from journalists scoffing openly at the idea that these visits to purple states and big blue piggy banks are anything more than campaign stops in the guise of Matters of National Importance. Presumably, by the White House’s logic, last night’s slow jam of the news wasn’t a dumb goof aimed at charming young voters but a “presidential forum on current events.” Time for the RNC to apply a little pressure by calling for a GAO investigation:
Today he will hold another similar event in Iowa. Ostensibly these campaign stops were meant to support student loan legislation (which ironically President Obama didn’t even take the time to vote on during his short tenure in the U.S. Senate). Please note that President Obama traveled to three states largely considered to be electoral battlegrounds to promote this legislation. One might imagine that if this were genuinely a government event he might have stopped in a non-battleground state like Texas or Vermont. The same can be said of the president’s trip to Florida two weeks ago. President Obama scheduled three fundraisers in the state and added one short “official event” on his Buffett Tax to his itinerary, once again allowing his reelection campaign to save on fuel for Air Force One. This speech was high on class warfare, slogans, and divisive campaign-style rhetoric. It was low on substance that would benefit the populace at large. One incident of this might be an error that is easily remedied. But it is a pattern of behavior that is worsening. In fact in three and a half years, President Obama has held dozens of events that benefitted OFA on the taxpayer dime.
Follow the link for the obligatory GSA reference. Question: When was the last time O spoke publicly about a policy matter and wasn’t obviously trying to score campaign points in doing so? It’s one small-ball matter after another: The Buffett Rule to position himself as the champion of blue-collar voters, regulations on oil speculators to show that he cares about gas prices, extending the student-loan interest rate to get young voters excited to volunteer for Generation O again, etc. Those are all campaign events, by and large, as of course was his speech tearing into Paul Ryan after his own phony budget went straight down the crapper in Congress. When was the last actual presidential address?
The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.
“The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.”“In a typical year, the young men in this agricultural region of western Mexico would have made the journey north to America. But not this year or for this generation: a better future across the border is a promise they no longer trust.
“‘For years, we dreamed of America, but now that dream is no good,’ says 18-year-old Pedro Morales, sitting in the elegant Spanish colonial square of Comala under the shadow of the spectacular Volcan de Fuego. ‘There are no jobs and too many problems. We don’t want to go.’…
“‘The reason they’re coming home is because they have no options, no papers, and the laws are more aggressive,’ says Fernando Morett, a shopkeeper in the coastal town of Chiutlan. ‘It’s complicated, and people are debating it. If they don’t have friends in the US and they have to pay to cross the line, it’s not worth it.’”
***
“First of all, there’s no reason to think that pressure for illegal immigration from Mexico won’t increase again; in fact, the total illegal population has already stopped declining and may have begun to grow again. The U.S. economy is bound to pick up at some point and the newfound middle-class status of so many Mexicans, often cited as a reason for the drop in departures northward, is tenuous. As the Washington Post put it, the country’s new middle class is ‘fearful that recent gains could be lost in a financial crisis or social upheaval.’
“What’s more, the decline in Mexico’s birth rate, which is also cited as a mark of the permanence of the drop-off in emigration, isn’t necessarily connected. The change is real enough; as recently as 1970, the average Mexican woman had nearly seven children, whereas today the number is barely over two. But emigration isn’t just a matter of excess people overflowing into another country. South Korea, for instance, has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, not to mention a First World level of development, and yet emigration to the U.S. (mostly legal) continues apace. Immigration from Japan and China seems to have actually increased as fertility declined. And immigration from Russia isn’t stopping even though Russia’s total population is actually declining. Sure, if fertility is low enough for long enough, eventually you’ll just run out of people. But in the meantime, immigration is driven by networks of friends and relatives and employers rather than by population math.
“And finally, some part of the decline in new illegal immigrants, and the departure of those already here, was caused by the very enforcement measures the anti-borders crowd wants to dismantle in light of the new numbers.”
***
“Pearce is not a Romney adviser, but he is the embodiment of the law that Romney embraced — and the baggage Romney now carries for seeking far-right support in the primary. On Tuesday, Pearce sat at the witness table, shaking his head in disagreement as others spoke about how the law encourages racial profiling and hurts legal Latino residents…
“Does he support Arizona authorities using ‘dress’ as a way to identify illegal immigrants? ‘You have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job,’ he said.
“Why didn’t the law simply require that everybody stopped by the police would be checked for immigration status, to avoid racial profiling? ‘I don’t want a police state,’ he said.
“No, he only wants that for people who don’t look like him.”
***
“‘I think we have in Arizona an overreach where the Republicans have really overplayed their hand,’ said Luis Heredia, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, citing the immigration bill and Arpaio’s antics…
“One recent Saturday, Democratic state senate candidate Raquel Teran paced the streets of her strongly Hispanic Phoenix district, armed with a map, a list of registered Democratic voters and a sheaf of voter registration papers. She signed up one new voter at the first house she called at.
“Sitting out in the shady yard of her in-laws’ home, young mother Yvette Sierra, 22, shared an experience about her husband being pulled over by Arpaio’s deputies, who she said let him go only after he produced their young son’s U.S. birth certificate.
“‘He’s stopping people and I just don’t think it’s right,’ she says, filling out a voter registration form. ‘I never (voted), never thought about it . . . but I’m glad.’”
***
“‘He’s already said that immigration reform is something that he’s committed to,’ McCain told reporters, in response to a question about whether Romney should make the issue a bigger focus of his campaign…
“The Arizona senator became agitated when asked about Romney having said he supports a self-deportation policy, whereby illegal immigrants would voluntarily go back to their country of origin and then apply for U.S. citizenship.
“No he hasn’t. He’s said that’s one of the options he’s looked at,’ McCain said. ‘So don’t put words in his mouth.’
“Romney has explicitly said he supports such a policy, however.”
***
“Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), an informal adviser to the Romney campaign who co-wrote Arizona’s controversial immigration law, predicted Romney would stick with his previous positions on border control.
“‘Governor Romney and the Romney team remain firmly opposed to amnesty,’ he told The Hill earlier this week. ‘I’m not getting any sense he’s changing his positions. He’s staked them out in the [presidential] debates with considerable specificity. He said the Arizona bill should be a model. He said the concept of self-deportation should be one that’s used. I hadn’t heard at all he’s moving and I doubt he will.’…
“Tancredo expressed hope that Kobach could convince Romney to hold his position on the DREAM Act and keep up the rhetoric he used during the primary, but doubted he would.”
***
“In other words, attrition works. But if illegal immigrants are going home on their own, why do we need an amnesty? The argument for it is that the illegal immigrants are firmly rooted here and aren’t going anywhere. While that’s probably true for some illegals, it’s obviously not true for lots of them. So why not wait and see how much more the illegal population can be reduced through attrition before we surrender and declare an amnesty?”
The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.
“The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.”“In a typical year, the young men in this agricultural region of western Mexico would have made the journey north to America. But not this year or for this generation: a better future across the border is a promise they no longer trust.
“‘For years, we dreamed of America, but now that dream is no good,’ says 18-year-old Pedro Morales, sitting in the elegant Spanish colonial square of Comala under the shadow of the spectacular Volcan de Fuego. ‘There are no jobs and too many problems. We don’t want to go.’…
“‘The reason they’re coming home is because they have no options, no papers, and the laws are more aggressive,’ says Fernando Morett, a shopkeeper in the coastal town of Chiutlan. ‘It’s complicated, and people are debating it. If they don’t have friends in the US and they have to pay to cross the line, it’s not worth it.’”
***
“First of all, there’s no reason to think that pressure for illegal immigration from Mexico won’t increase again; in fact, the total illegal population has already stopped declining and may have begun to grow again. The U.S. economy is bound to pick up at some point and the newfound middle-class status of so many Mexicans, often cited as a reason for the drop in departures northward, is tenuous. As the Washington Post put it, the country’s new middle class is ‘fearful that recent gains could be lost in a financial crisis or social upheaval.’
“What’s more, the decline in Mexico’s birth rate, which is also cited as a mark of the permanence of the drop-off in emigration, isn’t necessarily connected. The change is real enough; as recently as 1970, the average Mexican woman had nearly seven children, whereas today the number is barely over two. But emigration isn’t just a matter of excess people overflowing into another country. South Korea, for instance, has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, not to mention a First World level of development, and yet emigration to the U.S. (mostly legal) continues apace. Immigration from Japan and China seems to have actually increased as fertility declined. And immigration from Russia isn’t stopping even though Russia’s total population is actually declining. Sure, if fertility is low enough for long enough, eventually you’ll just run out of people. But in the meantime, immigration is driven by networks of friends and relatives and employers rather than by population math.
“And finally, some part of the decline in new illegal immigrants, and the departure of those already here, was caused by the very enforcement measures the anti-borders crowd wants to dismantle in light of the new numbers.”
***
“Pearce is not a Romney adviser, but he is the embodiment of the law that Romney embraced — and the baggage Romney now carries for seeking far-right support in the primary. On Tuesday, Pearce sat at the witness table, shaking his head in disagreement as others spoke about how the law encourages racial profiling and hurts legal Latino residents…
“Does he support Arizona authorities using ‘dress’ as a way to identify illegal immigrants? ‘You have to respond to reasonable suspicion to do your job,’ he said.
“Why didn’t the law simply require that everybody stopped by the police would be checked for immigration status, to avoid racial profiling? ‘I don’t want a police state,’ he said.
“No, he only wants that for people who don’t look like him.”
***
“‘I think we have in Arizona an overreach where the Republicans have really overplayed their hand,’ said Luis Heredia, executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, citing the immigration bill and Arpaio’s antics…
“One recent Saturday, Democratic state senate candidate Raquel Teran paced the streets of her strongly Hispanic Phoenix district, armed with a map, a list of registered Democratic voters and a sheaf of voter registration papers. She signed up one new voter at the first house she called at.
“Sitting out in the shady yard of her in-laws’ home, young mother Yvette Sierra, 22, shared an experience about her husband being pulled over by Arpaio’s deputies, who she said let him go only after he produced their young son’s U.S. birth certificate.
“‘He’s stopping people and I just don’t think it’s right,’ she says, filling out a voter registration form. ‘I never (voted), never thought about it . . . but I’m glad.’”
***
“‘He’s already said that immigration reform is something that he’s committed to,’ McCain told reporters, in response to a question about whether Romney should make the issue a bigger focus of his campaign…
“The Arizona senator became agitated when asked about Romney having said he supports a self-deportation policy, whereby illegal immigrants would voluntarily go back to their country of origin and then apply for U.S. citizenship.
“No he hasn’t. He’s said that’s one of the options he’s looked at,’ McCain said. ‘So don’t put words in his mouth.’
“Romney has explicitly said he supports such a policy, however.”
***
“Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), an informal adviser to the Romney campaign who co-wrote Arizona’s controversial immigration law, predicted Romney would stick with his previous positions on border control.
“‘Governor Romney and the Romney team remain firmly opposed to amnesty,’ he told The Hill earlier this week. ‘I’m not getting any sense he’s changing his positions. He’s staked them out in the [presidential] debates with considerable specificity. He said the Arizona bill should be a model. He said the concept of self-deportation should be one that’s used. I hadn’t heard at all he’s moving and I doubt he will.’…
“Tancredo expressed hope that Kobach could convince Romney to hold his position on the DREAM Act and keep up the rhetoric he used during the primary, but doubted he would.”
***
“In other words, attrition works. But if illegal immigrants are going home on their own, why do we need an amnesty? The argument for it is that the illegal immigrants are firmly rooted here and aren’t going anywhere. While that’s probably true for some illegals, it’s obviously not true for lots of them. So why not wait and see how much more the illegal population can be reduced through attrition before we surrender and declare an amnesty?”
Via RCP and Twitchy, how embarrassing is it when a news anchor on any channel has to explain the conference committee process to a member of Congress? DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) appeared on Fox News last night with Bret Baier, who asked the simple question: why haven’t Senate Democrats passed a budget? Wasserman Schultz wanted to gripe about the House-passed Paul Ryan budget, but when Baier asked why the Senate hadn’t passed a budget resolution in 1,092 days, Wasserman Schultz scolded him for talking about “process.” She did try to argue at one point that Democrats have proposed a budget — the White House budget from Barack Obama — but Baier forced her to change direction when he asked why the Senate hadn’t bothered to vote on it. This is a pretty simple “process.” Each chamber passes a version of the budget, and it goes into conference committee. That’s simpler in the Senate than most other legislation, since filibusters cannot be used on budgets; a simple majority is all that’s needed to pass it. In order to get a budget into conference committee, though, both chambers have to actually pass a budget in the first place, and it’s been three years and counting since the Senate bothered to comply with the law and produce an annual budget resolution. This is a failure of leadership. And last night, the Democrats’ leader failed miserably to defend a three-year-plus record of cowardice on budgeting.
